Pedophiles?

dlowan wrote:

I so hope that was not sitting identifiably on the net for all to read while that young man was still alive!!!!!

Edit: Ah - no - 17/1/05 web-site created.

Similar excerpts from the book were indeed online while he was still alive. The site you linked to however, is a project started recently which is still in very very early stages, and is currently edited by a few former members of the Family including Craven & myself.

0 Replies

Hmmm - looks good.

0 Replies

That's great, Monger. You guys could actually accomplish something with that -- sure hope you do.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I so hope that was not sitting identifiably on the net for all to read while that young man was still alive!!!!!

Edit: Ah - no - 17/1/05 web-site created.

Similar excerpts from the book were indeed online while he was still alive. The site you linked to however, is a project started recently which is still in very very early stages, and is currently edited by a few former members of the Family including Craven & myself.

I thought of the embarassment factor when I was putting that page online (pulled from another online posting of it).

Thing is, he was past embarassment, everyone who he knew had known all of that, it was published since he was a kid.

He wanted it known for redress and one of the common excuses that his mother used in refusing to say anything about the abuses was personal privacy and embarassment.

I'm sure he would want the story told, as long as it was to show it was wrong, and not to advocate it.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Perhaps you should use a dictionary before spouting accusations of others being uninformed. The only (secondary) definition of molestation that does not include something along the lines of "unwilling" is when it says "improper". I addressed this already, in saying that you are not the authority when it comes to what is improper. No one is.

I am quite familiar with the definitions (both legal and lexicographic) and had consulted the very one you read prior to my posting due to prior experience with "debate by dictionary" methods.

What you describe is molestation, whether or not you argue that it is justified and whether you like the term or not and your quibbling is word play that I would rather not take part of.

Quote:

Again, you are misusing molestation here.

No, I am not. You are engaging with what is called the fallacy of equivocation (tip: look it up in a reference about logic, not a dictionary).

What you describe is molestation (you can read laws about this if you desire), and you seek to redefine it in the course of your argument.

Quote:

That's just the thing. We do know now that it would not have been harmful.

I disagree that we "know" this, I think you haven't put much thought into your fantasy.

But lets assume it would not harm you, that leaves two problems:

1) would it harm others? I mentioned societal harm and dlowan has already expounded on this for you.

2) hindsight is 20/20, was there a way to know this at the time?

Quote:

You'll see that I haven't proposed any course of action like the morons you mention later in your post.

You use the same apologism for molestation that they do, and if your axiom is acceptable then their actions gain justification.

Quote:

But you have just agreed that it would have been justified had we known it would do no damage.

Before you get too excited note that I haven't agreed that it would not do damage and that it was not possible for this to be known at the time when it would have to occur (keeping your "justified molestation" fantasy in the realm of imagination and not reality).

Quote:

So let me pursue this farther and ask a question (I have never thought along these lines before... I just want to hear your answer): If we had been able to know that no harm whatsoever would come of it, and both parties wanted it (me being the child, so don't go casting me as what I'm not), would it have been just fine and dandy in your view for me to have had sex as a 6 year old?

Sure. But this is a fantasy that I don't think has any bearing on reality.

For example, how would you purport to know this?

In the example I gave you, the child wanted it, and the adults thought it would not harm him.

Psycologists arguing in defense of his parents said it did not harm him.

If you would like I can provide you with a video where he is loading a gun and preparing to kill his mother and says that it harmed him to the point of "rage" and a "need, not a want" for revenge that left him with nothing left to live for.

And I ask you, how the hell were they supposed to know this would happen?

And how would the molestor in your fantasy have the knowlege to know that it would not harm you?

If she has to count on your current hindsight then you continue to describe a justification that has no bearing on reality.

Quote:

I'm not seeking to justify sexual contact with anyone but my former self.

You are using in your justifications criteria that can extend to others, therby establishing an axiom for justification.

Quote:

Are you implying here that my partner may have become a child molester because of her exposure to sex with a child? If you're implying this, say it... don't beat around the bush.

No, I am not implying this, and I don't tend to beat arounf the bush. I argue very directly and clearly, do you don't need to worry about such masked implications from my arguments.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Just how do you propose to know better than me what is and is not justified to me?

What is justified and what you think is justified are wholly separate concepts. You have no basis on which to make an appeal to authority argument here.

Look justify up. You will find something like dictionary.com's def: (first and most relevant)
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

Please look up the logical concept of "appeal to authority", your dictionary demonstration indicates that you did not undertsand what I said.

Quote:

So what you have said is similar to
"What is right and what you think is right are wholly separate concepts." I disagree with this wholly, as I find "right and wrong" to be highly subjective subject matter.

This is a weak appeal to the vaguest notions of moral relativism and I think you can do better.

If your point is merely that you possess the capability to hold and express an opinion, regardless of how absurd it is please note that I know this.

However, if you wish to argue your position you will need more that invoking subjectivity as the excuse to hold those postitions.

You said it was justified, not that you were able to form an opinon that it is.

If your argument is to the extent that you think is is, well we know that by now.

If you wish to support the position the fact that you are capable of adopting the position does little toward this end.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

What damages do you have in mind?

beats me... as I said I don't think there would be any.

I know you said there would be none, and I asked because I don't think you put much thought into this (beyond "it would have felt good and I wanted it").

Quote:

I was addressing what you seemed to imply: damage to myself in the form of unhappiness (evidenced in your insiting upon using the word molestation to artificially convey a negative connotation on my "fantasy" as you so chidingly put it)

Unless what you describe occured, "fantasy" is merly an accurate description
You are projecting negativity about this term, and I think you need to come to terms with terms that describe what you put forth to discuss.
You are making a connection to "unhappiness" from links that don't exist.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Some day you may grow up and realize that not everybody has such a negative view of sex as you.

This is an uncalled for ad hominem argument. I have not said a single negative thing about sex here.

I have merely stated a position in which having sex with minors who can't give informed consent is not justified, despite your pre-pubescent (and apparently lingering) fantasy.

Informed of what?

"Informed consent" is a term you should look into. Informed of the consequences is the shorthand.

Some things are considered beyond a child's capability to be responsible for. Informed consent is consent with someone who is aware of the consequences and responsible for the decison.

Binny, I don't really want to get into this much further, but I will make a recommendation for you to research on informed consent but more importantly to give some thought to known consequence vs. unknown consequence in your moral compass.

In real life precise consequences are rarely known before the act and morality has to encompass this ambiguity.

Until we have retroactive control over our decisions there will be no retroactive moral justification.

0 Replies

I have read much of this thread and am impressed by Craven's points. He is absolutely correct on all points.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Monger wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I so hope that was not sitting identifiably on the net for all to read while that young man was still alive!!!!!

Edit: Ah - no - 17/1/05 web-site created.

Similar excerpts from the book were indeed online while he was still alive. The site you linked to however, is a project started recently which is still in very very early stages, and is currently edited by a few former members of the Family including Craven & myself.

I thought of the embarassment factor when I was putting that page online (pulled from another online posting of it).

Thing is, he was past embarassment, everyone who he knew had known all of that, it was published since he was a kid.

He wanted it known for redress and one of the common excuses that his mother used in refusing to say anything about the abuses was personal privacy and embarassment.

I'm sure he would want the story told, as long as it was to show it was wrong, and not to advocate it.

Goodness - I was only thinking of prior to his death - but I was thinking of all the things you have said about habituation to the most intimate details of his abuse (not to mention the most intimate and private details of normal development and life!) having been so widely spread anyway - and thinking of how this both illustrates the degree of the terrible boundary violation, and also makes me sadder than almost anything else.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

binnyboy wrote:

Perhaps you should use a dictionary before spouting accusations of others being uninformed. The only (secondary) definition of molestation that does not include something along the lines of "unwilling" is when it says "improper". I addressed this already, in saying that you are not the authority when it comes to what is improper. No one is.

I am quite familiar with the definitions (both legal and lexicographic) and had consulted the very one you read prior to my posting due to prior experience with "debate by dictionary" methods.

What you describe is molestation, whether or not you argue that it is justified and whether you like the term or not and your quibbling is word play that I would rather not take part of.

As my quibbling is word play that you'd rather not address, we can just leave it at that. Also, please note that I think you are the one resorting both an appeal to authority and an equivocation in your compulsion toward the legal concept of molestation.

Quote:

Quote:
Again, you are misusing molestation here.

No, I am not. You are engaging with what is called the fallacy of equivocation (tip: look it up in a reference about logic, not a dictionary).

What you describe is molestation (you can read laws about this if you desire), and you seek to redefine it in the course of your argument.

Here is what I found for fallacy of equivocation. Perhaps you should read it yourself. You'll notice from this page that the fallacy of equivocation means that I have used two different senses of the word molestation to faultily arrive at a mistaken conclusion. However, I have only used one sense of the word molestation. Perhaps you have mistaken my use as a legal one? I think it is you that has been ambiguous about the sense of the word you are using.

Quote:

Quote:
That's just the thing. We do know now that it would not have been harmful.

I disagree that we "know" this, I think you haven't put much thought into your fantasy.

ok I'll give you that one

Quote:

But lets assume it would not harm you, that leaves two problems:

1) would it harm others? I mentioned societal harm and dlowan has already expounded on this for you.

I would appreciate elaboration on this.

Quote:

2) hindsight is 20/20, was there a way to know this at the time?

Superficially, it does not seem so. I might ask the same question ruefully.

Quote:

Quote:
You'll see that I haven't proposed any course of action like the morons you mention later in your post.

You use the same apologism for molestation that they do, and if your axiom is acceptable then their actions gain justification.

I doubt I do, as they cannot read the future, as you have said my justifications require. No, they don't, since our axioms are different (or if they are the same, they think they can predict the future where it is clear they cannot). But I must say I regret my use of the word morons. That was insensitive of me.

Quote:

Quote:
But you have just agreed that it would have been justified had we known it would do no damage.

Before you get too excited note that I haven't agreed that it would not do damage and that it was not possible for this to be known at the time when it would have to occur (keeping your "justified molestation" fantasy in the realm of imagination and not reality).

Quote:
So let me pursue this farther and ask a question (I have never thought along these lines before... I just want to hear your answer): If we had been able to know that no harm whatsoever would come of it, and both parties wanted it (me being the child, so don't go casting me as what I'm not), would it have been just fine and dandy in your view for me to have had sex as a 6 year old?

Sure. But this is a fantasy that I don't think has any bearing on reality.

So it would've been fine. It almost seems like my current approval would justify the action under the assumption that no harm would come of it. Also, note that I accidentally forgot to mention my current approval in the question, and you still said "Sure." So did you not notice it like me, or are you with the group that thinks that the child can give informed consent?

Quote:

For example, how would you purport to know this?

It is obvious I could not. It is also obvious I could not know if using the bathroom today could cause harm in the form of a brown recluse biting my butt.

Quote:

In the example I gave you, the child wanted it, and the adults thought it would not harm him.

Psycologists arguing in defense of his parents said it did not harm him.

These psychologists were probably wrong. But it is also possible that it is the hateful society around him that harmed him.

Quote:

If you would like I can provide you with a video where he is loading a gun and preparing to kill his mother and says that it harmed him to the point of "rage" and a "need, not a want" for revenge that left him with nothing left to live for.

I would appreciate that.

Quote:

And I ask you, how the hell were they supposed to know this would happen?

It seems pretty obvious to me, if not his parents, that damage would certainly be done to him as a result of an unaccepting outside world (particularly to the incestuous aspect).

Quote:

And how would the molestor in your fantasy have the knowlege to know that it would not harm you?

Not even experimentation with positive results could tell her that. She cannot know that it would not harm me. Perhaps and perhaps not there exist ways to determine the probability that it will harm me.

Quote:

If she has to count on your current hindsight then you continue to describe a justification that has no bearing on reality.

No bearing except exactly what I have said... that, in hindsight, it would have been justified. That seems to be part of reality to me. If you'll remember, I haven't suggested any course of action. But maybe you mean something besides the reality I'm hearing. I'd honestly like to hear what it is.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not seeking to justify sexual contact with anyone but my former self.

You are using in your justifications criteria that can extend to others, therby establishing an axiom for justification.

Obviously, yeah. Anybody that wants to justify things that could have been done to them when they were younger can, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you implying here that my partner may have become a child molester because of her exposure to sex with a child? If you're implying this, say it... don't beat around the bush.

No, I am not implying this, and I don't tend to beat arounf the bush. I argue very directly and clearly, do you don't need to worry about such masked implications from my arguments.

So the negative effects on society mentioned above are strictly negative actions I might perform as a result of my experience?

Quote:

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Just how do you propose to know better than me what is and is not justified to me?

What is justified and what you think is justified are wholly separate concepts. You have no basis on which to make an appeal to authority argument here.

Look justify up. You will find something like dictionary.com's def: (first and most relevant)
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

Please look up the logical concept of "appeal to authority", your dictionary demonstration indicates that you did not undertsand what I said.

Here is a link to the concept of "appeal to authority". You have accused me of making such an appeal, and I can only assume you mean that I have appealed to myself as the authority on what is a justified or right action to take toward myself. What authority would you appeal to? Or assuming you don't want to commit a logical fallacy, as I would imagine you would like to call it, what facts or evidences would you draw upon to demonstrate or prove the actions of my beautiful woman to be unjust, wrong, or invalid?

Quote:

Quote:
So what you have said is similar to
"What is right and what you think is right are wholly separate concepts." I disagree with this wholly, as I find "right and wrong" to be highly subjective subject matter.

This is a weak appeal to the vaguest notions of moral relativism and I think you can do better.

That's interesting. I didn't think it was all that weak, and I would appreciate some explanation.

Quote:

If your point is merely that you possess the capability to hold and express an opinion, regardless of how absurd it is please note that I know this.

You may be getting there. But it is more along the lines of... you can't dictate (with an expectation of much effect) to me what right is, although, you may be able to express your absurd opinion of what right is.

Quote:

However, if you wish to argue your position you will need more that invoking subjectivity as the excuse to hold those postitions.

I clearly have. I have said I don't think it would have hurt anybody, and that I wanted it. On the position of it being justified, I have clearly stated that it is justified now, and I have not precluded that it could have been justified then without reading the future.

Quote:

You said it was justified, not that you were able to form an opinon that it is.

I'm sorry... is that the nature of the problem? It is my opinion that it would have been justified. Sorry for the confusion. Did I say was? I guess if I did my opinion has evolved into would have been. I won't look to a previous post on this matter if you don't.

Quote:

If your argument is to the extent that you think is is, well we know that by now.

I don't think that's my argument. Though I could be mistaken considering the breadth of this discussion. Laughing

I think it is to the extent of what would have been is, though there does seem to be a certain vagueness with which we are both addressing this.

Quote:

If you wish to support the position the fact that you are capable of adopting the position does little toward this end.

I'm not sure I follow this one. Perhaps I just am not used to complex reasoning.

Quote:

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:

What damages do you have in mind?

beats me... as I said I don't think there would be any.

I know you said there would be none, and I asked because I don't think you put much thought into this (beyond "it would have felt good and I wanted it").

So you wanted to spur me into thought that would provoke a conclusion of damages? That's noble of you, but it didn't seem to work. I'm sorry to have disappointed you in this. (utter sincerity though it may not sound like it... sorry I'm only good at chiding (which you may not have noticed, as I have not been plying my wares here), not sounding sincere.)

Quote:

Quote:
I was addressing what you seemed to imply: damage to myself in the form of unhappiness (evidenced in your insiting upon using the word molestation to artificially convey a negative connotation on my "fantasy" as you so chidingly put it)

Unless what you describe occured, "fantasy" is merly an accurate description

You are projecting negativity about this term, and I think you need to come to terms with terms that describe what you put forth to discuss.

You are making a connection to "unhappiness" from links that don't exist.

okey doke. I can see that my opinion of you implying that my "unhappiness" would be a factor in this was mistaken. But it is clear that you see negative effects. I just mistook what set of negative effects your opinion endears. It also seems that the "unhappiness" factor is the main argument of your link.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Some day you may grow up and realize that not everybody has such a negative view of sex as you.

This is an uncalled for ad hominem argument. I have not said a single negative thing about sex here.

I'll admit it was uncalled for. I think the statement you have just made is slightly fallacious, but I'll just leave this one as it lies and apologize.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I have merely stated a position in which having sex with minors who can't give informed consent is not justified, despite your pre-pubescent (and apparently lingering) fantasy.

Informed of what?

"Informed consent" is a term you should look into. Informed of the consequences is the shorthand.

Some things are considered beyond a child's capability to be responsible for. Informed consent is consent with someone who is aware of the consequences and responsible for the decison.

Binny, I don't really want to get into this much further, but I will make a recommendation for you to research on informed consent but more importantly to give some thought to known consequence vs. unknown consequence in your moral compass.

I'm also fully aware of what informed consent is. It seems my attempt at a "thinking question" was just as foolhardy as yours Smile

This issue of "informed" consent may or may not be the best way to go. Boys don't get to choose whether their foreskins will be removed. It is the way WE have chosen to go, and it seems like a good way to go to me. But exactly how old do you have to be to be informed? And if your parents tell you exactly what you need to know at an age younger than 18, and you understand, how much longer, according to this "informed consent" argument must you wait? Feel free to address this or not.

Quote:

In real life precise consequences are rarely known before the act and morality has to encompass this ambiguity.

I agree.

Quote:

Until we have retroactive control over our decisions there will be no retroactive moral justification.

Your strongest and most precisely made point.
Though I simply disagree.

0 Replies

Whoops, dlowan, I think you may be right on that.

Sometimes it takes just a quick pointing out to realize that you've been an ass. Maybe we should stop referring to this guy. That is what you're suggesting, right?

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Also, please note that I think you are the one resorting both an appeal to authority and an equivocation in your compulsion toward the legal concept of molestation.

I'm not sure you understand what an appeal to authority fallacy constitutes.

Telling you what the definition for molestaion is is not a fallacious appeal to authority binnyboy.

Quote:

Here is what I found for fallacy of equivocation. Perhaps you should read it yourself. You'll notice from this page that the fallacy of equivocation means that I have used two different senses of the word molestation to faultily arrive at a mistaken conclusion. However, I have only used one sense of the word molestation. Perhaps you have mistaken my use as a legal one? I think it is you that has been ambiguous about the sense of the word you are using.

You were responding to my use of the word (and as such using it), you then redefined the word and decided that through your alternate definition of the word (based on excluding a portion of the definition) my use of the word was inappropriate.

In so doing, you created a fallacy of equivocation.

Here is a simplified example for you to see:

Person A: She is a bitch!

Person B: She is not a bitch, she's not even a dog.

Person B knows that Person A was using a particular definition and in responding to it while switching the definition Person B has used the word equivocally.

Person B in addressing one definition has used it, without stating it as it is the basis for his response.

Similarly, you responded to my use of the word "molestation", noted which part of the definition I employed, and then decided to exclude said portion of the definition and rely on the other definitions.

In any case, this logomachy is spent.

Quote:

I think it is you that has been ambiguous about the sense of the word you are using.

If you say what you are confused about what I have said I'd be happy to expound.

To recap: I have said that an adult woman having sex with a 6 year-old would be molestation.

If you find that ambiguous feel free to request clarification.

Quote:

Quote:
But lets assume it would not harm you, that leaves two problems:

1) would it harm others? I mentioned societal harm and dlowan has already expounded on this for you.

I would appreciate elaboration on this.

To understand this it is necessary to understand why pedophilia is illegal.

Have you thought about that much?

Quote:

I doubt I do, as they cannot read the future, as you have said my justifications require.

I think this is the first time I have seen you acknowlege this.

Progress!

Quote:

So it would've been fine. It almost seems like my current approval would justify the action under the assumption that no harm would come of it.

How can it retroactively justify something? You still don't get it. At the time of the act it doesn't meet the criteria for justification. Fortune in having an act not result in harm is not a justification for the act.

Another simple example for you:

Person A tried to kill Person B, he fails and the attempt actually makes Person B really rich in a settlement.

This doesn't mean that upon reflection of the results Person A's act was justified.

Quote:

Also, note that I accidentally forgot to mention my current approval in the question, and you still said "Sure." So did you not notice it like me, or are you with the group that thinks that the child can give informed consent?

You've been speaking of your current approval for a while now, and I knew that your position included it. No, I do not think children can give informed consent.

Quote:

Quote:
In the example I gave you, the child wanted it, and the adults thought it would not harm him.

Psycologists arguing in defense of his parents said it did not harm him.

These psychologists were probably wrong. But it is also possible that it is the hateful society around him that harmed him.

What "hatefull society"? You are just aping the response his mother published to her followers and probably didn't sniff the B.S.

Quote:

Quote:
If you would like I can provide you with a video where he is loading a gun and preparing to kill his mother and says that it harmed him to the point of "rage" and a "need, not a want" for revenge that left him with nothing left to live for.

I would appreciate that.

Here are some clips:

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2826894
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2831951&nav=HMO6VOG3
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2837308

Quote:

It seems pretty obvious to me, if not his parents, that damage would certainly be done to him as a result of an unaccepting outside world (particularly to the incestuous aspect).

You are now aping their apologism nearly verbatim, placing the blame for the damage on those who find their actions unjust.

This is similar to some rape apologism, "if wouldn't be harmful if she'd just enjoy it".

Quote:

Quote:
And how would the molestor in your fantasy have the knowlege to know that it would not harm you?

Not even experimentation with positive results could tell her that. She cannot know that it would not harm me. Perhaps and perhaps not there exist ways to determine the probability that it will harm me.

Then her act at that stage can't be justified based on your then uninformed consent and can't be retroactively justified now.

Quote:

Quote:
If she has to count on your current hindsight then you continue to describe a justification that has no bearing on reality.

No bearing except exactly what I have said... that, in hindsight, it would have been justified.

It's a simple enough concept, but you still don't get it. What you describe is fool's fortune, not justice.

Yet another simple example:

Person A poisons the water supply of a village.
The next day the water supply dries up and the village starts to use another.

The serendipidy of the villagers does not translate into justification of Person A's act.

Quote:

That seems to be part of reality to me.

Only if time works differently in this your reality.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Are you implying here that my partner may have become a child molester because of her exposure to sex with a child? If you're implying this, say it... don't beat around the bush.

No, I am not implying this, and I don't tend to beat arounf the bush. I argue very directly and clearly, do you don't need to worry about such masked implications from my arguments.

So the negative effects on society mentioned above are strictly negative actions I might perform as a result of my experience?

No, I speak of the harm done to societal structures that are in place to protect children.

Quote:

Here is a link to the concept of "appeal to authority". You have accused me of making such an appeal, and I can only assume you mean that I have appealed to myself as the authority on what is a justified or right action to take toward myself.

You alternate between claiming that it is just about yourself and that it is about a standard that extends justification to other. I'll quote you here:

Quote:

Anybody that wants to justify things that could have been done to them when they were younger can, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

What authority would you appeal to?

A reciprocal appeal to authority?? I'll pass.

Quote:

Or assuming you don't want to commit a logical fallacy, as I would imagine you would like to call it, what facts or evidences would you draw upon to demonstrate or prove the actions of my beautiful woman to be unjust, wrong, or invalid?

Short version:

She would be abusing a position of authority in a relationship and through acceptance of uninformed consent weaken the societal structures that prevent exploitation of children. She has no way to know that her actions will not be harmful and thusly would be criminally reckless in committing her act.

Quote:

Quote:
This is a weak appeal to the vaguest notions of moral relativism and I think you can do better.

That's interesting. I didn't think it was all that weak, and I would appreciate some explanation.

Then have a look at this example:

Person A: "Pluto is made of cheese".
Person B argues against it and Person A keeps insisting it is.
Person A, moves the goal posts and says that it's merely his opinion that Pluto is made of cheese.

No kidding! There's nothing to discuss there, but that's not the original premise.

Quote:

You may be getting there. But it is more along the lines of... you can't dictate (with an expectation of much effect) to me what right is, although, you may be able to express your absurd opinion of what right is.

I assure you that I do not hold any expectations for you to understand that molestation is wrong, nor for you to accurately gauge absurdity.

Quote:

Quote:
You said it was justified, not that you were able to form an opinon that it is.

I'm sorry... is that the nature of the problem? It is my opinion that it would have been justified. Sorry for the confusion.

This is a low trick:

Person A: "Pluto is made of cheese".
Person B argues against it and Person A keeps insisting it is.
Person A, moves the goal posts and says that it's merely his opinion that Pluto is made of cheese. "Sorry, it's just my opinion. Sorry for the confusion."

Moving the goalposts. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Did I say was? I guess if I did my opinion has evolved into would have been. I won't look to a previous post on this matter if you don't.

Please look up "reported speech" or "indirect speech". I was not quoting you (note the lack of quotation marks), I was reporting your speech. You had said it "is" justified and due to the way the grammar of reported speech works this translated into the simple past tense.

Binny, wordplay only works in arguments when you argue with illiterate people. Others will merly recognize it as distraction.

Quote:

I don't think that's my argument. Though I could be mistaken considering the breadth of this discussion. I think it is to the extent of what would have been is, though there does seem to be a certain vagueness with which we are both addressing this.

We? Don't lump me in with your intentional ambiguity. I am arguing clearly and directly and not invoking ambiguity of meaning, ambiguity of subjectivism and wordplay to evade arguments.

Quote:

Quote:
If you wish to support the position the fact that you are capable of adopting the position does little toward this end.

I'm not sure I follow this one. Perhaps I just am not used to complex reasoning.

The reasoning is not too complex for you, perhaps the sentence structure is. I'll simplify it.

If you want to support your position, the fact that you are capable of adopting the opinion is not something that supports the validity of the opinion.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:

What damages do you have in mind?

beats me... as I said I don't think there would be any.

I know you said there would be none, and I asked because I don't think you put much thought into this (beyond "it would have felt good and I wanted it").

So you wanted to spur me into thought that would provoke a conclusion of damages? That's noble of you, but it didn't seem to work. I'm sorry to have disappointed you in this. (utter sincerity though it may not sound like it... sorry I'm only good at chiding (which you may not have noticed, as I have not been plying my wares here), not sounding sincere.)

Nope, I just wanted to see if you are familiar with the typical damages at all, not whether you would conclude that you would be damaged, and my suspicions that you have not put much thought into this subject gained more affirmation.

Quote:

okey doke. I can see that my opinion of you implying that my "unhappiness" would be a factor in this was mistaken. But it is clear that you see negative effects.

My use of the word "fantasy" makes it clear that I see negative effects?

Please explain, this should be interesting.

Note: The above was in response to your projection on my use of the word "fantasy".

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Some day you may grow up and realize that not everybody has such a negative view of sex as you.

This is an uncalled for ad hominem argument. I have not said a single negative thing about sex here.

I'll admit it was uncalled for. I think the statement you have just made is slightly fallacious, but I'll just leave this one as it lies and apologize.

How is it fallacious?

Quote:

This issue of "informed" consent may or may not be the best way to go. Boys don't get to choose whether their foreskins will be removed.

This is an excellent rebuttal to my argument supporting circumcision. There is but one problem, I made no such argument. I won't follow this diversion with you, but will provide you with the following links where you can pursue the circumcison debate.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3323
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43667
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27971

Quote:

But exactly how old do you have to be to be informed?

This varies from individual to individual, but to protect children from exploitation that invokes said variance societies establish "age of consent" standards, these standards are delineated in law.

Quote:

And if your parents tell you exactly what you need to know at an age younger than 18, and you understand, how much longer, according to this "informed consent" argument must you wait? Feel free to address this or not.

This is actually an argument against where you have been going, the ambiguity plays into the validity of the societal structure that establish standards.

Quote:

Quote:
In real life precise consequences are rarely known before the act and morality has to encompass this ambiguity.

I agree.

Then it should come as no surprise to you that societies made standards to prevent molestation.

Quote:

Quote:
Until we have retroactive control over our decisions there will be no retroactive moral justification.

Your strongest argument.
Though I simply disagree.

Unless time works differently where you are from, you are confusing serendipity with justice. ;-)

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Whoops, dlowan, I think you may be right on that.

Sometimes it takes just a quick pointing out to realize that you've been an ass. Maybe we should stop referring to this guy. That is what you're suggesting, right?

No - I was referring to details of his abuse, written by his abusers in the most glowing and joyous terms, that was circulated during his childhood as a "how to" manual for other abusers - and excerpts of which are included on a number of websites - including the one Craven gave the url to above.

I was hoping that the grown-up Ricky did not have to live with such extremely intimate details of his sexual (and other childhood behaviours) - being available to others once he was able, and of a mind, to find them distressing.

I note that he seems not to have left the cult until he was 24.

Craven pointed out that he was, tragically and abusively, inured to the public nature of such intimate details - and, as I realized later, the site to which Craven refers, was not established until after his death - though it seems such stuff was available prior to that.

I agree with those now publicizing these details in an effort to educate about the nature of this cult - and, one hopes, perhaps to get to a point where prosecutions might be possible. They have done all the harm to this young man that they can so.

0 Replies

So, what conclusions have been derived regarding Paedophiles?

0 Replies

dunno, biblio!

Okey doke, dlowan! I'll follow your call on this! You're smart Smile

okey doke, craven, here's my plan: We start over and stop being so mean! If you demand a response to your previous post (or chide me for this post), we can go back as we were. But I suggest a fresh start, as this will be mutually advantageous (note that we both feel like we are getting the raw end of this deal, as I am ready to attack your posts, and you feel like I am avoiding your attacks). Any concerns you want me to consider (assuming you are interested in this) you can repost if you want. (also note that I tried to avoid any inflamatory tones in this)

Forget pretty much all I have said. Let me just say that I find it regrettable from my current perspective that I did not have sex with a beautiful woman as a child. I wish a way could have been found so that it would be no more likely to be damaging to any persons than many other childhood experiences.
As I said with my conversation with dlowan, I value the security our current laws provide. I do not, however, think we have the best laws. Clearly everyone is not secure. Clearly, different people view 'secure' differently, and do not wish the popular view of it unnecessarily imposed upon them.

I think that sets the groundwork for a more productive conversation between us. I'm sorry I did not do this sooner.

0 Replies

Binny: I see you're using JoefromChicago's old avatar - I had to check the avatar name to be sure.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

okey doke, craven, here's my plan: We start over and stop being so mean!

I was not being "mean", nor did I have any idea that you were.

<shrugs>

As you will.

0 Replies

hmmmmph, biblio! that friggin blows!
I didn't know joe used to use this avatar :[ I'll have to find another!
Or I may just sleep on it and tomorrow say "Well it's mine now!"

Craven,
Perhaps by mean I mean condescending. Don't deny that one. I even find your post claiming righteousness to be condescending, since, to me, it is a lie (or at least a mistaken interpretation).

But you have my apology here that I deemed necessary to say that last little bit. If I'm mistaken (on the counts of lies and mistakes), I take it back.

Now that all of my drivel is out of the way, would you like to carry on? Or are you done here?

0 Replies

binny,

Given the position you adopted I suspect that anyone who has put any thought into the subject of pedophilia will be speaking to you from a far more informed position, and one that you will find "condescending".

But personally, this is not something I care to discuss, I have been perfectly civil to you and have not even returned your low blows and have no interest in this line of discussion.

If you wish to address any of the various items I left you with, feel free to do so, if you wish not to do so that is fine as well.

But, no, I am not going to sign off with you with some pretext of being mistreated.

In case you are interested, you can see the video of the case we discussed here:

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Ricky%27s_video

0 Replies

Oh god, that Ricky Rodriguez guy was in the local paper a few weeks ago or something. Creepy ****.

0 Replies

sigh. ok. I'll get to it this weekend.

0 Replies

Let me set the stage with the following.

I find these quotes interesting. You can track down their locations and comment as you like.

Quote:

But personally, this is not something I care to discuss, I have been perfectly civil to you and have not even returned your low blows and have no interest in this line of discussion.

Quote:

I was not being "mean", nor did I have any idea that you were.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know