Should NAMBLA be treated different from other political groups

Great Debates
121

Umm… if we will all agree that having sex with kids fucks them up… then I think we will all end up precisely at the same conclusions, regarding laws and NAMBLA, and so on. At least, I certainly would. It is good to recognize the pivot point of a discussion, and focus on it.

I completely agree, and I posited many arguments. They are in my post above, and I’ll end up restating the one specifically relevant to you further down.

Ha, getting a little touchy, are we? More importantly, you’re the one now making assertions without arguments.

The fact that sexual activity by oneself through watching sexual acts and then masturbating to them does not harm adolescents has already been established by research. Look into the “is porn harmful for kids” thread as an example. So you have to say why sexual activity with another person is fundamentally different from watching porn and jacking off. Don’t get all emotional and shut your brain down. Confront the issue rationally and head on. I know you have the intelligence to do it.

You never posited the whole “emotional” and “physiological” reasons for why we shouldn’t have sex with children, so no reason for me to repeat my arguments against them. I think you already agree that appeals in such a vein are futile. So for you and I, we have to focus on the paragraph above.

I agree, you can convince a kid either way. You can talk all about how fun and exciting sex is, and get the kid to believe you. But then, they’re no longer doing something they don’t want to do. So let’s just limit our discussion to saying “a kid wants to have sex with an adult, and gives whatever consent he can, and will it mess him up then.” Whether it is wrong to get kids want to have sex is a different debate.

But yes, convincing them that what they have done is horrible is precisely what will damage them. Obviously they start thinking it is fun and trouble-free. Do you agree that after they’re rescued, they begin to see things your way? That what was done to them was evil, shameful, profoundly embarassing, etc? What do you think brought about that change in thinking, huh?

In fact, kids are VERY sensitive about embarassement. They’re embarassed of their parents, of little trifles, of just about anything. They write columns of emabarrassing stories in tween magazines precisely because of the hang-up kids have about it. Do you remember your childhood, perhaps?

Kids get embarassed about the silliest things, to the point that adults don’t even believe them or certainly can’t relate most of the time. So it is very easy to get a kid to become profoundly ashamed about something, and to make it hit them MUCH harder than it would an adult. And then when they grow up, the shame lingers and gets fed through ineffective repression, to the point where they’re crying to their psychiatrists every week.

I agree that kids who got molested end up being fucked up. But it is your fault! This is why we should talk about the research that’s been done on solo-sex with pornogoraphy. That will give us a clear picture of the effects of sexual activity itself, without the drastic social components thrown in. And of course, state your arguments why partner-sex is so different that this research doesn’t remotely apply. It would also be nice if you could state arguments for why the self-fulfilling prophecy component is non-existent (for it would profoundly fuck up kids even if sex itself did harm to them too.)

122

And if the 12-year-old does prove him or herself not mature enough to understand these things, and contracts AIDS, who is going to be responsible for caring for this child? The person who gave it to him, who could be long gone? His parents? The state?

Except that you could never prove that the adult was lying…“I meant it when I said I loved him…I just changed my mind…hey, these things happen.”

I really don’t have too much respect for Rind’s research, so citing these studies don’t do much to sway me.

123

Excuse me…DOESN’T do much to sway me. I should reread after I edit!

124

Ahh, but it typical style, you have nothing to support your claim. Your “argument” was half-assed and nonsensical, and I addressed it in my post.

Not at all. I’m not making an assertion. Read up a little about debate, and specifically learn the terms “affirmative” and “negative”.

So we’re only talking about adolescents? Then why is it that NAMBLA - cites above provided by Lute Skywatcher - refuses to take a stand against sexual abuse of prepubescent children?

Or do you think that sexual abuse of prepubescent children doesn’t hurt them?

I think you should also, in your reading, look up the word “posited”, because you’re using it in a rather odd context here.

At any rate, the impact of molesting children is clear, and your attempts to distract discussion by focusing only on adolescents, and refusing to provide any evidence for your claims, show that you’re simply incapable of engaging in an honest debate. Actually, such things are common knowledge, and if you wish to try to disprove them, do like I said and look up the words “affirmative” and “negative”, and add “burden of proof” to your vocabulary list.

You seem to have decided that making assertions with no support for them is sufficient to create a convincing argument; since that’s the case, I think it’s fair to ignore any further “contributions” you might make to the discussion.
As for the rest of your post, I already pointed out how ridiculous the argument you’re making is (especially when you don’t have any evidence for it.) I’m sorry that you don’t have any interest in remedying your ignorance of the subject; by either the standard rules of debate or simple common sense, I remind you that if you wish to make an assertion - particularly one so sharply in contrast to what is generally known and moreso in a discussion with policy implications - you need evidence.

Your half-assed attempt to prove it with nothing but your own words is simply ridiculous.

Sorry, kid, ain’t buyin’ it. You think nothing but others’ social disapproval harms children who are molested? That’s such an extraordinary claim that I wonder if you’re being disingenuous in making it. If not, you might stop for half a minute and think over your argument; consider the many cases in which children are molested and never tell an adult - thus not facing the “disapproval” you propose to be so damaging to their tender psyches - and still remain emotionally damaged years later. And consider, too, whether it even makes sense to imagine that such a fragile creature, so easily damaged simply by their mother saying that their molester shouldn’t have done that, could possibly handle the feelings associated with sex (which, were you not a virgin, you would have some understanding of.) Explain why you think masturbation is perfectly comparable to sex with another person. And explain why that excuses child molestation on children young enough that they don’t masturbate yet.

Look around the boards some; there have been horrifying stories told by survivors of child sexual abuse. For you to suggest with a straight face that it’s not harmful (and offer up such a weak, nonsensical justification for that suggestion) shows that you simply don’t know the first thing about what you’re talking about.

125

I am afraid that your little fantasy, here, does not bear on reality. The kid is not messed up because people told him bad things had happened to him. The abuse came to light because the kid’s personality changed, he became depressed, his behavior regarding other kids changed, (particularly, his behavior toward younger kids became more controlling and manipulative and took on sexual overtones that one does not see in kids who have not been abused). (And we are not talking about “Show me yours and I’ll show you mine” or similar phases that a lot of kids go though. We’re talking about the kid attempting to engage in sexual activity with still younger kids.) He began to engage in self-destructive behavior, investigation into which turned up the abuse.

You can make up whatever imaginary world you wish in which it is always the fault of the mean old adults that don’t understand how kids “really” want this sort of involvement, but when it turns out that the adults were not even aware of the situation, it tends to undermine your hypothesis.

126

Contracting an STD is not proof of immaturity. In case you didn’t know, adults catch STDs too. Either he understood what he was consenting to, in which case he is responsible for whatever happens as a result of his choice, or he didn’t, in which case he is a victim of rape.

I don’t see why this has to be a special case. If your child goes over to a friend’s house and catches chicken pox, salmonella, or avian flu, who’s responsible for caring for him? (What a conundrum! Let’s just make it illegal for kids to go over to friends’ houses!)

If an adult contracts AIDS, who’s responsible for caring for him? (What a tough question! Let’s make it illegal for adults to have sex with each other.)

And that’s why we don’t consider people rapists just for lying about “I love you”. When come back, bring example of significant deception.

Of course you don’t respect the research - it contradicts your preconceived beliefs.

127

No you didn’t. You just say that I should go look up the reasons, because you already knew them (but wouldn’t tell me) and you already know the truth. You haven’t stated a single argument yet, and while my posts are filled with appeals to logic rather than direct studies, there is nevertheless a point to be made. You haven’t explained the distinction (as I’ll do myself) between solo-sex and partner-sex (and there ARE studies that have demonstrated that solo-sex is ok). Nor do you want to discuss the corrupting influence of telling kids to be ashamed (which greatly taints the studies that examine adult-child sex specifically).

But whatever, you know the truth anyway. You have already explained in detail why i’m wrong (god, either you’re in impressive denial or I am illiterate. maybe you can quote yourself?). Go ahead, ignore me as you wish. Man, I feel like I’m arguing with a creationist. Hey, at least now you know what it’s like to be in their shoes.
You and tombdebb do slightly begin to address my points more head-on (but rather vaguely and by no means a point-by-point rebuttal). The drive to be ashamed of what has happened does not come just from social services. It exists throughout society, if the kid simply googles the words or asks anyone about it, or just watches tv. But to say that all the damage comes from this is an unnecessarily far-reaching assertion. Let’s first ask if any damage comes from it. Will you pretend that such an influence does not exist at all, and does not affect the child’s psychology negatively? The next step would be to ask how much it would affect it. If you deny that it exists at all, I think you will be very unreasonable. How can you claim that telling kids to be ashamed isn’t what’s making them ashamed, or that kids would be ashamed naturally even if society did not have such views. Do you??? Say it point-blank, stop bsing!

Partner-sex is very similar to solo-sex while watching explicit partner-sex on tv. The only thing that changes is the personal, emotional component.

Right, so what feelings are these besides love/infatuation/heartbreak? And what happened to “it’s better to have loved…” And why do we send people to jail for causing heartbreak, provided we even conclude it’s bad? This is the smokescreen that people do not like to examine. What other feelings?! State them plainly!

Regarding personality changes in tomdebb’s post, that could very well be symptoms of profound shame (shame that an adult cannot hardly even experience). What else about sex would get a kid to be depressed and have his personality change? Ejaculation? Heartbreak?

Regarding that I’m somehow “attempt[ing] to distract discussion by focusing only on adolescents.” Do you think it is impertinent to first discuss the issue regarding kids 12 and over, who have sexual feelings? Are you just attempting to force a retreat to safer ground? And of course, I’ll admit that the discussion is completely different if the kid doesn’t have a sex drive.

128

OK, so if he understood, and is now responsible, how is that responsibility going to manifest itself? Does this 12-year-old have a job? Whose health insurance is he covered under? Do parents have to cover children who are out doing grown-up things like having sex? Why should they have to? And if they don’t cover the child, who will?

On the other hand, if he didn’t understand the consequences, you cavalierly say, “well, now he’s a victim of rape.” That’s not too much comfort when he has contracted a deadly disease, and the person who gave it to him is no where to be found. Isn’t this the kind of thing that really ought to be determined BEFORE a child gets involved with this type of relationship? And if so, how do we determine a child’s level of maturity, understanding of the issues, and general ability to consent, other than setting an age bar? Have an emancipation hearing for each individual child? And then this goes back to the above issues…once the child is emancipated, who supports him? Does he get a job and an apartment? Or do parents have to assume responsibility not only for the child, but for his or her risky behaviors?

MOST adults (perhaps you are not one of them) are a little better at risk assessment than the average 12 year old. I think most people could discern the difference in risk between the chicken pox and AIDS. Most parents would attempt to control the child’s behavior to a greater degree, based on different degrees of risk. Will I keep my child in the house 24/7 to minimzie the risk of chicken pox or salmonella? Probably not. For one thing, it is well-known that chicken pox is much safer in childhood, and for generations, children have been deliberately exposed to it (not very relevant now that there is a vaccine.) The risk of Salmonella is probably a lot lower, and in any case, children are not likely to die from either of these things. Chicken Pox doesn’t even typically require a trip to the doctor. Getting sick with a disease that is not deadly is part of the normal risk of living in society. Avian flu, I can’t answer to, because it is not known how it will spread, if at all, or how deadly it will be. If it was extremely deadly and easy to catch, I would certainly take steps to help my child avoid contracting it. Before we had a little more control over the spread of infectious diseases, people were quarantined, especially if the disease was deadly, and it was easy to contract. While AIDS is deadly, it is not easy to contract, so quarantines are not necessary, but on the other hand, there does need to be certain steps taken to be sure that children are not infected.

An adult is responsible for arranging for his or her own care. Can a 12-year-old do that? And if not, why should his or her parents have to do it?

OK, how about “oh, no, you have your information wrong…this isn’t how you contract AIDS…you can only get it from a needle. Your parents/your teachers/society just tells you that because they don’t want you to have sex.”

And you DO respect it because it affirms YOUR preconceived beliefs. Instead of worrying about my preconceptions or your preconceptions, maybe you should ask yourself about the researcher’s preconceptions, and how they might have affected his research methods. The sample bias alone is enough to seriously question the findings.

129

Again, what makes you think those questions need special answers for this situation? Minors can already willingly enter situations where they may catch diseases, and you aren’t rallying for those to be outlawed… or are you?

No, he was a victim of rape at the time, because he didn’t give informed consent if he didn’t know the potential consequences.

Sure. It can be determined by the person he’s entering into a relationship with - it really isn’t hard to determine whether someone knows about STDs and pregnancy.

What do you mean, “other than”? Setting an age bar does nothing to determine a child’s level of maturity, because everyone matures at a different rate.

Determining the ability to give informed consent to sex is pretty easy according to the guidelines I’ve come up with; if you have some others in mind, let’s hear them: what information do you think a person has to have in order to give informed consent, and how can we determine whether a person has it? (If there’s no way to determine it, that particular guideline is useless and should not be a basis for any law. Mine are all fairly easy to determine.)

Including making it illegal for minors to visit the house of a friend who might have avian flu? Because that’s what you’re advocating with sex: making it illegal because they might catch a disease.

Because they arrange the rest of their child’s health care. Did you not realize that? If your kid catches the flu at a friend’s house or breaks his leg while skating, who do you think is going to take care of him? If you don’t want to have the responsibility of caring for your kids’ health issues, no matter what they are, then don’t have kids.

Now that’s an example. It’s ridiculously far-fetched, but at least it illustrates your point. However, of course, it’d be very easy to prove that statement was a lie, which means there was no informed consent, the act is rape, and you can prosecute someone as a rapist, which is all you could really hope to do under the current age of consent law anyway.

No, actually, I respect the research because I’ve read it and the methods seem sound. If you have an objection other than “I don’t agree with his conclusions” or vague claims of bias, let’s hear it.

130

I think that it is entirely possible that a child might internalize shame from things picked up in society. I would never claim otherwise.

However, you have asserted–with no evidence–that is it outside cultural factors that have imposed this shame on (apparently) every child who has ever been sexually abused (even if you want to say that it was not abuse).
In the case of the kid to whom I referred, the family lived out in the boondocks with no neighbors, a barely functioning TV and no cable. This was years before the internet (and at a time when TV was a lot more reticent to discuss abuse in language that any child would recognize). And yet, despite having little contact with the outside world, this young child was able to pick up all these societal clues that he was supposed to be ashamed of events that no one besides himself and his abuser even knew were occurring.

You can flail away with your hypotheticals, but you are failing to persuade me of anything other than a desire on your part to rationalize some pretty sick behavior.

131

Again, the risk of the likelihood of catching the disease and the risk of dying from the disease WOULD affect whether or not I think the law is a reasonable one. Do I think there should be quarantine laws for diseases that are not deadly? No. (And, incidentally, this isn’t even touching on the possible emotional scars, which is also being debated in this thread, so I’m not going to go there.)

Right, but the point is that the child doesn’t KNOW that he is not giving informed consent at the time.

So you admit that we can’t just assume that all 12 year olds are capable of making these kinds of decisions, but it has to be determined by an adult. And the adult in question would have NO motivation to “misjudge” this level of maturity, now, would they?

OK, so other than setting an age bar, what is your solution for how this is determined? Maybe some people are ready at 17, maybe some younger than that. The idea behind the age bar is the assumption that by 18 ALL people are mature enough to make these decisions…and more importantly, are now held to the responsibility of any consequences of the decisions they make. There is no other way to do it, other than determine it on a case-by-case basis…and who decides? Your idea to let the adult the child is going to have sex with decide is not a great one, as you certainly can’t depend on a person to be completely objective in this situation.

This is not the ONLY reason…it is just one very important one. And, yes, in the past, quarantines HAVE been legal, and enforced, for the public good. I think that there is a very good chance that IF there is avian flu that spreads very easily and is very deadly, we will see quarantines once again. They do have isolation wards in hospitals, you know. Besides, I think it can safely be said if a child goes around having sex with adults it increases the risk DRAMATICALLY that they will contract a deadly disease.

It is ridiculously far-fetched to think that one person might lie to another in order to coerce them into having sex? Really? You are right, I am sure this never happens.

As far as non-consent is concerned. You could prosecute them as a rapist, if you know who they are and where to find them. And as far as the current age of consent law is concerned…that is the point. Children are far less cynical about what people will lie about, and far more likely to trust and adult than another adult would. There is an imbalance of power between children & adults that doesn’t exist between 2 adults.

Honestly, this conversation is so off-topic from the OP, not to mention ridiculous, that I really don’t feel like going off into another tangent. I have also read this research, and my “claim” of bias is not vague. Rind himself defended his study by claiming that the fact that his sample was not representative was irrelevant to the results. I find this to be a most extraordinary claim. If you want a cite, go check out the Wikipedia entry…it covers all the major problems with the study, and what papers cover these problems in detail.

132

While I find Alex’s arguments, to put it mildly, distasteful, I think you’ve got it backwards. Those of us asserting that sexual activitity between prepubescent children and adults are necessarily harmful and therefore abusive are the persons making the assertion and the persons who should back it up.

That said, here’s some cites:

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Impact

http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/specific/fs_child_sexual_abuse.html
I’ll post more, with quotes and info, manana.

133

Bad, bad coding! :smack:

Inthe above post, only the part above “I’ll post more, with quotes and info, manana.” is mine.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am NOT ASSERTING THAT SEX BETWEEN ADULTS AND CHILDREN IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN HARMFUL–just saying that the ordinary rules of debate we apply in GD support Alex’s assertion that those making such assertions are the ones who must support it.

As for anything else, well, I can’t give my opinion of Alex outside the Pit.

134

Not at all. The mainstream psychological belief is quite clear; our “common sense” view of child molestation is pretty close to the understanding of modern-day psychology. Anyone wishing to challenge conventional belief should bring some evidence with them - I’m not going to assume even for the sake of argument that what I know about the subject isn’t true. Such a thing would be irrational - while a willingness to question one’s beliefs when evidence contradicts them is an admirable trait, beginning from the assumption that one’s beliefs (and knowledge, in this instance) are wrong is a great way to find yourself paralyzed by indecision, but a relatively poor way to get at finding the truth. Which is exactly why the affirmative position in a debate carries the burden of proof; those who are not proposing to change the present system are of course charged with finding evidence and argument to contradict the other side, but as the affirmative side hasn’t come up with anything in the first place, that’s not really relevant.

That distinction is even more important to maintain in this discussion given that the moronic hijack about whether sexually abusing children actually hurts them was in the context of a discussion of lowering the age of consent (itself a hijack from the original discussion about NAMBLA.) When arguing a policy point like this, it’s particularly important to remember that the burden of proof rests with those wishing to change the status quo; since there is a potential for major consequences in changing the law, those seeking to change it have to prove that the positive consequences substantially outweigh the negative ones. Assuming that, until proven otherwise, child sexual abuse is not harmful could mean (if evidence either way was lacking) changing the law to permit it, only to discover years later what a terrible mistake was made.

The bottom line is that it’s not rational to drop one’s assumptions willy-nilly; if a crazy person on the street tells me to cover my head with tinfoil to stop the government’s mind-control satellites from stealing my thoughts, it’s not up to me to prove him wrong and it would be completely illogical to assume he’s right and cover my head with tinfoil until I can successfully contradict him.

The standard format of debate exists for a good reason; in this case, there’s tons of literature documenting the effects of child sexual abuse, so the burden of proof for those who wish to claim it’s not so is enormous. But should they wish to try, I’m open to listening.
In general, I hope the relative laxity of thought that Alex has demonstrated in this thread is uncharacteristic; he is clinging to one silly idea (the notion that it’s parental disapproval, not sexual abuse, that damages children) in the face of damning arguments against it by tomndebb. He is demonstrating a willingness to believe something with no evidence whatsoever, even in the context of a discussion over what the law should be - when there are substantial risks present in altering said law.

135

So you’re saying sex is the only way to catch a deadly disease? Or just the only likely way to catch it?

I’m not talking about quarantines, where you know there’s disease somewhere. I’m talking about situations, like having dinner at a friend’s house or visiting a relative in the hospital, that would normally be pretty harmless, but could be deadly if you get unlucky - like sex. Most people do not have STDs, and the risk of catching a disease from them is 0%. Furthermore, there are tests to know whether someone is infected or not, and precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting a disease even if they are.

(Or hey, what about riding in a car? Being injured or killed in a car accident is far more likely than catching an STD, isn’t it?)

Of course. I don’t see the relevance of that, though. The adult knows that the child isn’t giving informed consent, therefore he knows that he’s committing rape. A rapist is going to do that anyway; all you can really hope to do is charge and convict him for it.

I’ve never said we could assume all 12 year olds are capable of making these decisions. I’m the guy who wants to treat people as individuals, remember?

It can be determined by anyone, not just an adult, as long as they know what is required for informed consent. A 14 year old can quiz a 30 year old on the consequences of sex as long as he knows what to ask.

If they did that, they’d be committing rape, and you could prosecute them for that just like you can prosecute them today.

Really? Because it seems that here in Washington, we’re ready at 16, and we’re always ready for sex (not as exciting as it sounds, I’m afraid) with someone who was born within a certain number of months from us, although certain exceptions apply. In some states, we’re ready at 14; in others, 15; in others, 18. There sure is a lot of difference in the rate at which people mature in different places, huh? Maybe something in your state’s water is delaying their development!

Or maybe the ages are just set arbitrarily by politicians who base their decisions on gut feelings (theirs and their constituents’) rather than fact.

That was not my idea.

Look, a person–any person–is either informed enough to give consent to sex, or he isn’t. That fact doesn’t change depending on who’s judging. Sure, an adult can intentionally “misjudge”, but that has no more meaning than when an adult intentionally “misreads” the age on a minor’s ID as 16 instead of 14. It would ultimately be judged by, well, a judge, or a jury, if and when the adult is prosecuted for rape, and I don’t think there’d be much disagreement over the decision.

Hmm. What if every partner is tested?

No, it’s ridiculously far-fetched to think someone would lie about how AIDS is transmitted in order to intentionally infect others with AIDS. I’m sure there are one or two crazies out there who might do it, but then they might go around jabbing people in shopping malls with hypodermic needles too. I’m not particularly worried about them, and if you are, I feel sorry for you.

Yup, just like today. You can prosecute them for statutory rape, sexual contact with a minor in the Nth degree, or whatever - if you know who they are and where to find them. There’s no difference. Why would you think that replacing the age limits with individual judgments would make it any more difficult to find the people involved?

136

sigh, excaliber, good job talking about how wrong I am without, once again, mentioning at all why I am. You are in utter denial, and you do not even want to begin debating with me because you are afraid that you wouldn’t be able to hold up your shit. Your reason of, “well, everyone else thinks so, so it must be true, and must not even be worth defending,” is, well, FUCKING MORONIC. I am sorry. I cannot allow myself to show antagonistic emotion, because that would just invite the other participants to let their pent-up emotions fly against me. It is suicidal, and would lead people to shut down their brains. However, please, let your intellect realize that that sort of argument has been the one used to defend every single mistaken belief throughout history. Of course, it doesn’t mean that because you used it your belief is mistaken. Of course not! No, rather it means you should find another argument, and stop sticking fingers in your ears saying “la, la, la, everybody, we all know he’s wrong.” And yes, I have been giving arguments why the status quo may be mistaken. (You’ll find them stated in my previous post, and my fingers will tire and the thread will get clogged if I have to repeat them word-for-word). It is now your turn to address them. You know, I doubt you even read them.

The child still had people he would talk to, kids at school he could ask questions, ways of understanding society’s mores. Was this adult-child sexual relationship also incestuous or homosexual? Certainly, one needn’t to ever meet more than a dozen people to be ashamed of incest or homosexuality. (And I have nothing against homosexuality, but our pc views do not affect this point.) Am I right in my hypothesis? Was it incest or homosexuality?? I hope you’ll answer it, instead of just quietly backing away. (And if it was just plain sex with a teacher, and no one was around to even say it was a bad thing, then I, as somone reasonable, concede that it would greatly undermine my argument. However, I hope you’ll keep your honesty and not twist your recollection beyond itself.) Also, I again beseech, that you’ll actually answer this question (and not ignore it like the other two potent challenges I presented in my previous post)!

Well, actually, what I am rationalizing was my desire when I was 12 (fine, howevermuch it’ll undermine me in the eyes of a bigotted world, it was a very memorable 7 years ago… something which actually puts me at an advantage to all those who have forgotten their childhoods) to have sex, including to have sex with adults. I cannot imagine that if I were able to act on my fantasies, it would have done me profound harm. Maybe it would have put me at risk of an std, or maybe, even, I would’ve become a father. These things are bad, of course, but by no means worthy of calling the adults who would have been my partners molesters and evil psychopaths. They are by no means capable of inflincting on me irreperable psychological (not physiological) harm.

That is why I am here arguing what I am, because I believe you are all a bunch of old farts who couldn’t ever relate to a child.

Goddammit, why does this have to be about taste? What happened to philosophical honesty? Objectivity? Why can’t you people put your emotional biases behind you? Or at least admit you have them, and that you ought to try to rise above them?

137

On the contrary; tomndebb and I have both thoroughly explained exactly why your suggestion is ridiculous.

I said no such thing. I told you that you need to bring evidence to back your views. You have not done so, resting instead on your own assertions, even when those assertions have been thoroughly contradicted through reason and evidence. The fact that you persist in making assertions without evidence demonstrates that you know that you don’t have any evidence to back what you’re claiming.

I’m sorry, kid, if you feel that your word is enough; it is not, and your expectation that your ridiculous claims will be uncritically accepted is false.

My argument has merely been that a person making an assertion needs to present evidence. If you think that I should drop what I know on your say-so, without any evidence for your point whatsoever, then you are in for disappointment.

Sorry, but your strawman argument isn’t convincing - lying about what I’ve been saying is a poor way to advocate your viewpoint. Evidence or nuthin, kiddo.

Your arguments are thus: for a child to have sex with an adult is exactly analogous to masturbation (for which you have provided no evidence); the only emotional harm a child might suffer from sex with an adult is disappointment when their infatuation ends (a silly assertion in the light of the substantial research that has been cited - some even in this thread! - that proves otherwise, and an assertion for which you have provided no evidence); and that the only harm a child suffers from molestation is others’ social disapproval (a notion ridiculous even on its surface, as tomndebb has very fully explained; a notion that - again! - you have provided no evidence for. I’m noticing a pattern.)

Your arguments have been roundly disproven. The fact that you don’t wish to acknowledge that fact doesn’t change it.

Look, dude, I’m sorry for your sake that you’re not familiar with the rules of actual argument; I’m sorry that you’re no doubt feeling heavily outclassed in this discussion. I have suggested, again and again, ways to argue convincingly - that is, through the use of evidence to support your claims. The bottom line is that you won’t provide it; I can only assume that it’s because you recognize that it won’t.

Ahh! So you’re right because you’re young!

My, what a tenuous thing to hang an argument on.

Why do you equate disagreement with you with a lack of honesty or objectivity? (And add “distasteful” to your list of vocabulary terms, because you appear not to understand what it means.)

Your attempt to characterize disagreement with you as a lack of “philosophical honesty” and “objectivity” is, in a word, pathetic. While you do seem fairly convinced that only you recognize the truth about this matter (and, as we’ve seen before, other matters as well) you don’t seem to have the rhetorical or intellectual chops to back your claims in actual argument. I have remarked before on intellectual rigor, and on the importance of basing arguments on evidence; I have pointed out that it is, simply put, logically untenable and deeply irrational to accept a claim without evidence to back it up. That is my standard; I fear that it is higher than yours, but perhaps one day you might learn the same rigor and lose the credulity and reliance on guesswork that have characterized your argument here, today.

138

Actually, I do not know who his sexual partners were, although the participation of the father might suggest one or both of the possibilities you have asked about.

On the other hand, you are still making grand assertions based on your own hypothetical. There just HAD to be someone around to shame him into feeling bad. Sorry. I don’t buy it. You are simply asserting a situation because it is the only way that you can rationlaize your beliefs. (Even if it had included either or both homosexuality or incest, where do you think the shame and depression arose, given that I have never heard of any contact he had before his trauma was revealed (and you are certainly unaware of any contact he had with other people). Why would you believe that there was something inherently distressing–or more distressing–about incest or homosexuality as experienced by a child that would let your heterosexual non-relative situation get a pass?)

Now I am aware that I have presented nothing more than an anecdote. On the other hand, you have presented nothing more than your own fantasies. I would not claim to have proven your position wrong, but you are utterly failing to persuade me that you have any idea what sort of harm a child might suffer due to a premature sexual initiation.

139

“Proves” is a pretty strong word, considering the fact that there’s also evidence to the contrary.

140

I wouldn’t say so. I think his arguments really fall flat on their own since they’re only based on his speculations. I was only speaking in the context of what Alex was proposing, not what you were. The Rind studies are a bit more convincing; the trouble is that there’s such a wealth of other scientific data that suggests the opposite; what troubles me with regard to Rind et al. is that meta-analyses are often a bit questionable anyway, and this one has been roundly criticized on methodological grounds.

Note that I’m inclined to think age of consent as it’s currently done is problematic, and particularly I think that 18 (which I believe is the age of consent in many states) is vastly too high. My problem with NAMBLA is that, number one, I think they’re not honestly campaigning for reform of age of consent laws - that’s not what the evidence suggests, and that number two I think they’re a bunch of disingenuous child molesters or child molester wannabes. I’m certainly not arguing that a fifteen year old who has sex with their seventeen year old boy- or girlfriend is being victimized (though I suggest there is a somewhat higher possibility of it in someone that age); on the other hand, the notion that a pre-pubescent child is capable of rendering consent is ridiculous on its face.