Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

I would be willing to interfere even if there was no sign of distress or pain, if and only if, anyone here can show how the process "that feels good" turns into a mental illness. I showed how it does with verbal abuse and a bit of violence here. [1]

I think it's time for people to back the process they are claiming exists with a simple example. If you can't demonstrate you understand the process, you only believe it. That is faith, not science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't agree with the idea that a person should knowingly consent to sexual activity. Is it something so dangerous that prior detailed knowledge is essential to consent? Sure the kid will cry for help if there is an attempt for penetration or even if the kid don't like the person who is around him/her. Their instincts are more sharper than adults. On top of it, parents from other species wont hire a maid or leave the child with an uncle or a stranger till their offspring can handle own their own. Its only a defect found in human societies.

I don't agree with rape the same way I don't agree with murder. That's violence which results in physical harm. Comparing a sexual activity which ended physically harmless with rape would be irrational.

Its not a problem with me if its not proved as harmful activity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are many things that child has done to them that they can't give consent to have done when they are at very early ages. We can only hope that people aren't harming them. This is terrible to even imagine. The questions here surround sexual behavior with such a young child and we have wandered into an area where consent seems not to apply, because it can't be given. We are left then with the question of a crime. The test for criminal behavior is: Does the behavior cause harm? If indeed it can empirically proven, then yes, it is a crime. Otherwise, the behavior may no be acceptable by some people in society, but acceptable by others. I do not think the law is a place to impose morality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I went through the whole thread. Like I mentioned earlier in the post, I can agree with every argument from you and few others from a societies emotional perspective and current understanding of the act and various dynamics associated with it. But that doesn't prove that psychological harm happens because of the act alone. And psychological harm under any case happens because of people's mindset and social conditioning.

And I can see that AR has made his points very clear that even if I don't want to agree with his arguments due to my own personal emotional reasons, I simply cant refute his arguments using any possible logic.

 

No, emotional and psychological harm that would occur to obtain/maintain the sexual act would be evidence of a crime. My claim of violence only was in the context of my first post. I assumed the items here:

...mean sexual acts. I take the term sex at face value in this context. I do not assume it means "rape". Rape more likely be defined as sex obtained/maintained with violence, threats, and/or manipulation. That is why I said it only could cause harm with the sadist behavior.

 

You conflate the use of the word 'faith'.

 

I'm tempted to make comment that it's due to people with below average intelligence not understanding statistics,. ....

Here's a simple illustration.

To keep it simple, we have just three people.

Person 'A' has an IQ of 75
Person 'B' has an IQ of 75
Person 'C' has an IQ of 150

Average IQ = 75+75+150/3 = 100

How many people fall under the 'average'? Two. The majority in this instance.

John, you need to learn about Bell curves, mean, mode, and average. You are assuming a uniform distribution, but that clearly is not always the case.

 

We cannot isolate children from society to perform a double blind test. That would be unethical. So AR cannot prove his position scientifically as he has absolutely no data, so he fails.

Society deems it OK to base laws partly on emotion. It's not just about logic, but also ethics, morality, cultural standards, equity, and fairness.

Not that AR actually has any data to base his logic on, and it seems he wants to rewrite all societal mores to suit his persuasion. Well, there is a saying 'if enough people tell you you're dead, fall over.' It's about time we euthanased this debate. Not being able to disprove his claims (because all experiments to do so would be unethical) does not prove his point.

He's failed to prove his point, so loses the debate.

 

that is why in my post i stated we would lower the bar for observer. pay attention.

I had calculus in ninth grade phlog.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is anyone here claiming that Paedophilia is a science rather than a pseudoscience?

Isn't it neither?

 

You said;

You don't 'set' the bar, you calculate it. Do you not understand the example I gave you?

This is statistics, not calculus. DUH!

 

The entire argument made by AR is a straw man. The term 'Paedophilia' is simply a description. AR has tried to attach baggage to it, stuffing his straw man. He cannot provide data to confirm his opinion, because simply, there is no scientific data to support his hypothesis. The whole OP is flawed from the outset.

James should have seen through this from the start, but instead played into his hands.

 

i set the bar lower, to 50 and i did not say THIS was calculus. i had calculus in ninth grade. What is your problem anyway?:shrug:

 

Lets try another simple math. How many religious and patriotic people are in this world?

 

You don't get to set the bar. The average is the average. It's a calculated number, not chosen.

You mentioned calculus as if it were relevant. It's not. Clearly.

My problem? Too many people who cannot express themselves articulately on the forums, expressing themselves anyway. That's my problem.

 

Assent is given by the child in these kinds of tests. Although, a good majority of the tests are set up to confirm a cultural belief, not do science.

I showed empirically how emotions can be tampered so that harmless acts can be viewed causing harm.

 

US Law uses so-called scientific experts to make it seem the laws are based on science. Psychiatry exudes itself as a neutral science entity, but it's diagnosis of pedophilia is not empirically based. The contention here is that pedophilia is a pseudo-science because it's being touted as sound science.

 

Of everyone, Phlog seems to be the most emotionally agitated by this whole argument. Phog feels that sex between an adult and child always causes harm. Phlog makes this claim, but there is one thing Phlog resufes to do, back up his claim with a explanation of the process the act turns into a mental disorder like I provived here:.[case study example]

If Phlog knows for sure this sort of sex causes mental disorders, Phlog will have no problem making a case study as an example. I have done it easily, I have shown a realistic example on how verbal abuse can create a mental illness.

Phlog can claim it's abuse, but can Phlog provide a simple explantion in a case study?

I'll start a list of those who are visting this thread who claim this sort of sex causes mental illness, but havne't provided a case studying backing up the progression of sex to mental disorder, like I did with verbal abuse:

Randwolf
leopold99
phlogistician
James R.

 

Like I stated previously, People such as yourself either post to be an ass on a forum, or post because your reasoning is psychologically flawed. I have to identify which that is, since one is potentially sending information to particular agencies while the other is to tell you to stop stirring people up.