Perceptions of sciforums moderation

Are you Scott3x? :spank:

I certainly hope you are wrong about it because there is a study that review the literature published by pedophile organizations in which the strategies used by pedophile organizations to promote public acceptance of pedophilia or the legalization of adult-child sex are:

* Denial of injury, the use of anecdotal accounts of children who appear to enjoy sex with adults to demonstrate the benefits and advantages of such relationships to children. Culpability for any harm that occurs to an abused child is displaced onto the reactions of others, such as the child's parents, and the criminal justice and mental health systems.

* Condemnation of the condemners, those who condemn sex between adults and child are portrayed as engaging in even more victimizing or exploitative acts than those for which pedophiles are accused.

* Appeal to higher loyalties, the assertion that they serve the interests of a higher principle: the liberation of children from the repressive bonds of society. Also, the attempt to align with other, less stigmatized, organizations such as the woman's movement or the gay rights movement.

* Denial of the victim, the conceptual transformation of children from victims of adult sexual behavior into willing partners.

* Adoption of value-neutral terminology. According to Herdt, an anthropologist who has studied sex between adults and children in other cultures, pedophile advocates should replace "dull and reductionistic" terms like pedophilia and abuse when discussing sex between "a person who has not achieved adulthood and one who has". Moreover, words like "child" or "childhood", which have psychologically developmental meaning, should be "resisted at all costs".[42]

* Redefining the term child sexual abuse. Another recurring theme among those seeking to gain social acceptance for pedophilia is the need to redefine or restrict the usage of the term "child sexual abuse", recommending a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse" (Rind et al. 1998).

* Promoting the idea that children can consent to sexual activity with adults. The reconceptualization of children as willing sexual participants along with the decriminalization of consensual sexual relations is perhaps the key change sought by pedophile advocates. In his book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, Tom O'Carroll (convicted of distributing child pornography) claims "What there most definitely needs to be [in determining consent] is the child's willingness to take part in the activity in question; whatever social or legal rules are operated, they must not be such as to allow unwilling children to be subjected to sexual acts. But there is no need whatever for a child to know 'the consequences' of engaging in harmless sex play, simply because it is exactly that: harmless." Many other pedophile activists, amongst them David Riegel, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, argue that children are actually able to knowingly consent to sex.

* Questioning the assumption of harm. Numerous pro-pedophile advocacy organizations have quoted the Rind study in support of their efforts to "lower or rescind age of consent laws", and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[8]

* Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness. Activists sometimes refer positively to academics who argue that pedophilia should be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), for example, Frans Gieles mentions Richard Green.

* Promoting understanding of "relationships" Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," reported the result of interviews with participants in adult–child relationships and wrote, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."

* Historical anthropological references. Edward Brongersma referred to ancient Greece, and 19th century French Polynesia, situations in which adult-child sex interactions were not illegal.[21]

* Invoking ideas of continuity between pedophile and other minority activists. Some activists argue that the pedophile movement, feminism, gay activism, and anti-racism all relate to the experiences of suppressed and misunderstood groups. This argument is made by Harris Mirkin.[43] Other scholars, such as Camille Paglia, have asserted that gay rights (from which much of pedophile advocacy diverged) should never have rejected the pederastic themes which some activists claim were the "giveaways" required to make homosexual culture acceptable.

* Pointing to juvenile sexual activity in the animal kingdom and invoking evolutionary arguments. Other species are sometimes used as examples of beneficial or normalized sexual contact between grown animals and infants or adolescents. One popular case is that of a close relative to humans, the Bonobo, where sexual touching (described by activists as infant-initiated) is part of everyday life, and intercourse is sometimes initiated by the young.

* Arguing that inequality does not necessarily mean abuse. In Pedophilia: The Radical Case, Tom O'Carroll writes: "The disparity in size and power between parent and child creates a potential for abuse. But, on the basis that parent–child relationships are generally positive we accept that inequality is simply in the nature of the thing. I would like to see paedophilic relationships looked at in a similar light."

* Terminology - the terms "Childlover", "Boylover" and "Girllover" are terms of self-identification used by some pedophiles;[44][45] some pedophiles use the term "pedosexual', positing that pedophilia should be seen as a distinct sexual orientation as with homosexuality and heterosexuality.[21]​

I hope we don't spot any of those here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I was just saying what I think Scott will say, based on his posts here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From what I can gather, he is saying that if the age of consent is lowered it's no longer illegal. So, he is advocating the lowering of the age of consent rather than sex with minors (which is a legal term).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Half right. I am advocating that the age of consent laws be replaced with licensing laws on sexual interactions. I believe these changes will happen over time, just as the gay rights movement took time to gain ground as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This seems to be more ancientregime's approach, rather than mine. I don't see it being a black and white issue, either way. That is, sexual interactions between adults and minors can sometimes be reported as beneficial by the minor. At other times, it's reported as harmful. From a study I read of in "Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions", it seems the biggest factor is whether consent was given by the minor (it should be obvious, but some people seem to think that it's irrelevant). Does this mean that consent should be enough? No, because even with consent given, the interaction can still at times be harmful. The law and society certainly play a role in this; however, there are also other issues.

I might get to rest to the rest later... that is if the thread isn't closed first.​

 

I am sorry to say but from your vague responses and your inability to face direct questions, you seem to be dishonest. Care much to improve your personal quality before criticizing others (moderators)?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So scott3x wants to have sex with children, give him a child simulator and be done with it, as long as he does not actually fuck a child I have no problem with him and him keeping his sick fetish to him self... by the way what was this thread about?

 

I don't think you have read these particular threads, he's not into simualtion he's into actualization.


Inzomnia seems to understand the nature of those threads perfectly.

 

No you and Inzomnia don't have a clue, this thread is not about scott3x pedophilia, its about the moderators, its a gross ad homenim to say scott3x can't complain about the moderation just because he is a sick fuck, if or if not the moderation has problems is not dependent on the nature of the messenger.

 

We already have!:shrug:

 

inzomnia, I've answered a fair amount of questions already. A lot of the threads where I've done so have gotten closed. Is that what you'd like to happen in this thread too? If you like, I can answer many questions you have posed, via PM. That way, you can have your curiosity satisfied and threads don't have to be closed as a result. What do you think?

 

I admit that I did an ad hominem attack to Scott, I apologize. I didn't mean to hijack the thread into yet another pedophile thread, but was found it ironic that in this thread Scott accused Skinwalker for giving detrimental effect to sciforums as a whole. Kind like he could see an ant far away accross the ocean but couldn't see an elephant in front of his eyes.

 

Don't you read through threads? NO ONE EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTED THAT SCOTT CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT MODERATION BECAUSE OF HE'S A SICK FUCK. THE FACT THAT HE'S A SICK FUCK IS ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY. SCOTT'S PARAPHILIC TENDENCIES CAME UP IN ANOTHER WAY AS AN OFF SHOOT TO HOW THE SITE IS MODERATED.

 

We may disagree as to whether my attraction to minors is sick or not, but I think we can agree that as long as I'm not actually -doing- or advocating doing anything illegal with them, it doesn't have to result in my being banned or more. That about sum it up?

A very good point. It's about what people think of sciforums moderation, not what about what people think of me. I've decided I will be more cautious as to what questions I answer on perceived viewpoints that have essentially been proscribed in sciforums...

 

Easy there Lucy.. breathe. I think ElectricFetus is just saying we should get off the subject of certain views or perceived views of mine, especially since the dicussion on that is becoming rather poisonous again.

 

That is nice of you, but if I would like to get the answer via PM, I would address the question via PM, too. What was your answer again to this question?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, forget it. I realize this is too far off-topic.

 

I offered it as a compromise; I know that your first choice was to have it answered here. However, as I have mentioned, my views on this subject is not something that the moderators like seeing all that much of. In any case, if you would prefer to simply remain ignorant, by all means.

Thank you.

 

Scott3x,

Yeah, what ever, I don't see a problem with you questioning laws, just no child porn or vulgar details. In fact I see no problem with you openly disagree with the law, just as long are your not breaking it... maybe I spent to much time in 7chan.

Maybe you are the one that needs to read:

So in short: get on your knees and open your mouth...

 

I have Electric which is why I addressed you on that point. No one has said he couldn't question moderation, he's been doing this all along. Inzomnia simply infered he was a hypocrite for doing so based on...

 

Nods.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I will play a type of devil's advocate for a second and take the other side of this. Imagine someone who believes that stealing should be legalized (I don't hold this view, just using it for an argument). I don't care what argument he or she uses. However, as long as they confine it to advocating that the laws change, instead of advocating actually doing it, I don't see a problem with their advocating.

And seriously, doesn't it make sense? I mean, how many -real- thieves go about advocating that the laws should be changed? They just go out and -do- it. The only time they might say something to that effect is in a court when they're about to be sentenced. In the meantime, while they're advocating that it should be legalized, others can advocate the reverse. You may not persuade the advocate, but you might persuade others who are watching. This is, I believe, essentially why James allowed the discussion on adult/minor sexual interactions to begin with. Later, however, he decided that it'd all been said and anyone who was seriously interested could just review the closed threads where he believes it'd all been said before. I don't agree with his assertion, but it's his forum so that's the way things go.

 

I am tired, lol. This is my last post for today.

Just to return this thread on the track:

Compared to other online forums, the moderation of sciforums is (I've voted):

• less strict
• applied with about the same moderator discretion
• very good, given that moderators are unpaid volunteers

Ciao, Lucy, ciao all :wave: