Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[ancientregime]

Answer to second question: It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere? Its none of my business to put my head between two individuals who seems to be mutually benefiting from an act. If the kid is screaming and crying and appears to be in pain from such an act, I would definitely interfere.

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.

 

[theobserver]

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

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.

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

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

 

[ancientregime]

That's something you might want to think about.

If somebody performs oral sex on a newborn child, clearly the child is not giving informed consent to the sex act.

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

If so, why do you not apply this standard to infants?

If not, do you approve of rape?

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

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.

 

[James R]

Comparing a sexual activity which ended physically harmless with rape would be irrational.

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

Its not a problem with me as long as it can be proved as harmful activity.

Read my contributions to the debate on this topic. It has been proved over and over again to be harmful.

 

[theobserver]

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

Read my contributions to the debate on this topic. It has been proved over and over again to be harmful.

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.

 

[ancientregime]

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

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:

"sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

...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.

 

[phlogistician]

You did too.



Again, no faith isn't important to me.

You conflate the use of the word 'faith'.

 

[phlogistician]

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

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.

 

[phlogistician]

But that doesn't prove that psychological harm happens because of the act alone.

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.

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.

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.

 

[John99]

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.

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

I had calculus in ninth grade phlog.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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

Isn't it neither?

 

[phlogistician]

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

You said;

no because you need to set the bar. this would be average and the majority would be average.

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

I had calculus in ninth grade phlog.

This is statistics, not calculus. DUH!

 

[phlogistician]

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

Isn't it neither?

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.

 

[John99]

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!

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:

 

[theobserver]

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?

 

[phlogistician]

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:

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.

 

[ancientregime]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[ancientregime]

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

Isn't it neither?

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.

 

[ancientregime]

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.

 

[Stryder]

Does Stryder think that making the debate personal contributes to the argument?

If he does, it is not science, because science is not based upon consensus. Instead it is based upon empirically grounded argumentation.

I point this out because he is distracting from the subject matter and trying to turn this into a psychological examination of me. This is a debate, not a shrink session Stryder. Your contributions will have value when you can stay focused on the subject matter of the thread topic. Perhaps you should start a threat on acientregimes psychological make up. I welcome this. These sort of comments would be fine there. Go for it, have a heyday. But, please quit trolling with irrelevant subject matter.

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.