Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 09-24-2002, 04:57 AM

Helen Ok, I agree...it was too ad hominem - I'm sorry.

Yeah, I did not take that very well actually, but apology accepted.

Helen: What do you want me to say apart from "that's not at all representative of Western Counseling"? Do I need stats to show how few counselors rely heavily on Freud's theories, these days? Do I need quotes from respected people to show that virtually everyone except a few quacks recognize the dangers of 'recovered memory' techniques?

I did not say they rely on Freuds theories. Please reread my post.
And I don't need to tell you what to do to refute what I said. Decide on how you will do it. Just remember, its not enough to claim "Oh, that's not at all representative of Western Counseling". You have to demonstrate it, don't just claim it because we won't take you for your word. Unless of course you are convinced I am ignorant about the matter and you are the authority. And that would indeed be very unfortunate.

Helen: BUT, to non-believers, morality is by consensus is it not?

No and irrelevant. I don't really care how non-beleivers make their morality. That is not what this thread is about. And I don't appreciate red herrings.

Helen: So, what else do you have but 'the majority thinks...'

We have reason. I doubt that most non-beleivers base their morality on herd-mentality as you seem to think.

Helen :Tell me if there is some 'objective standard of rightness' out there that nonbelievers believe in - as it were. I didn't think there was which means we only have the collective wisdom of the group.

Explain clearly what you mean by 'objective standard of rightness' please. And what its based on.

Helen: We are right to be wary of minority opinions even though numbers don't make something right, per se.

Why are you "right to be wary of minority opinions even though numbers don't make something right, per se"?

What is the rationale for this self-justification?

Helen :I'm not making you look like a misfit. I'm simply noticing that most people here aren't agreeing with what you say.

Helen, do you beleive that the fact that most people here aren't agreeing with me is a relevant observation and a useful contribution on your part? And do you beleive that I need you to point that out for me? How helpful is that observation to this discussion? This is not an opinion poll and I, like many here, don't get swayed by numbers. Please.

I am convinced that argumentum ad numerum has no place here. Each argument must be examined on its own merit.

Helen: Admittedly I took a risk on what she's thinking. If I was wrong I will apologize.

So you think its okay if turns out to be a hit and not a miss? And if its a miss you will apologise?

Why did you feel compelled to take that risk of reading her mind? Do you think its acceptable to resort to mind-reading while engaged in a discussion with someone?
Don't you agree that it would have been more correct for you to let her speak for herself?

As to what she said later:

brighid said :...I cannot see a clear distinction between use and exploit, except perhaps exploit is more insidieous

This clearly means, at the time she wrote, she was not acutely aware of the distinction between the two words and moreso, the words she used indicated no effort to differentiate the two words.
But she was graceful enough to say you were right about what she meant. I would suggest that we argue based on what people write, not what we think they meant. Its a shoddy and underhanded debating practice that you should discarded irrespective of whether you make more hits than misses.

Helen: Thanks for your comments, Intensity.

Thanks to you too Helen.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

HelenM · 09-24-2002, 05:10 AM

Intensity

I don't have time to prove what I said by finding evidence about Western Counseling so all I will do is suggest you read about it, because it seems to me that you do not have an accurate picture of it.

Regarding all the comments about majority opinions: by definition, the majority is going to get their way, when one decides by consensus. Either that or you grant one person some 'divine' right to have his/her way. Based on a belief that that person 'knows best' or 'has inside information' on some 'objective standard'.

Since nonbelievers reject the latter - don't they? - they are left with deciding by consensus as their own reasonable way of making community decisions.

And so, the majority will always win.

How does someone with a minority viewpoint get their way? Only by persuading others to change their minds until that view becomes the new majority viewpoint.

So - the majority will always win.

Except where you give up democracy because you believe that certain people know best.

take care
Helen

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

Ted Hoffman · 09-24-2002, 05:58 AM

Helen,

I would suggest if you cannot respond directly to questions that your contributions elicit in a thread (for whatever reason), you desist from participating in such a thread because you have ended up only distracting me and wasting my time because I was very keen on your contributions and I treated them seriuosly.

Its really disheartening of you to make bold claims that you are not prepared to back up. Its plainly an act gratuitous grandstanding and empty posturing when you back out when put to task and lamely refer me to read more to shore support for your own claims. It appears you just wanted some attention and weren't genuinely interested in serious discourse.

This thread is not about who will win. It's about who can demonstrate logically that they hold a (more) logical position. So you have missed the whole objective of 14 pages.

I find it apallingly patronizing that you find it appropriate to tell me what I should go and read and I resent the hell out of that.

The Other Michael · 09-24-2002, 06:13 AM

<a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-46.pdf" target="_blank">Scottish Parliament legal definition of rape research document</a>

This appears to support, at least in Scotland, Intensity's position that force or the threat thereof is needed for rape - otherwise it is indecent assault.

The tone of recent messages seems to be getting a bit heated - everyone back to your corners for recitation of a brief calming mantra, and prepare to come out with a more placid demeanor when the bell rings.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]

HelenM · 09-24-2002, 06:28 AM

Intensity I'm sorry if I disappointed you. Perhaps you expected more of my posts than I was able to provide.

Regarding this...

Quote:

I find it apallingly patronizing that you find it appropriate to tell me what I should go and read and I resent the hell out of that.

...it was only a suggestion.

take care
Helen

Ted Hoffman · 09-24-2002, 07:41 AM

The Other Michael This appears to support, at least in Scotland, Intensity's position that force or the threat thereof is needed for rape - otherwise it is indecent assault.

Thank you

The Other Michael The tone of recent messages seems to be getting a bit heated - everyone back to your corners for recitation of a brief calming mantra, and prepare to come out with a more placid demeanor when the bell rings.

Okay sir,
<intensity assumes the lotus position, takes a deep breath and closes his eyes, the tip of his manicured index finger touches his thumb as he gracefully raises up his head and a peaceful mantra evocative of a peaceful spring escapes his luscious lips >

<the hackles on his back lower down and heat escapes from his powerful body. The neurons in his brain stop firing and his mind assumes a peaceful stasis>

<after a while, he opens his eyes and looks peacefully at Helen and others>

Helen, its okay, I have forgiven you. Please forgive my earlier abrasive stance. I am feeling so calm, so peaceful perhaps I should change my moniker immediately to placid equanimity (would that be the opposite of intensity?).

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

HelenM · 09-24-2002, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
Helen, its okay. Please forgive my earlier abrasive stance. I am feeling so calm, so peaceful perhaps I should change my moniker immediately to placid equanimity (would that be the opposite of intensity?).

Oh, but I like "Intensity"!

Maybe you can keep that screen name, if you're now 'intensely' calm

take care
Helen

The AntiChris · 09-24-2002, 07:49 AM

Intensity

Quote:

With kids, we as adults decide what is best for them and they trust us to do what is best for them. Therefore, the kids wouldn't object to having sex if the adults got them to engage in such acts precisely because they are children, who by definition "exhibit the characteristics of very young people, as innocence, obedience, trustfulness, limited understanding, etc". Even if they refused, that may not be a huge barrier to the adult having his way. Kids refuse to go to school and adults have to coerce them or persuade them to do so. Their refusal is NOT used as theguide to whether something is right or wrong. Its the adult who decides and prevails upon the child.

I see. The ability of a child to give informed consent is irrelevant because we're really talking about non-consensual sex.

Are you saying that children should be coerced into sex with adults because it really is "best for them" or are you saying that they should be coerced merely because we can (obedience, trust etc)and because some adults want to?

By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child. Do you see any problems here?

Quote:

You have a peculiar understanding of the word rape.

Bearing in mind we're talking about children, this, from The Other Michael's link, clarifies the position:

Quote:

In the case of young girls (taken to be those under the age of twelve), force (and
unwillingness) is always to be presumed, whether they in fact show any signs of
resistance or not.

Quote:

For example for a (sick) doctor to have sex with a comatose patient is not rape, its simply abuse of such people (or some other ethical jargon - violation of trust, unlawful bodily invasion or some other high-sounding medico-legal terms).

Assuming penetration occurred, it would, in most cases, be rape. Once again from Michael's link:

Quote:

Where a female is unconscious either through drink, drugs (including
anaesthetics) or natural sleep, and she is taken sexual advantage of by a male,
the Scottish definition of rape requires the prosecutor to show that she was
unwilling to have intercourse with that male prior to her insensibility.

Chris

Ted Hoffman · 09-24-2002, 08:14 AM

<really irritated his newly acquired peace gone>
AntiChris said: I see. The ability of a child to give informed consent is irrelevant because we're really talking about non-consensual sex.

Look Chris, I am really getting tired of this twisting and dancing. The issue of non-consensual sex as far as children are concerned is ruled out because children are not capable of giving valid consent by default. YOU CAN'T HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH A CHILD!. If you drug an adult (someone who would otherwise be able to consent or refuse) and have carnal knowledge of them in that state, then that is non-consensual sex.

AntiChris said: Are you saying that children should be coerced into sex with adults because it really is "best for them" or are you saying that they should be coerced merely because we can (obedience, trust etc)and because some adults want to?

No and I am getting tired of seeing my meaning twisted.

AntiChris said: By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child. Do you see any problems here?

I see a lot of problems in how you are reading and twisting what I wrote.

AntiChris said: <quotes that contradict what he is saying>
Assuming penetration occurred, it would, in most cases, be rape. Once again from Michael's link:

The links do not support what you are saying. Please read them again.

The AntiChris · 09-24-2002, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
<really irritated his newly acquired peace gone>
AntiChris said: I see. The ability of a child to give informed consent is irrelevant because we're really talking about non-consensual sex.

Look Chris, I am really getting tired of this twisting and dancing. The issue of non-consensual sex as far as children are concerned is ruled out because children are not capable of giving valid consent by default. YOU CAN'T HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH A CHILD!. If you drug an adult (someone who would otherwise be able to consent or refuse) and have carnal knowledge of them in that state, then that is non-consensual sex.

AntiChris said: Are you saying that children should be coerced into sex with adults because it really is "best for them" or are you saying that they should be coerced merely because we can (obedience, trust etc)and because some adults want to?

No and I am getting tired of seeing my meaning twisted.

AntiChris said: By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child. Do you see any problems here?

I see a lot of problems in how you are reading and twisting what I wrote.

AntiChris said: <quotes that contradict what he is saying>
Assuming penetration occurred, it would, in most cases, be rape. Once again from Michael's link:

The links do not support what you are saying. Please read them again.

Well, I'll have to admit defeat. I really have no idea what it is you're trying to say.

Chris

09-24-2002, 04:57 AM	#331
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Helen Ok, I agree...it was too ad hominem - I'm sorry. Yeah, I did not take that very well actually, but apology accepted. Helen: What do you want me to say apart from "that's not at all representative of Western Counseling"? Do I need stats to show how few counselors rely heavily on Freud's theories, these days? Do I need quotes from respected people to show that virtually everyone except a few quacks recognize the dangers of 'recovered memory' techniques? I did not say they rely on Freuds theories. Please reread my post. And I don't need to tell you what to do to refute what I said. Decide on how you will do it. Just remember, its not enough to claim "Oh, that's not at all representative of Western Counseling". You have to demonstrate it, don't just claim it because we won't take you for your word. Unless of course you are convinced I am ignorant about the matter and you are the authority. And that would indeed be very unfortunate. Helen: BUT, to non-believers, morality is by consensus is it not? No and irrelevant. I don't really care how non-beleivers make their morality. That is not what this thread is about. And I don't appreciate red herrings. Helen: So, what else do you have but 'the majority thinks...' We have reason. I doubt that most non-beleivers base their morality on herd-mentality as you seem to think. Helen :Tell me if there is some 'objective standard of rightness' out there that nonbelievers believe in - as it were. I didn't think there was which means we only have the collective wisdom of the group. Explain clearly what you mean by 'objective standard of rightness' please. And what its based on. Helen: We are right to be wary of minority opinions even though numbers don't make something right, per se. Why are you "right to be wary of minority opinions even though numbers don't make something right, per se"? What is the rationale for this self-justification? Helen :I'm not making you look like a misfit. I'm simply noticing that most people here aren't agreeing with what you say. Helen, do you beleive that the fact that most people here aren't agreeing with me is a relevant observation and a useful contribution on your part? And do you beleive that I need you to point that out for me? How helpful is that observation to this discussion? This is not an opinion poll and I, like many here, don't get swayed by numbers. Please. I am convinced that argumentum ad numerum has no place here. Each argument must be examined on its own merit. Helen: Admittedly I took a risk on what she's thinking. If I was wrong I will apologize. So you think its okay if turns out to be a hit and not a miss? And if its a miss you will apologise? Why did you feel compelled to take that risk of reading her mind? Do you think its acceptable to resort to mind-reading while engaged in a discussion with someone? Don't you agree that it would have been more correct for you to let her speak for herself? As to what she said later: brighid said :...I cannot see a clear distinction between use and exploit, except perhaps exploit is more insidieous This clearly means, at the time she wrote, she was not acutely aware of the distinction between the two words and moreso, the words she used indicated no effort to differentiate the two words. But she was graceful enough to say you were right about what she meant. I would suggest that we argue based on what people write, not what we think they meant. Its a shoddy and underhanded debating practice that you should discarded irrespective of whether you make more hits than misses. Helen: Thanks for your comments, Intensity. Thanks to you too Helen. [ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

09-24-2002, 05:10 AM	#332
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Intensity I don't have time to prove what I said by finding evidence about Western Counseling so all I will do is suggest you read about it, because it seems to me that you do not have an accurate picture of it. Regarding all the comments about majority opinions: by definition, the majority is going to get their way, when one decides by consensus. Either that or you grant one person some 'divine' right to have his/her way. Based on a belief that that person 'knows best' or 'has inside information' on some 'objective standard'. Since nonbelievers reject the latter - don't they? - they are left with deciding by consensus as their own reasonable way of making community decisions. And so, the majority will always win. How does someone with a minority viewpoint get their way? Only by persuading others to change their minds until that view becomes the new majority viewpoint. So - the majority will always win. Except where you give up democracy because you believe that certain people know best. take care Helen [ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

09-24-2002, 06:13 AM	#334
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	<a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/whats_happening/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-46.pdf" target="_blank">Scottish Parliament legal definition of rape research document</a> This appears to support, at least in Scotland, Intensity's position that force or the threat thereof is needed for rape - otherwise it is indecent assault. The tone of recent messages seems to be getting a bit heated - everyone back to your corners for recitation of a brief calming mantra, and prepare to come out with a more placid demeanor when the bell rings. cheers, Michael MF&P Moderator, First Class [ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

09-24-2002, 07:41 AM	#336
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	The Other Michael This appears to support, at least in Scotland, Intensity's position that force or the threat thereof is needed for rape - otherwise it is indecent assault. Thank you The Other Michael The tone of recent messages seems to be getting a bit heated - everyone back to your corners for recitation of a brief calming mantra, and prepare to come out with a more placid demeanor when the bell rings. Okay sir, <intensity assumes the lotus position, takes a deep breath and closes his eyes, the tip of his manicured index finger touches his thumb as he gracefully raises up his head and a peaceful mantra evocative of a peaceful spring escapes his luscious lips > <the hackles on his back lower down and heat escapes from his powerful body. The neurons in his brain stop firing and his mind assumes a peaceful stasis> <after a while, he opens his eyes and looks peacefully at Helen and others> Helen, its okay, I have forgiven you. Please forgive my earlier abrasive stance. I am feeling so calm, so peaceful perhaps I should change my moniker immediately to placid equanimity (would that be the opposite of intensity?). [ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2002, 05:58 AM	#333
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Helen, I would suggest if you cannot respond directly to questions that your contributions elicit in a thread (for whatever reason), you desist from participating in such a thread because you have ended up only distracting me and wasting my time because I was very keen on your contributions and I treated them seriuosly. Its really disheartening of you to make bold claims that you are not prepared to back up. Its plainly an act gratuitous grandstanding and empty posturing when you back out when put to task and lamely refer me to read more to shore support for your own claims. It appears you just wanted some attention and weren't genuinely interested in serious discourse. This thread is not about who will win. It's about who can demonstrate logically that they hold a (more) logical position. So you have missed the whole objective of 14 pages. I find it apallingly patronizing that you find it appropriate to tell me what I should go and read and I resent the hell out of that.

09-24-2002, 08:14 AM	#339
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	<really irritated his newly acquired peace gone> AntiChris said: I see. The ability of a child to give informed consent is irrelevant because we're really talking about non-consensual sex. Look Chris, I am really getting tired of this twisting and dancing. The issue of non-consensual sex as far as children are concerned is ruled out because children are not capable of giving valid consent by default. YOU CAN'T HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH A CHILD!. If you drug an adult (someone who would otherwise be able to consent or refuse) and have carnal knowledge of them in that state, then that is non-consensual sex. AntiChris said: Are you saying that children should be coerced into sex with adults because it really is "best for them" or are you saying that they should be coerced merely because we can (obedience, trust etc)and because some adults want to? No and I am getting tired of seeing my meaning twisted. AntiChris said: By transferring consent from the child to the adult you'd be effectively removing the protection of from rape laws from the child. Do you see any problems here? I see a lot of problems in how you are reading and twisting what I wrote. AntiChris said: <quotes that contradict what he is saying> Assuming penetration occurred, it would, in most cases, be rape. Once again from Michael's link: The links do not support what you are saying. Please read them again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.