Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calzaer · 07-15-2003, 03:04 PM

Or maybe because you refuse to answer any questions except Socratically, refuse to explain your reasoning, refuse to listen to anyone else, and say every single attempt we've made to summarize your argument into something a sane person outside of your own head would understand is incorrect (without ever actually elaborating on why).

Last try:
DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA?

Fr.Andrew · 07-15-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I haven't read through the study linked to by Fr. Andrew, but I'm curious about what their definitions of "children" and "intergenerational sex" are. Do they include 16-year-olds who had sex with 19-year-olds? If so I think that would skew the results. Usually when we think of child molestation we think of younger, more vulnerable children being raped (even if the child does not actively resist) by an older, physically more powerful adult. I'm sure there are plenty of cases of 19-year-olds raping 16-year-olds, but they would count for proportionally less of the "intergenerational sex" for that age group, thus a lower percentage of respondants reporting negative consequences

Speaking as a homosexual rights advocate, I don't have a study to reference, and I'm not going to guess at percentages, but I feel pretty confident that almost all of child victims of rape and sexual molestation (as opposed to consensual statutory rape between teengars) suffer harm.

There, a homosexual rights advocate distanced himself from the content of Fr. Andrew's post. Satisfied, yguy?

(Fr Andrew): I'm comfortable with your "almost all". That's pretty much what I said, so you haven't really distanced yourself from me.
There is evidence to suggest (in the study I posted) that not all sexual contact between adults and children is abusive...contrary to conventional wisdom.
That was the substance of the remarks I made that has caused yguy to get his knickers in such a twist.

HelenM · 07-15-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
get his knickers in such a twist.

(which is such a superior expression to get his panties in a wad - imo)

yguy · 07-15-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): I'm comfortable with your "almost all". That's pretty much what I said, so you haven't really distanced yourself from me.
There is evidence to suggest (in the study I posted) that not all sexual contact between adults and children is abusive...contrary to conventional wisdom.
That was the substance of the remarks I made that has caused yguy to get his knickers in such a twist.

The problem, of course, is that Dave said that almost all such incidents cause harm, not that almost all are abusive. I have never taken a position as to whether all CSA causes harm, if memory serves.

Also, I see that indeed you answered my question in the other thread. No answer the followup, if you would be so kind.

Originally posted by Daleth
In what sort of case might sexual contact between an adult and a child not be molestation or abuse?

quote: Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): When there's no intent on the part of the adult to abuse or molest the child and the child doesn't experience abuse or molestation.

yguy: And just how would you suggest legal authorities draw such distinctions when children often don't raise objections about such incidents for years aftewards? If an adult and child are caught in the act, and the kid claims to have fully consented, why should he/she be believed, seeing how children can be manipulated or pressured into thinking they want things they actually don't, as anyone who was pressured as a child to "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" can attest?

Daleth · 07-15-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
(which is such a superior expression to get his panties in a wad - imo)

I love you, Helen.

(Was that too personal?)

Fr.Andrew · 07-15-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
No answer the followup, if you would be so kind.

(Fr Andrew): You're joking here, right? I have no intention of engaging you in dialogue. You make me naseaus.

Fr.Andrew · 07-15-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
(which is such a superior expression to get his panties in a wad - imo)

(Fr Andrew):

Bree · 07-15-2003, 05:49 PM

Beginning a thread with the sole intention of drawing someone out is one thing. Beginning a thread with the sole intention of drawing someone out and then proceeding to be an <deleted by moderator> throughout (by protesting that this is NOT what I intended, dammit!) is entirely another.

HelenM · 07-15-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth
I love you, Helen.

Quote:

(Was that too personal?)

I like 'personal'

yguy · 07-15-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
You make me naseaus.

Gee, thanks.

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

07-15-2003, 03:04 PM	#151
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Or maybe because you refuse to answer any questions except Socratically, refuse to explain your reasoning, refuse to listen to anyone else, and say every single attempt we've made to summarize your argument into something a sane person outside of your own head would understand is incorrect (without ever actually elaborating on why). Last try: DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA?

07-15-2003, 05:49 PM	#158
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	Beginning a thread with the sole intention of drawing someone out is one thing. Beginning a thread with the sole intention of drawing someone out and then proceeding to be an <deleted by moderator> throughout (by protesting that this is NOT what I intended, dammit!) is entirely another.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.