NationStates Jolt Archive

Nervun

I will come back to post 305 in a day or two as it is a lot to cover.

Thanks for the copy paste of the information you find relevant.

As I said going over the pages a responding to them will take some time.

I will offer you this for the time being and I will devote more time to this over the week end.

I was just about to save the whole article when the forum went down. I hope you Nervun can find it again. Sorry about that. Pluss I have not finished reading it.

I do intend to devote more time to the article over the week end even though right now I am only taking the time to show you why the article should be discarded under the all inclusive dismissive principle. The all inclusive dismissive principle is this. When a source demonstrates itself to be unreliable through gross error in facts, heavy bias, unsubstantiated claims, or pure absurdity or any combination in the list said source should not be used as a resource at all. The reason the all inclusive dismissive principle is used is in order to reduce time spent investigating the claims made in an unreliable source. Their may be truth in the source dismissed under the all inclusive dismissive principle but it isn't worth the time or effort involved when it come to the dismissed resource.

Rind critic
Moreover, harm does not require that the victim perceive the experience negatively. For example, the possibility that a child might learn from an abuser that such experiences are normal and positive is one of the most concerning possible outcomes of CSA.

I'd like to mark this statement as a defining statement. This is as ( insert expletive here ) stupid as the Sigmund Freud claim that the more some one denies their desire to kill their mother to get to their father the more mentally ill they are. We are talking ( insert expletive here ) stupid. Who ever wrote and this and or took part in writing it is a ( insert expletive here ) idiot not a scholar.

Rind critic
However, small effect sizes can reflect very important effects for many people and impact large numbers of people if a phenomenon is relatively common, as CSA appears to be. From a public health perspective, even minuscule effects can have huge personal and societal costs when one extrapolates to a societal level.

The societal harm idea is speculative. The Rind study was about personal effects not societal effects. If you want a good study societal effects try BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE By James W. Prescott which isn't speculative and is far more intelligent than the crap these ( insert expletive here ) retards put out. I didn't include this as a reason to dismiss the whole critic but I felt like commenting on it this time.

Rind critic
They did not address alternative explanations for why college males might report childhood sexual experiences in positive terms (e.g., male socialization leading to an unwillingness to admit to being victimized, difficulty making negative attributions regarding an otherwise positive person,
successful indoctrination by the abuser or that positive reactions in that group are associated with older age at the time of the abuse (Doll et al., 1992).

This is the second violation. in the critic. I underlined "successful indoctrination by the abuser" for you.

Rind critic
Such a presentation appears to represent, at its core, an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA. For instance, their emphasis on adults' recollections and perceptions of whether CSA was wanted implies that perhaps children and adolescents can make informed decisions about having sex with an adult.

There is no reason why science shouldn't challenge current societal understanding. As a matter of fact it should. This is a third reason why this critic should be dismissed as a whole. Also there was no suggestion as to the ability of the child to make informed decisions in the Rind study. The study simply addressed how the adults asked felt about it now. Fourth reason to dismiss this entire article as a whole.

Rind critic
A second possible criticism is that many nonsexual acts involving children (e.g., riding a roller coaster, being thrown in a pool) could be considered mildly abusive if unwanted and damaging, and benign if wanted and harmless. Thus, critics may argue, why is it that sexual activity with an adult cannot be held to the same standard? Ultimately, no amount of explaining why the vast majority of persons see sexual acts between adults and children as qualitatively different from other activities that children and adults engage in may ever be convincing to those holding the minority view.

I hold said minority view. Also not added to the justifications of dismissing the the critic in it's entirety although the appeal to majority is at odds with good logic it isn't so at odds as to warrant an all inclusive dismissive.

Rind critic
Further, the use of value-neutral terminology may only be feasible when there is little risk that certain individuals might infer that widely condemned behaviors are acceptable.

This is the fifth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
This is particularly true when a small but vigorous minority is actively seeking to justify illegal acts that contradict consensual public morality.

This is the sixth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse.

This is the seventh reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors. Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification).

This is the eighth reason to dismiss the entire article as a whole.

Like I said I'll get back to this.

Nervun

As I said going over the pages a responding to them will take some time.
That's fine. Shall we dance once again?

I was just about to save the whole article when the forum went down. I hope you Nervun can find it again. Sorry about that. Pluss I have not finished reading it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10539984&postcount=305
The search function ladies and gentlemen, don't leave home without it.

I do intend to devote more time to the article over the week end even though right now I am only taking the time to show you why the article should be discarded under the all inclusive dismissive principle. The all inclusive dismissive principle is this. When a source demonstrates itself to be unreliable through gross error in facts, heavy bias, unsubstantiated claims, or pure absurdity or any combination in the list said source should not be used as a resource at all. The reason the all inclusive dismissive principle is used is in order to reduce time spent investigating the claims made in an unreliable source. Their may be truth in the source dismissed under the all inclusive dismissive principle but it isn't worth the time or effort involved when it come to the dismissed resource.
This is harder to say, after all, even Rind et all's critics conced that there are some important questions raised by the study that deserves more research. But we'll stay in this area for right now.

Rind critic
Moreover, harm does not require that the victim perceive the experience negatively. For example, the possibility that a child might learn from an abuser that such experiences are normal and positive is one of the most concerning possible outcomes of CSA.

I'd like to mark this statement as a defining statement. This is as ( insert expletive here ) stupid as the Sigmund Freud claim that the more some one denies their desire to kill their mother to get to their father the more mentally ill they are. We are talking ( insert expletive here ) stupid. Who ever wrote and this and or took part in writing it is a ( insert expletive here ) idiot not a scholar.
Well, one, the authorS are indeed scholars. Look at heir credidentals. Two, yes, this can be a consern. In looking at adult abusive relationships, one of the questions is why doesn't the victim just leave? She (or he) is an adult, they can go whererver they want to as well as call police. However, interviews with abused and battered women, hell, even some rape victims, have shown that in many cases, the abused seems to think that they either deserved or wanted it. They were conditioned to feel that it was their fault. Now, looking at children who at a young age are set up mentally to follow adults, believe and trust in them, this is a very serious consern. Children who were abused when asked why they didn't tell someone often times provide reasonings that they thought they deserved it.

Sorry, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not an issue.

Rind critic
However, small effect sizes can reflect very important effects for many people and impact large numbers of people if a phenomenon is relatively common, as CSA appears to be. From a public health perspective, even minuscule effects can have huge personal and societal costs when one extrapolates to a societal level.

The societal harm idea is speculative. The Rind study was about personal effects not societal effects. If you want a good study societal effects try BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE By James W. Prescott which isn't speculative and is far more intelligent than the crap these ( insert expletive here ) retards put out. I didn't include this as a reason to dismiss the whole critic but I felt like commenting on it this time.
Rind may not have looked at socialital effects, but that was the point of this part of the paper. Science does not operate in a vaccum and, regardless of the orginal intent of the author(s), it is being used to justify a socialital issue.

Rind critic
They did not address alternative explanations for why college males might report childhood sexual experiences in positive terms (e.g., male socialization leading to an unwillingness to admit to being victimized, difficulty making negative attributions regarding an otherwise positive person,
successful indoctrination by the abuser or that positive reactions in that group are associated with older age at the time of the abuse (Doll et al., 1992).

This is the second violation. in the critic. I underlined "successful indoctrination by the abuser" for you.
It was addressing the above point, you also missed out on the actual question that the authors bring up, namely why is it that boys report the sexual experiance more positivly than girls? The current priest abuse scandal has some very broad applications here as well.

Rind critic
Such a presentation appears to represent, at its core, an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA. For instance, their emphasis on adults' recollections and perceptions of whether CSA was wanted implies that perhaps children and adolescents can make informed decisions about having sex with an adult.

There is no reason why science shouldn't challenge current societal understanding. As a matter of fact it should. This is a third reason why this critic should be dismissed as a whole.
The part at the end states that actually science cannot do so, nor should it do so. Society decides upon its own morals, science investigates facts.

Also there was no suggestion as to the ability of the child to make informed decisions in the Rind study. The study simply addressed how the adults asked felt about it now. Fourth reason to dismiss this entire article as a whole.
The problem being that the Rind study has been used by pedos like you to state that children can indeed consent to sex and enjoy it. This is why the authors are taking Rind et all to task, they have stated something that they never studied. Rind actually conceeded that his paper did indeed make a stong link that should not have been there.

Rind critic
A second possible criticism is that many nonsexual acts involving children (e.g., riding a roller coaster, being thrown in a pool) could be considered mildly abusive if unwanted and damaging, and benign if wanted and harmless. Thus, critics may argue, why is it that sexual activity with an adult cannot be held to the same standard? Ultimately, no amount of explaining why the vast majority of persons see sexual acts between adults and children as qualitatively different from other activities that children and adults engage in may ever be convincing to those holding the minority view.

I hold said minority view. Also not added to the justifications of dismissing the the critic in it's entirety although the appeal to majority is at odds with good logic it isn't so at odds as to warrant an all inclusive dismissive.
No, it brings up a valid point that again, society makes its own rules regarding moral behavore. Science cannot change that.

Rind critic
Further, the use of value-neutral terminology may only be feasible when there is little risk that certain individuals might infer that widely condemned behaviors are acceptable.

This is the fifth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
This is particularly true when a small but vigorous minority is actively seeking to justify illegal acts that contradict consensual public morality.

This is the sixth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse.

This is the seventh reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Rind critic
This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors. Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification).

This is the eighth reason to dismiss the entire article as a whole.
Translation: I don't like what is being said so I won't accept it, even though I have no way to actually show said bias or what is wrong with the article.

Like I said I'll get back to this.
I'll be waiting. I also would like to ask you if you reject this article because of preseved bias how you ask me to accept Rind as is with its biases?

What, you want a scientific report saying "Go ahead, it's okay to molest children"? And I thought NAMBLA was a public nuisance.

Oh well, at least you'll get a better appreciation of Naked Teri Hatcher photos now like everyone else now.

Nervun

Key
My prior post is in Italics
Nervun's responces are in bold
My new replies are plain.
The critic is bold and italic.



As I said going over the pages a responding to them will take some time.

That's fine. Shall we dance once again?

I was just about to save the whole article when the forum went down. I hope you Nervun can find it again. Sorry about that. Pluss I have not finished reading it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=305
The search function ladies and gentlemen, don't leave home without it.

I do intend to devote more time to the article over the week end even though right now I am only taking the time to show you why the article should be discarded under the all inclusive dismissive principle. The all inclusive dismissive principle is this. When a source demonstrates itself to be unreliable through gross error in facts, heavy bias, unsubstantiated claims, or pure absurdity or any combination in the list said source should not be used as a resource at all. The reason the all inclusive dismissive principle is used is in order to reduce time spent investigating the claims made in an unreliable source. Their may be truth in the source dismissed under the all inclusive dismissive principle but it isn't worth the time or effort involved when it come to the dismissed resource.

This is harder to say, after all, even Rind et all's critics conced that there are some important questions raised by the study that deserves more research. But we'll stay in this area for right now.

I doubt it. But I don't plan on arguing it.

Moreover, harm does not require that the victim perceive the experience negatively. For example, the possibility that a child might learn from an abuser that such experiences are normal and positive is one of the most concerning possible outcomes of CSA.


I'd like to mark this statement as a defining statement. This is as ( insert expletive here ) stupid as the Sigmund Freud claim that the more some one denies their desire to kill their mother to get to their father the more mentally ill they are. We are talking ( insert expletive here ) stupid. Who ever wrote and this and or took part in writing it is a ( insert expletive here ) idiot not a scholar.

Well, one, the authors are indeed scholars. Look at her credidentals. Two, yes, this can be a consern. In looking at adult abusive relationships, one of the questions is why doesn't the victim just leave? She (or he) is an adult, they can go whererver they want to as well as call police. However, interviews with abused and battered women, hell, even some rape victims, have shown that in many cases, the abused seems to think that they either deserved or wanted it. They were conditioned to feel that it was their fault. Now, looking at children who at a young age are set up mentally to follow adults, believe and trust in them, this is a very serious consern. Children who were abused when asked why they didn't tell someone often times provide reasonings that they thought they deserved it.

Sorry, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not an issue.

I don't think this addresses the point. Just as in the Frued example if the supposed victom claims claims abuse it is abuse. If the supposed victom claims it wasn't abuse it's still abuse. What the author set up here is a heads I win tails you lose situation. To me it looks quite obvios. I am unaware as to how you missed it.

However, small effect sizes can reflect very important effects for many people and impact large numbers of people if a phenomenon is relatively common, as CSA appears to be. From a public health perspective, even minuscule effects can have huge personal and societal costs when one extrapolates to a societal level.

The societal harm idea is speculative. The Rind study was about personal effects not societal effects. If you want a good study societal effects try BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE By James W. Prescott which isn't speculative and is far more intelligent than the crap these ( insert expletive here ) retards put out. I didn't include this as a reason to dismiss the whole critic but I felt like commenting on it this time.

Rind may not have looked at socialital effects, but that was the point of this part of the paper. Science does not operate in a vaccum and, regardless of the orginal intent of the author(s), it is being used to justify a socialital issue.

Science may not operate in a vaccum but science should be pursued with disregard to societal reactions. Science should look for truth not for what pleases the public. Why not use science to justify a societal issue? It works much better than speculation, superstition, and tyrrany of the majority.

They did not address alternative explanations for why college males might report childhood sexual experiences in positive terms (e.g., male socialization leading to an unwillingness to admit to being victimized, difficulty making negative attributions regarding an otherwise positive person,
successful indoctrination by the abuser or that positive reactions in that group are associated with older age at the time of the abuse (Doll et al., 1992).

This is the second violation. in the critic. I underlined "successful indoctrination by the abuser" for you.

It was addressing the above point, you also missed out on the actual question that the authors bring up, namely why is it that boys report the sexual experiance more positivly than girls? The current priest abuse scandal has some very broad applications here as well.

"Successful indoctrination by the abuser" is another heads I win tails you lose scenerio. If a person claims abuse they where abused. If the person claims they where not abused they where abused.


Such a presentation appears to represent, at its core, an attempt to erode current societal views regarding CSA. For instance, their emphasis on adults' recollections and perceptions of whether CSA was wanted implies that perhaps children and adolescents can make informed decisions about having sex with an adult.

There is no reason why science shouldn't challenge current societal understanding. As a matter of fact it should. This is a third reason why this critic should be dismissed as a whole.

The part at the end states that actually science cannot do so, nor should it do so. Society decides upon its own morals, science investigates facts.

Yes science investigates facts but facts can and should be used when implimenting public policy. Facts work a whole lot better in public policy than speculation, superstition, and tyrany of the majority. Society may come up with it's own morals but these morals expecially when they are dependant on religious and not secular ideology should not make for public policy.

Also there was no suggestion as to the ability of the child to make informed decisions in the Rind study. The study simply addressed how the adults asked felt about it now. Fourth reason to dismiss this entire article as a whole.

The problem being that the Rind study has been used by pedos like you to state that children can indeed consent to sex and enjoy it. This is why the authors are taking Rind et all to task, they have stated something that they never studied. Rind actually conceeded that his paper did indeed make a stong link that should not have been there.

The problem being that I never suggested as such. I do not believe that sex needs a special informed consent any more than an adult joining a child in playing video games watching tv or playing in a sand box. I think the uather here is being very dishonest current law is not based on the consept of consent. Current law is based on the consept of long term intense psycological truama not consent. Many respondents in the study did say that yes indeed they did enjoy it. Matter of fact it is recognised by a few observant individuals that children do enjoy it although they claim there is intense long term truama after the enjoyed act. As to Rind conceeding anything his study sparked a unpresedented witch hunt. I'm amazed he didn't conseed that he never should have earned a degree or that he cheated his way through colege.

A second possible criticism is that many nonsexual acts involving children (e.g., riding a roller coaster, being thrown in a pool) could be considered mildly abusive if unwanted and damaging, and benign if wanted and harmless. Thus, critics may argue, why is it that sexual activity with an adult cannot be held to the same standard? Ultimately, no amount of explaining why the vast majority of persons see sexual acts between adults and children as qualitatively different from other activities that children and adults engage in may ever be convincing to those holding the minority view.

I hold said minority view. Also not added to the justifications of dismissing the the critic in it's entirety although the appeal to majority is at odds with good logic it isn't so at odds as to warrant an all inclusive dismissive.

No, it brings up a valid point that again, society makes its own rules regarding moral behavore. Science cannot change that.

Nor should science try to. Again science is there to discover the facts not to tell the public what they want to hear.

Further, the use of value-neutral terminology may only be feasible when there is little risk that certain individuals might infer that widely condemned behaviors are acceptable.

This is the fifth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Why should science cater to public morals? Science is there to discover the truth and it is rather challenging to do so using loaded terms.

This is particularly true when a small but vigorous minority is actively seeking to justify illegal acts that contradict consensual public morality.

This is the sixth reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Justify illegal acts? The reason the acts are illegal is becuase a law was made against them. Hello. What NAMBLA was trying to do was use a study a very good study in the field of psychology ( which is a rareity considering how many studies in psychology use piss poor methodology ) to try to change legislation to reflect the facts. Again society does not I repeat does not support age of conscent laws based on a belief in informed consent or even true consent but rather on the intence long lasting harm proposed to exist after every adult child sexual interaction. This is yet again another point of dishonesty when it comes to the author.

For example, the effect on society at large, and especially its fringe elements, could be immediate if science and respected scientific societies were to define only unwanted sexual acts as abuse.

This is the seventh reason to abandon this critic as a whole.

Why should science be conscerned with how it's newly discovered facts are used? The goal of science is to advance understanding not to tell the public the earth is flat, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is 6000 years old, god made people out of clay, or anything else the public wants to hear.

This, in fact, appears to be exactly what has happened; NAMBLA and other pedophilia advocates continue to trumpet the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis as supportive of their views and as a rationalization for engaging in sex with minors. Rind et al.'s suggestion thus overlooks the possibility that classifying an exploitive act in neutral terms also obscures much of that behavior's true nature because of the values such terms omit (e.g., that children cannot consent to sex or that it is wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification).

This is the eighth reason to dismiss the entire article as a whole.

I've staed in my other justifications why this paragraph is at odds with good logic. Scientist should not be conscerned with how their information is used only in how well thier methodology is and how close to acurate thier findings are. Science should not tell the public what it wants to hear. Value neutral terms are good for science. Loading terms in science has the same problems as loaded terms do in reguler conversation. Loaded terms cload the issues and make discourse in the subject challenging or near impossable. Also I never suggested that children have the experience to give informed consent to sex. My argument is more along the lines of their is no special kind of consent needed.


Translation: I don't like what is being said so I won't accept it, even though I have no way to actually show said bias or what is wrong with the article.

Translation I guess I need to spell things out for you instead of expecting you to get where I'm coming from.


Like I said I'll get back to this.

I'll be waiting.

I also would like to ask you if you reject this article because of preseved bias how you ask me to accept Rind as is with its biases?

I know the Rind report was biased by one individual but I also know there where two others involved to balance it out. Secondly I know the study was accepted in a peer reviewed jounal before the witch hunt against it broke out.

I'm still left with two heads I win tails you lose situations made by the auther of the critic.

There are a few errors in this post spelling, grammer. typos, etc. that I will get around to correcting later.

What, you want a scientific report saying "Go ahead, it's okay to molest children"? And I thought NAMBLA was a public nuisance.

Oh well, at least you'll get a better appreciation of Naked Teri Hatcher photos now like everyone else now.

Molest is a loaded term. I prefer truth always that is why I'm an atheist not a Christian. I doubt you consider NAMBLA a public nuisancse but rather a perverted Legion of Doom.

I already enjoy movies with child accident moments like, Omen 4, The Reflecting Skin, Big Daddy, Alex in Wonderland, Lawn Dogs, Crooklyn. Daniel etc.

I like the Tom and Lola movie also.

I can't help thinking this is all going to turn into -- what's that word Nervun used? -- just another dance. A merry dance.

To add to a claim I made earlier. The intire mental health profession still behaves as if the Rind study never happened. The mental health profession simply wishes the Rind study would go away. None of the discoveries in Rind study have been incorperated into the mental health profession. Every child brought to a shrink for treatment of sexual interaction with an adult is treated as if the they are holding back the tears from the most truamatic and stressful life event the child could have ever endured.

That is why I say psychology is loaded with superstition both in theory and in practice. I could give other examples as well where the shrinks are delusional and act as if something which isn't there is.

Molest is a loaded term. I prefer truth always that is why I'm an atheist not a Christian.

On behalf of other athiests, may I quote George Carlin here, in regards to DSN being an athiest:

"This man does not represent us."

And I don't mean that he's trying to speak on all our behalves, because I don't think he's trying to do that.

Just want to make it clear that many people believe that a purely secular "truth" can still make a reasonable rejection of child molestation (which is loaded but accurate).

Could you PLEASE start using quote tags? It makes you post so much easier to read.

I don't think this addresses the point. Just as in the Frued example if the supposed victom claims claims abuse it is abuse. If the supposed victom claims it wasn't abuse it's still abuse. What the author set up here is a heads I win tails you lose situation. To me it looks quite obvios. I am unaware as to how you missed it.
Actually it does. It is not so much a heads you win, tail you lose as it is looking at the actual effects of the event upon the person, whether or not that person thinks it did any damage. Smokers and heavy drinkers think that their habits are fine, however it has been shown that smoking and heavy drinking damages the body, no matter what the smoker or drinker may think. And again, victims of abuse react in ways that seem to be completely at odds of how a "normal" person would react; attempting to shield their attacker, attempting to state that they were the ones who brought the abuse on to them, attempting to state that it was normal.

There have been a lot of papers on this topic and is a valid criticism of Rind.

Science may not operate in a vaccum but science should be pursued with disregard to societal reactions. Science should look for truth not for what pleases the public. Why not use science to justify a societal issue? It works much better than speculation, superstition, and tyrrany of the majority.
Ok, science should be free to pursue what it wants, which is the reason why the academic community was stunned at the actions of Congress against Rind. However, science is supposed to be neutral, it cannot make recommendations on social issues, which is what Rind attempted to do. Using a paper for advocacy is bias, and something the community rightly comes down on. Science provides the trends, we as society makes the decision.

For example, gong back to smoking. Science showed that smoking is not healthy, but it never stated that therefore everyone should stop smoking. Society made that determination.

"Successful indoctrination by the abuser" is another heads I win tails you lose scenerio. If a person claims abuse they where abused. If the person claims they where not abused they where abused.
Look up the term brainwashing, it may enlighten you.

Yes science investigates facts but facts can and should be used when implimenting public policy. Facts work a whole lot better in public policy than speculation, superstition, and tyrany of the majority. Society may come up with it's own morals but these morals expecially when they are dependant on religious and not secular ideology should not make for public policy.
See above, I am not going to answer it again.

The problem being that I never suggested as such. I do not believe that sex needs a special informed consent any more than an adult joining a child in playing video games watching tv or playing in a sand box. I think the uather here is being very dishonest current law is not based on the consept of consent.
Then by your arguments, children should also be allowed to enter freely into contracts, take out loans, sign away their lives into slavery, promise their first born or anything else because it's ok if a child cannot understand the consequences of their actions and cannot give informed consent. A child is mentally incapable of giving informed consent the way an adult can. It's not that the child knows, it is that the child cannot think the way an adult can. No matter if you want them to, they cannot.

And yes, sex does in informed consent. That's why states have laws that say ADULTS cannot give consent to sex if under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally retarded. It doesn't matter if the adult doesn't think about what can happen, they CAN think about what might happen. An adult, who's stoned off his or her ass, or a child, cannot so consent.

Current law is based on the consept of long term intense psycological truama not consent. Many respondents in the study did say that yes indeed they did enjoy it. Matter of fact it is recognised by a few observant individuals that children do enjoy it although they claim there is intense long term truama after the enjoyed act.
Prove it.

As to Rind conceeding anything his study sparked a unpresedented witch hunt. I'm amazed he didn't conseed that he never should have earned a degree or that he cheated his way through colege.
Rind has been defending the science behind his Meta study, you again attempt to try and link the academic community with the religious backlash.

Why should science cater to public morals? Science is there to discover the truth and it is rather challenging to do so using loaded terms.
Yes, and Rind attempted to use loaded terms. He attempted to bring in commentary to his study.

Justify illegal acts? The reason the acts are illegal is becuase a law was made against them.
I should use that as a signature. It's just so damn funny. I'd love to see a court defense against this.

I'm sorry, your honor, I don't think that I am guilty of murder because the only reason it is illegal is because there's a law against it!
Congress will LOVE it.

Hello. What NAMBLA was trying to do was use a study a very good study in the field of psychology ( which is a rareity considering how many studies in psychology use piss poor methodology ) to try to change legislation to reflect the facts.
One, prove that the field of psychology uses piss poor methods, you've stated this again and again and I really do think that you do so mainly because they disagree with you and that you have no fricken clue about how they conduct their research.

And we're currently debating about how well Rind holds up.

Again society does not I repeat does not support age of conscent laws based on a belief in informed consent or even true consent but rather on the intence long lasting harm proposed to exist after every adult child sexual interaction. This is yet again another point of dishonesty when it comes to the author.
Prove it. I provide information when I respond to you, I grow tired of you not providing the same.

Why should science be conscerned with how it's newly discovered facts are used? The goal of science is to advance understanding not to tell the public the earth is flat, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is 6000 years old, god made people out of clay, or anything else the public wants to hear.
Again though, Rind didn't just give the facts and let society decide how to deal with them (which is what science is supposed to do) he attempted to advocate changes in societal values, which is what science isn't supposed to do.

I've staed in my other justifications why this paragraph is at odds with good logic. Scientist should not be conscerned with how their information is used only in how well thier methodology is and how close to acurate thier findings are. Science should not tell the public what it wants to hear. Value neutral terms are good for science. Loading terms in science has the same problems as loaded terms do in reguler conversation. Loaded terms cload the issues and make discourse in the subject challenging or near impossable.
Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, blue is blue; attempting to change the language to make it less than what it is not only is not science, but also dishonest. Rind fell into this trap by suggesting that society needed to change the language instead of conducting his "study" and letting society at large decide. I also challenge your version of neutral. Calling something bad a good name does not change what happened. Calling the Holocaust 'the final solution' does not change what occurred and how evil that was.

Also I never suggested that children have the experience to give informed consent to sex. My argument is more along the lines of their is no special kind of consent needed.
Oh, of course not. Forgive me, consent for sex is never needed. As a matter of fact, I think I'll just go out and rape someone right now as I need no special consent for the woman before I use her and possibly impregnate her.

Yup, don't need it at all. /sarcasm

Translation I guess I need to spell things out for you instead of expecting you to get where I'm coming from.
I dislike placing words into other peoples' mouths, especially when said people's usual defense is that others are projecting onto them. Assuming and all that.

Also, I am afraid that I have turned off my mind reading skills as I am surrounded by Japanese junior high school students. Not only do they think in Japanese, but I am really afraid of what they are thinking of in the first place. Please attempt to state what you mean the next time instead of my
l33t telepathy skillz.

I know the Rind report was biased by one individual but I also know there where two others involved to balance it out. Secondly I know the study was accepted in a peer reviewed jounal before the witch hunt against it broke out.
And the article I posted had 5, does that mean it is less biased? It was also posted in the same peer reviewed journal. Acceptance in a journal means that it passes a certain level of muster, not that it is completely correct. Once published, all ideas are open to attack and criticism, like here.

To add to a claim I made earlier. The intire mental health profession still behaves as if the Rind study never happened. The mental health profession simply wishes the Rind study would go away. None of the discoveries in Rind study have been incorperated into the mental health profession. Every child brought to a shrink for treatment of sexual interaction with an adult is treated as if the they are holding back the tears from the most truamatic and stressful life event the child could have ever endured.
You know, the more you respond, the more I get the feeling that you have never read Rind, and you have no idea what the "study" actually was and what it states. Rind was a Meta analysis, meaning he took older studies and attempted to mash them together to spot any trends. He did NOT conduct the study himself, he never actually did any of the studies; he did a glorified literature review. This means that the study raises some interesting issues, but has no real data to back up what it claims. There should be further study.

Also, as my stats professor liked to state, we NEVER change the world on just one study. Rind et. All is being debated, eventually someone will attempt to study what he stated and see if it was indeed true, and what the limitations are. So, no, it is very responsible that the psychology community at large has not changed due to just one study, especially as there are more studies that note the harm done to children by sexual contact with an adult.

That is why I say psychology is loaded with superstition both in theory and in practice. I could give other examples as well where the shrinks are delusional and act as if something which isn't there is.
Again, prove it. Prove your allegations or they are worth chalk blown in the wind.

On behalf of other athiests, may I quote George Carlin here, in regards to DSN being an athiest:

"This man does not represent us."

And I don't mean that he's trying to speak on all our behalves, because I don't think he's trying to do that.

Just want to make it clear that many people believe that a purely secular "truth" can still make a reasonable rejection of child molestation (which is loaded but accurate).
seconded, pedos should die

None of the discoveries in Rind study have been incorperated into the mental health profession.


I'm thinking there's a darn good reason for that...:rolleyes:

On behalf of other athiests, may I quote George Carlin here, in regards to DSN being an athiest:

"This man does not represent us."

And I don't mean that he's trying to speak on all our behalves, because I don't think he's trying to do that.

Just want to make it clear that many people believe that a purely secular "truth" can still make a reasonable rejection of child molestation (which is loaded but accurate).
SPECIALY thoes of us atheists that were molested by people (and in my case priest)

On behalf of other athiests, may I quote George Carlin here, in regards to DSN being an athiest:

"This man does not represent us."

And I don't mean that he's trying to speak on all our behalves, because I don't think he's trying to do that.

Just want to make it clear that many people believe that a purely secular "truth" can still make a reasonable rejection of child molestation (which is loaded but accurate).

I didn't suggest the idea that molest being a loaded term was an athiest point of view.

SPECIALY thoes of us atheists that were molested by people (and in my case priest)

Interesting upward thrust

Did you get a father touched me windfall? How did this father molestation thing work? Was the sex act a form of petence? Did the father engage in sexual acts with you than give you petence for particapating?

I was molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired.

I heard on a news program some one wanted to be compansated becuase a priest showed him the diaper he was wearing.

On the other extreem is forcable anal rape where the father convicts the victom of making him do an evil act. Where do you fall in.

Molest is a loaded term. I prefer truth always that is why I'm an atheist not a Christian.

I didn't suggest the idea that molest being a loaded term was an athiest point of view.

I guess it feels like you're implying that the reasoning that supports atheism would in any way support child molestation.

Those of us who are atheist and also are against the sexual touching of children want to make sure any such implication is countered.

I was molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired.


I'm sorry something like that happened to you. The adult had no right to touch you sexually.

I'm sorry something like that happened to you. The adult had no right to touch you sexually.
I believe that he is refering to UpwardThrust's experiances, i.e. he wants details.

Interesting upward thrust

Did you get a father touched me windfall? How did this father molestation thing work? Was the sex act a form of petence? Did the father engage in sexual acts with you than give you petence for particapating?

I was molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired.

I heard on a news program some one wanted to be compansated becuase a priest showed him the diaper he was wearing.

On the other extreem is forcable anal rape where the father convicts the victom of making him do an evil act. Where do you fall in.
I fell in on being his "special alterboy" I was the one that got paid to do funerals and wedings on the side ... of course we would always spend some quality time playing games (he was a fan of pigs ... where you roll the pigs and get points I dont remember the name)

The three times I remember are in his office in his rectory ... in the church and in his car when he decided to "reward" me by taking me flying in his plane (he was the member of a flying club)

The three two friends he molested besides me were Danny and Tony (I will keep their last names out of it ... I dont know if they have released their info)

His molestation involved stroking me and using his mouth on me as well as me him

The molestation occured from the 4th to 6th grade when he was moved from our church (which also had an elementery school) to a "less demanding" service

http://employees.csbsju.edu/tgillespie/

That is his home page ... if you knotice in his airplane pictures its got him on a lake
The SICK fucker keep the picture of him AT MY PARENTS HOUSE (on that lake ... was taken in my back yard) on his website.

Here is the story about when they discovered his molestation in the 70's
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/10_horwichj_stjoes-m/

We were under a gag order until last year

They apparently moved other pedofiles through that pairsh as well

On a side note he taught my 4th grade sex ed class

I believe that he is refering to UpwardThrust's experiances, i.e. he wants details.

Really? My bad. It honestly looks like the 3rd sentence in that post was referring to DSN's own experiences, but I could be wrong.

Well, it sucks that it happened to UT.

Interesting upward thrust

Did you get a father touched me windfall? How did this father molestation thing work? Was the sex act a form of petence? Did the father engage in sexual acts with you than give you petence for particapating?

I was molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired.

I heard on a news program some one wanted to be compansated becuase a priest showed him the diaper he was wearing.

On the other extreem is forcable anal rape where the father convicts the victom of making him do an evil act. Where do you fall in.
AS for the windfall

I recived no funding

In fact it was only this year that they managed to cover my therapy bills

My parents had to take out of their retirement fund to cover what I needed

I'm sorry something like that happened to you. The adult had no right to touch you sexually.

Not me him

When some one uses the term I was molested they are not telling much. peoples difinitions of molested are different and there are many things that could happen that would be defined by the same word. When I sais molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired I meant that the person making them claim wasn't telling much and left a lot of questions unanswered.

If I was "molested" by a priest in most of the usual unforced ways I wouldn't care. I would care however if I was presured into it or physicaly forced.

Really? My bad. It honestly looks like the 3rd sentence in that post was referring to DSN's own experiences, but I could be wrong.

Well, it sucks that it happened to UT.
Yeah Oh well such is life ... But thats why I have been holding back (I am sorry if I sound angry all I dont have work tomarrow (this is my first day off in 6 months) so I am a bit drunk) my spelling is probably horrible as well

Not me him

When some one uses the term I was molested they are not telling much. peoples difinitions of molested are different and there are many things that could happen that would be defined by the same word. When I sais molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired I meant that the person making them claim wasn't telling much and left a lot of questions unanswered.

If I was "molested" by a priest in most of the usual unforced ways I wouldn't care. I would care however if I was presured into it or physicaly forced.
He told me I was going to hell ... he also grabbed my hand and forced it down his pants the first time ... the second time he threatened to kick my parents out of the parish as well as expose me to the school

Not me him

When some one uses the term I was molested they are not telling much. peoples difinitions of molested are different and there are many things that could happen that would be defined by the same word. When I sais molested by a priest leaves a lot to be disired I meant that the person making them claim wasn't telling much and left a lot of questions unanswered.

If I was "molested" by a priest in most of the usual unforced ways I wouldn't care. I would care however if I was presured into it or physicaly forced.

Guess I didn't parse the sentence correctly. Missing quotation marks look just like a missing semi-colon sometimes.

"Usual unforced ways"?

Do you think its possible that a kid could feel pressured and coerced, and be too scared to say anything?

He told me I was going to hell *sniped* the second time he threatened to kick my parents out of the parish as well as expose me to the school
And thus we see first hand the major issue with DSN's opinion that children can not only consent to sexual experiances, but are not manipulated into it.

Guess I didn't parse the sentence correctly. Missing quotation marks look just like a missing semi-colon sometimes.

"Usual unforced ways"?

Do you think its possible that a kid could feel pressured and coerced, and be too scared to say anything?
I was ... what the fuck do you say alone in the rectory with a priest? you are like 10 (fuck I dont even remember age I remember 4th grade with mrs kiekly (however you spell it))

And thus we see first hand the major issue with DSN's opinion that children can not only consent to sexual experiances, but are not manipulated into it.
Yeah I followed it hook line and sinker

I did not even relize that it would be more damaging for him then it would be for me

Never even crossed my mind

Well guess I killed the thread ... shared too much

Well guess I killed the thread ... shared too much
Er, no, I think it's more DSN is off trying to find a way to respond that still lets him claim pedophilia isn't forced and is good for the child and I had to deal with some very weird students (don't ask).

Er, no, I think it's more DSN is off trying to find a way to respond that still lets him claim pedophilia isn't forced and is good for the child and I had to deal with some very weird students (don't ask).
Yeah well I have tried to keep my anecdotal evidence out of it ... I did not want to "hurt" the fight against idocy

But fuck it he cares to make fun or make light of the pain of my childhood whatever .... I have had bishops make do worse to me then he will ever do

Er, no, I think it's more DSN is off trying to find a way to respond that still lets him claim pedophilia isn't forced and is good for the child and I had to deal with some very weird students (don't ask).

Can I have some Meiji Almonds and a melon soda, please?

Yeah well I have tried to keep my anecdotal evidence out of it ... I did not want to "hurt" the fight against idocy

But fuck it he cares to make fun or make light of the pain of my childhood whatever .... I have had bishops make do worse to me then he will ever do

I love the way he is trying to discount the fact that most abusers try to make those they are abusing think that their actions are either normal or deserved. This is true in just about any type of abuse.

In my own experience, the man who sexually assaulted me as a child (oral and manual, before anyone asks for details) tried to convince me - the first time - that we were both sinners and that I was equally culpable for simply doing what I was told to do. Hell, I was young enough at that point that I didn't even recognize it as sexual until he told me there was something wrong with it. All I was doing was following instructions.

Later on, when I knew better, he tried to convince me that it was perfectly normal, and that I had just been "brainwashed by society" into not wanting to do it. Imagine being in a car with a guy who refuses to even start the car and start driving to get you to school unless you manually stimulate him and then later tries to tell you that it was all normal and that you shouldn't have initially refused...

(Actually, UT, I'm sure you can imagine this and more, but I doubt that those arguing that pedophilia is justifiable can)

I love the way he is trying to discount the fact that most abusers try to make those they are abusing think that their actions are either normal or deserved. This is true in just about any type of abuse.

In my own experience, the man who sexually assaulted me as a child (oral and manual, before anyone asks for details) tried to convince me - the first time - that we were both sinners and that I was equally culpable for simply doing what I was told to do. Hell, I was young enough at that point that I didn't even recognize it as sexual until he told me there was something wrong with it. All I was doing was following instructions.

Later on, when I knew better, he tried to convince me that it was perfectly normal, and that I had just been "brainwashed by society" into not wanting to do it. Imagine being in a car with a guy who refuses to even start the car and start driving to get you to school unless you manually stimulate him and then later tries to tell you that it was all normal and that you shouldn't have initially refused...

(Actually, UT, I'm sure you can imagine this and more, but I doubt that those arguing that pedophilia is justifiable can)


Yeah I can

(Actually, UT, I'm sure you can imagine this and more, but I doubt that those arguing that pedophilia is justifiable can)

It still amazes me that there is a body of people out there that are in favor of sexually touching children.

In a related thread (I think also by DSN), somebody had mentioned to me that there were "reputable pro-pedophilia groups".

Oh well...I've heard there are people that like to eat fresh excrement, but at least they aren't doing anything to anybody but themselves...

Can I have some Meiji Almonds and a melon soda, please?
Well, I can get ya the almonds, but since it's winter right now, there's no melon soda for sale, at least not around here. You'll have to wait till summerish, sorry. ;)

Yeah well I have tried to keep my anecdotal evidence out of it ... I did not want to "hurt" the fight against idocy
I actually welcome the anedotal as much as you are willing. It puts a human face upon this and makes it harder for him to state that it's ok.

But, as noted, he won't listen, and probably never will. We can however expose his arguments for what they are.

He told me I was going to hell ... he also grabbed my hand and forced it down his pants the first time ... the second time he threatened to kick my parents out of the parish as well as expose me to the school


Now that is trully sadistic.

Yeah well I have tried to keep my anecdotal evidence out of it ... I did not want to "hurt" the fight against idocy

But fuck it he cares to make fun or make light of the pain of my childhood whatever .... I have had bishops make do worse to me then he will ever do

Anecdotel evidence is good for what it's worth. As anecdotel evidence.

I love the way he is trying to discount the fact that most abusers try to make those they are abusing think that their actions are either normal or deserved. This is true in just about any type of abuse.

In my own experience, the man who sexually assaulted me as a child (oral and manual, before anyone asks for details) tried to convince me - the first time - that we were both sinners and that I was equally culpable for simply doing what I was told to do. Hell, I was young enough at that point that I didn't even recognize it as sexual until he told me there was something wrong with it. All I was doing was following instructions.

Later on, when I knew better, he tried to convince me that it was perfectly normal, and that I had just been "brainwashed by society" into not wanting to do it. Imagine being in a car with a guy who refuses to even start the car and start driving to get you to school unless you manually stimulate him and then later tries to tell you that it was all normal and that you shouldn't have initially refused...

(Actually, UT, I'm sure you can imagine this and more, but I doubt that those arguing that pedophilia is justifiable can)

Again this is rather sadistic.

I support legislation that protects children from the risk of pregnancy and disease.

What I don't support is the suggestion of harm done to a child through the introduction of forbidden knowledge. A magazine no matter what the content does not injure a child even if said magazine is Play Boy or Penthouse ( and or Play Alter Boy or Repenthouse ). The idea that there is harmfull knowledge is superstition.

Of the many acts I think should remain illegal becuase there is a unsuitable degree of physical risk whether the child consents or not are anal copulation both ways as the practice is just plain physically dangerous both ways. Vaginal copulation unless it is a younger boy with a women and she can demonstrate the knowledge that she was free of STD before the act. Oral copulation becuase of the risk disease and the fact that I reject the idea that the child wanted to do it to the man or the women the other way around isn't to bad as long as some assorted disease isn't spread in the act.

Like I said I don't believe in special informed consent. This is not becuase I discount the risks of pregnancy and disease. I discount the consept of forbidden knowledge. This is why I believe a child can consent to activities that place them at risk of discovery of forbidden knowledge but not to activities that place them at risk.

Also to note all the activities I've seen so far had strong indication of force either through vocalised presure or physical force.

I support legislation that protects children from the risk of pregnancy and disease.

What I don't support is the suggestion of harm done to a child through the introduction of forbidden knowledge. A magazine no matter what the content does not injure a child even if said magazine is Play Boy or Penthouse ( and or Play Alter Boy or Repenthouse ). The idea that there is harmfull knowledge is superstition.

Of the many acts I think should remain illegal becuase there is a unsuitable degree of physical risk whether the child consents or not are anal copulation both ways as the practice is just plain physically dangerous both ways. Vaginal copulation unless it is a younger boy with a women and she can demonstrate the knowledge that she was free of STD before the act. Oral copulation becuase of the risk disease and the fact that I reject the idea that the child wanted to do it to the man or the women the other way around isn't to bad as long as some assorted disease isn't spread in the act.

Like I said I don't believe in special informed consent. This is not becuase I discount the risks of pregnancy and disease. I discount the consept of forbidden knowledge. This is why I believe a child can consent to activities that place them at risk of discovery of forbidden knowledge but not to activities that place them at risk.

Also to note all the activities I've seen so far had strong indication of force either through vocalised presure or physical force.

The 'Forbidden knowledge' that you talk of cannot be comprehended by these children for many, many years. Things like rape, oral, anal, sexual diseases - all of these are unknown things to children and they cannot comprehend them until much later in life, until maturity. A child of 4 or 5 cannot know what these terms mean - often they do not even fully comprehend right or wrong. To introduce them to these things at such an early life will confuse them, frighten them and ultimately hurt them - if not physically but mentally. The Playboy analogy is rubbish, because children of such young ages cannot comprehend the images and acts in those pages and understand them. It isd not 'superstition' but common goddamn sense. A child of 10 cannot normally understand what 'rape' is or what 'oral sex' is, and they cannot give their permission.

The 'Forbidden knowledge' that you talk of cannot be comprehended by these children for many, many years. Things like rape, oral, anal, sexual diseases - all of these are unknown things to children and they cannot comprehend them until much later in life, until maturity. A child of 4 or 5 cannot know what these terms mean - often they do not even fully comprehend right or wrong. To introduce them to these things at such an early life will confuse them, frighten them and ultimately hurt them - if not physically but mentally. The Playboy analogy is rubbish, because children of such young ages cannot comprehend the images and acts in those pages and understand them. It isd not 'superstition' but common goddamn sense. A child of 10 cannot normally understand what 'rape' is or what 'oral sex' is, and they cannot give their permission.

Yes and the sun revolves around earth.

Listen when it comes seriel rapists and seriel rapist murderers the trend among them is not that they where intrudeced to plenty of sex as children. Truth is most of them where shielded from sex more so than thier peers some had to learn about sex from thier wives.

There has never been a study that proves the damaging effects of forbidden knowledge and there never will be becuase the very consept of forbidden knowledge is superstitous hocus pocus.

Could you PLEASE start using quote tags? It makes you post so much easier to read.

[QUOTE=NERVUN]
Actually it does. It is not so much a heads you win, tail you lose as it is looking at the actual effects of the event upon the person, whether or not that person thinks it did any damage. Smokers and heavy drinkers think that [QUOTE=NERVUN]their habits are fine, however it has been shown that smoking and heavy drinking damages the body, no matter what the smoker or drinker may think. And again, victims of abuse react in ways that seem to be completely at odds of how a "normal" person would react; attempting to shield their attacker, attempting to state that they were the ones who brought the abuse on to them, attempting to state that it was normal.

There have been a lot of papers on this topic and is a valid criticism of Rind.


Or as the created impossibility is the action was harmless and the supposed victom recognised it as such.


Ok, science should be free to pursue what it wants, which is the reason why the academic community was stunned at the actions of Congress against Rind. However, science is supposed to be neutral, it cannot make recommendations on social issues, which is what Rind attempted to do. Using a paper for advocacy is bias, and something the community rightly comes down on. Science provides the trends, we as society makes the decision.

For example, gong back to smoking. Science showed that smoking is not healthy, but it never stated that therefore everyone should stop smoking. Society made that determination.


You are correct.


Look up the term brainwashing, it may enlighten you.


Look up the term quack science


Then by your arguments, children should also be allowed to enter freely into contracts, take out loans, sign away their lives into slavery, promise their first born or anything else because it's ok if a child cannot understand the consequences of their actions and cannot give informed consent. A child is mentally incapable of giving informed consent the way an adult can. It's not that the child knows, it is that the child cannot think the way an adult can. No matter if you want them to, they cannot.

And yes, sex does in informed consent. That's why states have laws that say ADULTS cannot give consent to sex if under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally retarded. It doesn't matter if the adult doesn't think about what can happen, they CAN think about what might happen. An adult, who's stoned off his or her ass, or a child, cannot so consent.


Sex isn't any of those things. Contracts are obligations to full fill. Even adults can't sign away their lives into slavery the comment is argument by shock value. Promising thier first born born is a common practice when it comes to saving the unborn children from abortion in the cases of young pregnant girls. As to the pregnancy and STD Consequences of sex I'm perfectly happy to see policy inforced to protect children from putting themselves at risk for those things. However I deny the consept of forbidden knowledge and I disagree with legislation passed based on the consept of forbidden knowledge.



Rind has been defending the science behind his Meta study, you again attempt to try and link the academic community with the religious backlash.


True


Yes, and Rind attempted to use loaded terms. He attempted to bring in commentary to his study.


Adult Child Sex or ACS is hardly a loaded term. But you are right about him bringing in commentary into his study.


I should use that as a signature. It's just so damn funny. I'd love to see a court defense against this.

I'm sorry, your honor, I don't think that I am guilty of murder because the only reason it is illegal is because there's a law against it!
Congress will LOVE it.


The reason I objected to the statement was becuase it was an obvius attempt at argument by shock value.


One, prove that the field of psychology uses piss poor methods, you've stated this again and again and I really do think that you do so mainly because they disagree with you and that you have no fricken clue about how they conduct their research.

And we're currently debating about how well Rind holds up.


If I may the spanking debate in the field of psychology is loaded with studies that either confirm the benifts of spanking or demonstrate the harmful effects of it. How can we have studies with polar opposite outcomes with properly conducted studies?


Prove it. I provide information when I respond to you, I grow tired of you not providing the same.

I apologise for this.

Again though, Rind didn't just give the facts and let society decide how to deal with them (which is what science is supposed to do) he attempted to advocate changes in societal values, which is what science isn't supposed to do.

correct

Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, blue is blue; attempting to change the language to make it less than what it is not only is not science, but also dishonest. Rind fell into this trap by suggesting that society needed to change the language instead of conducting his "study" and letting society at large decide. I also challenge your version of neutral. Calling something bad a good name does not change what happened. Calling the Holocaust 'the final solution' does not change what occurred and how evil that was.


Yes all those things are what they are but refering to every adult child sexual interaction as abuse does not make it so. CSA is a loaded term and is value laden. It's interesting to note that there isn't even agreement as to what constitutes CSA it can either be more or less inclussive depending on who you ask.


Oh, of course not. Forgive me, consent for sex is never needed. As a matter of fact, I think I'll just go out and rape someone right now as I need no special consent for the woman before I use her and possibly impregnate her.

Yup, don't need it at all. /sarcasm


Argument by shock value no need to respond further.


I dislike placing words into other peoples' mouths, especially when said people's usual defense is that others are projecting onto them. Assuming and all that.

Also, I am afraid that I have turned off my mind reading skills as I am surrounded by Japanese junior high school students. Not only do they think in Japanese, but I am really afraid of what they are thinking of in the first place. Please attempt to state what you mean the next time instead of my
l33t telepathy skillz.


Also sorry about that.


And the article I posted had 5, does that mean it is less biased? It was also posted in the same peer reviewed journal. Acceptance in a journal means that it passes a certain level of muster, not that it is completely correct. Once published, all ideas are open to attack and criticism, like here.


Correct


You know, the more you respond, the more I get the feeling that you have never read Rind,

Truth is I never did.

and you have no idea what the "study" actually was and what it states. Rind was a Meta analysis, meaning he took older studies and attempted to mash them together to spot any trends.

Actually I am aware of that but I consider a Meta analysis a usefull tool.

He did NOT conduct the study himself, he never actually did any of the studies; he did a glorified literature review. This means that the study raises some interesting issues, but has no real data to back up what it claims. There should be further study.

Yes there should but I doubt it would get funded as people usually shy away from funding research that proves them wrong.

Also, as my stats professor liked to state, we NEVER change the world on just one study. Rind et. All is being debated, eventually someone will attempt to study what he stated and see if it was indeed true, and what the limitations are. So, no, it is very responsible that the psychology community at large has not changed due to just one study, especially as there are more studies that note the harm done to children by sexual contact with an adult.


Those more studies you suggest I should give credence to where heavily biased based on their samples.

You are going to find mental health problems in people who have had adult child sexual interaction if the means be which you find your samples out of the patience who are recieving care for mental health issues.

What I don't support is the suggestion of harm done to a child through the introduction of forbidden knowledge.

We aren't talking about forbidden knowledge. Children should certainly be taught about sex from the moment they are old enough to ask the questions, or, if they haven't started asking, as soon as they are old enough to understand. We are talking about physical acts.

We aren't talking about forbidden knowledge. Children should certainly be taught about sex from the moment they are old enough to ask the questions, or, if they haven't started asking, as soon as they are old enough to understand. We are talking about physical acts.

Not all of us.

But yes we agree here knowledge of sex isn't harmful.

If you where to conduct a poll on this forum as to whether a parent would rather live next to the guy who is likely to re-offend buy murdering another child not sex related or next to the guy who was likely to molest thier child but let thier child live you would see by the poll numbers that todays legislation is based on the consept of intence long lasting truama rather than the consept of consent.

Nervun

Another testament to the ignorant practices of psychology.

The movie good Will Hunting demonstrates the usual parade of idiots. Yes I know it's a movie but it is based on a common public perception.

I see a news story about shrinks helping people get over their irrational fears. Out of like 4 or 7 there was only one guy that regulerly met with success. This successful guy used gradual conditioning to help people confront thier fears. He just kept bring them vloser and closer to the things that frieghtened them all the while being there to help them through the situations.

Other therapies such as simple talk therapy, hypnosis etc. failed miserably I think this is another good reason as to discount the validity of the mental health community.

My apologies for being late, I have been busy as of late as we are getting close to graduation and most of my time has been taken up with end of year duties and saying goodbye to my students.

That and I also had a date with an onsen I had to keep. ;)

Or as the created impossibility is the action was harmless and the supposed victom recognised it as such.
Which could be the case, yes, but we do not know until we start digging and honestly I am unwilling to let this start on the off chance that the child enjoyed it.

Look up the term quack science
Again, please prove it. Psychology as a field has come a very long ways from Siggy. It is not a hard science, no, but then again, no human science is a hard science, mainly because we humans have the remarkable ability to do something completely illogical for no reason.

Sex isn't any of those things. Contracts are obligations to full fill. Even adults can't sign away their lives into slavery the comment is argument by shock value. Promising thier first born born is a common practice when it comes to saving the unborn children from abortion in the cases of young pregnant girls. As to the pregnancy and STD Consequences of sex I'm perfectly happy to see policy inforced to protect children from putting themselves at risk for those things. However I deny the consept of forbidden knowledge and I disagree with legislation passed based on the consept of forbidden knowledge.
How is it not? You are asking a child to make a decision about something that may have a tremendous effect upon them for years to come, and you are asking them to do so not being able to be cognitively aware of what they are doing and the possible consequences of their actions. As much as you say that some children may not be hurt, we have seen proof that some children are. As I have said, once you take that away you cannot give it back to the child. Are you really willing to possibly hurt a child for your own sexual pleasures?

We adults are to guide children until they are fully able to understand, to think and act like adults. It is why we do not allow children to enter into a contract without adult agreement. You can even make the comparison that we do not allow children to choose whether or not they will go to school because we know as adults that children cannot understand the value and need of education. How is sex any different?

Adult Child Sex or ACS is hardly a loaded term. But you are right about him bringing in commentary into his study.
Well, gee, as most people find the conception repugnant, I'd say it's a loaded term.

If I may the spanking debate in the field of psychology is loaded with studies that either confirm the benifts of spanking or demonstrate the harmful effects of it. How can we have studies with polar opposite outcomes with properly conducted studies?
Because we always do so. Even in the hard sciences we have times when two separate studies come up with two different results. This means that either one study was wrong, or something interesting is going on and requires further study. It is not a sign that the whole field is off kilter, it shows that the progress is going like it is supposed to.

I apologise for this.
And yet you still have not shown any proof.

Yes all those things are what they are but refering to every adult child sexual interaction as abuse does not make it so. CSA is a loaded term and is value laden. It's interesting to note that there isn't even agreement as to what constitutes CSA it can either be more or less inclussive depending on who you ask.
I use the same response that I did for the incest thread, it is possible for two adult relatives to have a fully open and beneficial sexual relationship irregardless of their family bond, but it has to say that at no time the unequal power relationships inherent within the family structure would not influence that relationship.

To apply it to this, it MAY be possible that a child and an adult can fully enter into a sexual relationship where the child knows full well what may and will happen, enjoy it, benefit from it, and was not manipulated (knowingly or unknowingly) into it by the adult. But since it is very hard to prove ahead of time that this is the case, why take the chance of damaging a child just for sexual pleasure?

Or can you show me proof that we can spot such children and adult pairs?

Truth is I never did.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/Facefault.jpg
Could you please READ the bloody thing then?

Actually I am aware of that but I consider a Meta analysis a usefull tool.
A useful tool, yes, but it hardly makes for a definitive study. It shows a possible trend and nothing more.

Yes there should but I doubt it would get funded as people usually shy away from funding research that proves them wrong.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And your proof of this is...?

Those more studies you suggest I should give credence to where heavily biased based on their samples.

You are going to find mental health problems in people who have had adult child sexual interaction if the means be which you find your samples out of the patience who are recieving care for mental health issues.
If you mean the clinicals, possibly, but then that is a criticism of Rind in that he used only college students and none who had previously reported any previous sexual contact and therefore suspect as to how well it can be applied generally.

Another testament to the ignorant practices of psychology.

The movie good Will Hunting demonstrates the usual parade of idiots. Yes I know it's a movie but it is based on a common public perception.
Aren't you the one arguing to me that public perception means nothing in the face of scientific facts?

And bringing in a movie doesn't even begin to impress me. Again, I ask for proof of your statements.

I see a news story about shrinks helping people get over their irrational fears. Out of like 4 or 7 there was only one guy that regulerly met with success. This successful guy used gradual conditioning to help people confront thier fears. He just kept bring them vloser and closer to the things that frieghtened them all the while being there to help them through the situations.

Other therapies such as simple talk therapy, hypnosis etc. failed miserably I think this is another good reason as to discount the validity of the mental health community.
A NEWS story about 7 psychologists doesn't even begin to approach N. Not even close. Do you have anything of substance or not?

My apologies for being late, I have been busy as of late as we are getting close to graduation and most of my time has been taken up with end of year duties and saying goodbye to my students.

That and I also had a date with an onsen I had to keep. ;)

No need to appologise.


Again, please prove it. Psychology as a field has come a very long ways from Siggy. It is not a hard science, no, but then again, no human science is ahard science, mainly because we humans have the remarkable ability to do something completely illogical for no reason.

No human science is perfect science ( exept math for the most part )this is true but of the many sciences the science of psychology is pretty young is it not. It should be expected to fumble along for a little while.


How is it not? You are asking a child to make a decision about something
that may have a tremendous effect upon them for years to come, and you are asking them to do so not being able to be cognitively aware of what they are doing and the possible consequences of their actions. As much as you say that some children may not be hurt, we have seen proof that some children are. As I have said, once you take that away you cannot give it back to the child. Are you really willing to possibly hurt a child for your own sexual pleasures?

How does sexual interaction have a tremendous effect on a child's life without consideration for pregnancy and disease; and or without pregnancy and disease what harm is there? True some children grow into adults who look at the sexual interactions they had with adults as a child and feel bad about it. As to being willing to possably hurt a child for my own sexual gratification have you considered the harm done to children done by the policeis in place to protect thier purity?


We adults are to guide children until they are fully able to understand, to think and act like adults. It is why we do not allow children to enter into a contract without adult agreement. You can even make the comparison that we do not allow children to choose whether or not they will go to school because we know as adults that children cannot understand the value and need of education. How is sex any different?

Sexual interaction has an educational value as well a lack of non-value related penalties ( with the exseption of disease and pregnancy ).


Well, gee, as most people find the conception repugnant, I'd say it's a loaded term.

The load is all adult child sexual interaction is abuse. I don't think the term is discriptive of every adult child interaction. As a matter of fact I will use CSA only where I see abuse and intergenerational sexual interaction or ISI where I do not see abuse. I think that is easy enough. We simply invent a new term the same way meat cutters used new cuts of meat to get around pricing restrictions.


Because we always do so. Even in the hard sciences we have times when two separate studies come up with two different results. This means that either one study was wrong, or something interesting is going on and requires further study. It is not a sign that the whole field is off kilter, it shows that the progress is going like it is supposed to.

Well I sure hope so or shrinks will continue to do the equivalent of casting demons out of epileptics.


I use the same response that I did for the incest thread, it is possible for two adult relatives to have a fully open and beneficial sexual relationship irregardless of their family bond, but it has to say that at no time the unequal power relationships inherent within the family structure would not influence that relationship.

Power unequalness is only related to times when one partner is being overpowered or feels threatened or is threatened by the power imbalance.


To apply it to this, it MAY be possible that a child and an adult can fully enter into a sexual relationship where the child knows full well what may and will happen, enjoy it, benefit from it, and was not manipulated (knowingly or unknowingly) into it by the adult. But since it is very hard to prove ahead of time that this is the case, why take the chance of damaging a child just for sexual pleasure?

Again why risk damaging children just to preserve purity?


A NEWS story about 7 psychologists doesn't even begin to approach N. Not even close. Do you have anything of substance or not?

I know not this N. If you are talking about a large enough sample as to be scientificly useful you are right. 7 isn't N. However we still have the problem with hypnotherapy which is just about as successful as prayer. We had the problem demonstrated in the news program of psychologist who didn't know that the best way to deal with irrational fears is to confront them dirrectly with the help of a friend. How many psychologists in practice routienly fail to provide the proper remedy to their clients?

How does sexual interaction have a tremendous effect on a child's life without consideration for pregnancy and disease; and or without pregnancy and disease what harm is there? True some children grow into adults who look at the sexual interactions they had with adults as a child and feel bad about it.
Look at the stories given by both UpwardThrust and Dempublicents1 within this thread, as well as Psychotic Dan within the old thread. And, as stated, there are plenty of studies that do show harm, either short or long, from sexual abuse between adults and children.

As to being willing to possably hurt a child for my own sexual gratification have you considered the harm done to children done by the policeis in place to protect thier purity?
I am unaware of any, please elaborate.

Sexual interaction has an educational value as well a lack of non-value related penalties ( with the exseption of disease and pregnancy ).
Thank you, no. When I am a father, I plan to education my children about sexuality on my own terms, I don't need to give them a practical demonstration (though I may show them Monty Python's The Meaning of Life ;) ). It is my duty as a parent and I don't want your help in it.

Well I sure hope so or shrinks will continue to do the equivalent of casting demons out of epileptics.
Have you looked at the modern psychology field as of late? I mean, really looked and not gotten your impressions from movies?

Power unequalness is only related to times when one partner is being overpowered or feels threatened or is threatened by the power imbalance.
Not at all, unequal power situations come from where one party holds more power, perceived or real, over the other. For children and adults, this stems from children being taught at an early age that adults are to be obeyed (see Piaget and Kohlberg cognitive and moral development in children) and believed.

As anecdotal evidence, my mother (who has a demented sense of humor) convinced my sister and myself, along with every other child in the neighborhood one summer that orange fire-hydrants contain orange juice. While this is a funny story, it shows just how much power an adult has over a child when a child is predisposed to believe in whatever an adult says. Children are also predisposed to try and please adults. This is an unequal power relationship and brings to mind serious questions on if an adult and child could have a relationship that wasn't the result of the adult using his or her power to have undue influence over that child.

Again why risk damaging children just to preserve purity?
What damage comes from preventing sexual contact and abuse at the hands of adults before the child is fully ready for it? Denying education, yes, but as I said, I don't require my children to have a practical demonstration of sexual play to educate them on human sexuality. So what damage comes from this?

However we still have the problem with hypnotherapy which is just about as successful as prayer. We had the problem demonstrated in the news program of psychologist who didn't know that the best way to deal with irrational fears is to confront them dirrectly with the help of a friend. How many psychologists in practice routienly fail to provide the proper remedy to their clients?
May I suggest you go here: http://www.apa.org/releases/hypnosis.html and read up on it? Hypnotherapy isn't what you seem to think it is, nor is it what seems to be portrayed on the media.

As to your final question, I do not know, however the question can be asked of doctors as well. You're dealing with the human mind, there's never any cut and dried answers with that.

But, again, I challenge you to prove your statement that the field of psychology and psychologists in general are naught but snake oil salesmen.

Look at the stories given by both UpwardThrust and Dempublicents1 within this thread, as well as Psychotic Dan within the old thread. And, as stated, there are plenty of studies that do show harm, either short or long, from sexual abuse between adults and children.


Dempublicicents, UpwardThrust, and Psychotic Dan gave stories of what is considered rape even without the conscept of informed consent so there stories do not apply. As they would be prosecuted as rape even if they where adults.

There are consequences to protecting children from loss of purity. Protecting children from loss of purity restricts their positive interaction with adults do to the adults rightly feared possability of being accused of sexual interaction with a child. The consept of grooming abstructs what could end up being positive relationships with adults as adults spending time with children could be perceived as grooming. Forcing children to be part of the prosecution against an aadult they where with sexually has damaging effects in that the child is placed at great with a perceived friend. If you look at the female teachers who have been taken to court for sexual interaction with there students you will see this relationship exspecially in the case where the teacher ended up marrying the student. There is a casual relationship between sexually oppressive societies and violance as demonstrated by James Prescot in his study of Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violance. Also there people who have been convicted of breaking sex laws non-violently and without force who may very well be good with children but who are now do to thier convictions restricted from them.


Thank you, no. When I am a father, I plan to education my children about sexuality on my own terms, I don't need to give them a practical demonstration (though I may show them Monty Python's The Meaning of Life ;) ). It is my duty as a parent and I don't want your help in it.

As to the possitive effects of sexual interactions with adults. There more experience any one gains in certain things the more skilled they become in dealing with it. A child who has experience in matters of sex may be better at stopping the progresion of sex with her same age boyfriend before putting herself at risk of disease or pregnancy. Sex is relaxing when it is unforced other wise it is nerve racking. Sex when it is not the forbidden fruit of life is less tempting and is more easily dealt with in a sex possitive light. I love the studies of the religious abstinance outh that demonstrates this point. a simple year after the abstinance outh is made sex happens just as often in those who had taken the outh vs. those who have not. The difference being those who had taken the outh are less likely to have used protection.

Have you looked at the modern psychology field as of late? I mean, really looked and not gotten your impressions from movies?

No I havn't

Not at all, unequal power situations come from where one party holds more power, perceived or real, over the other. For children and adults, this stems from children being taught at an early age that adults are to be obeyed (see Piaget and Kohlberg cognitive and moral development in children) and believed.

I am aware of the natural power imbalance both socielly and in law. but I doubt this power imbalance is of any conscern when addressing sexual relations with the willing children.

As anecdotal evidence, my mother (who has a demented sense of humor) convinced my sister and myself, along with every other child in the neighborhood one summer that orange fire-hydrants contain orange juice. While this is a funny story, it shows just how much power an adult has over a child when a child is predisposed to believe in whatever an adult says. Children are also predisposed to try and please adults. This is an unequal power relationship and brings to mind serious questions on if an adult and child could have a relationship that wasn't the result of the adult using his or her power to have undue influence over that child.

I find fun in this as well. My Grandfather tried to get me to eat a patty of butter dicribing it as a piece of cheese. My other grandfather told a child that the emergency room was the emer jensy room. When I was doing the traffic ministry at the church a child asked my iff the orange snowsuit I and every one else in that ministry was wearing was pajamas. I said yes it close enough for the kids mom to hear. She gave me a dirty look. I considered it a benificial life lesson for the child.

May I suggest you go here: http://www.apa.org/releases/hypnosis.html and read up on it? Hypnotherapy isn't what you seem to think it is, nor is it what seems to be portrayed on the media.

Thank you that was very enlightning.

As to your final question, I do not know, however the question can be asked of doctors as well. You're dealing with the human mind, there's never any cut and dried answers with that.

True

But, again, I challenge you to prove your statement that the field of psychology and psychologists in general are naught but snake oil salesmen.

I'll exsept defeat here.

Bump for Nervun