Child Molestation is a Sin!Sexual relations between an adult and a minor :: How can you expect to convince me of anything without proof?How can you expect to convince me of anything without proof? This is a classic case of a converse accident. You have made an assumption based upon observations you have made within your environment. You have then attempted to make yourself an 'authority' on the question by stating your age. Unfortunately, such arguments are often believed by people who wish to believe them or who have never been presented with any other argument. Whether or not people believe them, however, they are still often fallacious. In your case, you are arguing that since the children you have observed who were loved by pedophiles suffered, all children who are loved by pedohiles must suffer. This is a very similar type of argument to that used by racists, bigots and other intolerant people (a black man stole something from my neighbours garage, ergo all black people are thieves). I am guessing by your rhetoric that you are not a social scientist of any sort. Furthermore, I do not know the details of your circumstances and your environment when you made the observations you are pointing out. Therefore, how am I to trust your conclusions when it seems quite evident that you have used an unrepresentative sample as the basis of your arguement? Your argument contains yet another fallacy which is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, you have 'seen what has happened' to children who were loved by pedophiles, implying that the 'result' has been negative. Since the negative results coincided with the relationships, you have assumed that the relationship is the cause of the negative results. This is like me saying that I got a headache last night while I was watching television, ergo television watching must cause headaches. Not very smart. I am not aware of the circumstances of the children about which you talk, but you have not provided any compelling arguments that the negative factors you witnessed were caused by the relationships the children had with adults. Now to your next paragraph: Could you please explain what the significance of an increase in life expectancy is supposed to prove? Are you trying to imply that people do not need to begin sexual as early because they can expect to live longer and therefore do not need to rush to propagate the human race? If so, that would be yet another dangerous fallacy, that of ignoratio elenchi. Stated another way, such an argument draws a conclusion from a premise which has no logical relation to it. Incidentally, I might point out that as life expectancy has increased, the average age of puberty has diminished significantly. Furthermore, advances in knowledge and the imposition of mandatory education throughout the Western world have made a much greater amount of knowledge available to a much wider portion of the population at a much earlier age. Therefore, it is conceivable if curricula are formulated correctly, that children can be educated sufficiently to make decisions for themselves and are more likely to become interested in sexual fulfilment at an earlier, rather than a later, age. As to your statement that social mores determine appropriate behavior, I would point out that such a statement is yet another logical fallacy, that of argumentum ad numerum. This is a very common mistake which assumes that since most people accept a way of behavior or a social more, then it must be right. I find it almost humorous that fundamentalists use this type of argument to try and convince people that progressive behavior is wrong since it is not accepted by the mainstream, while rejecting the exact same type of argument from their children (But everyone's doing it!). As to your final sentence, 'Psychology has become a god for our age, a god that changes positions like the wind' I must laugh once again. You complain that psychology changes positions like the wind? What about the social mores you have used as a basis for your rejection of my sexual orientation? Was not slavery acceptable 150 years ago? Were not women denied the vote 100 years ago? Was homosexuality not acceptable 50 years ago? Science, even soft sciences change positions based upon the discovery of new facts about a subject. This is why in science you have theories rather than undeniable fact. Of course, as we learn more about the world around us, some theories are disproved and others are affirmed and mistakes have been made. On what basis are society's mores formed, and what makes them such a good determiner of what should be acceptable and what should not? Let us continue to your next paragraph: You find him a bit esoteric? What is this supposed to mean? You want to invalidate his work because you do not understand it? Can you provide proof that studies in recent years have been used to promote behavior that is socially destructive? Would you please provide me with some examples of this taking place? I do not understand how you can make such baseless arguments and expect for your arguments to be accepted without providing a single shred of proof that your opinions are correct. The fact that you are a gay man who has decided to suppress his sexuality gives you absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned. And now for your last paragraph: I agree that the ethical treatment of men ought to take precedence over the ethical treatment of animals. Indeed, I believe that we have an ethical responsibility to provide our young people with an extensive and balanced education so that they can form as complete a world view as possible. Ethically, we also have a responsibility to give them freedom to use their minds and not be discriminated against on the basis of age. Your arguments about the causes of AIDS make me laugh once again. I remember twenty years ago, when my fundamentalist parents taught me that AIDS was God's punishment of gays. Well, it is good to see that that argument has been retired. But it is disappointing to see that yet another moralistic argument has replaced it. Sexual 'immorality' is part and parcel of African cultural mores? Can you really make such a statement with a straight face whilst living in America where sexual 'immorality' is a national obsession? At least you understand that education and behavior modification (behavior modification in the form of condom use has made major inroads into the spread of AIDS in Uganda, for instance) are needed. People there need to be taught to use condoms, and Western governments need to modify their behavior by leaning on the pharmaceutical companies to provide cheap medication to sub-Saharan Africa, so that the people there can benefit as have their rich AIDS sufferers in North America and Europe. A final question: if education is so necessary for poor Africans, why do so many fundamentalists oppose educating America's youth correctly about their bodies and their sexuality? Kind regards, Amator Puellularum Note: I did not edit the content, just the BBCode. Incidentally, the latin preposition meaning 'with' is apparently censored here. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame