Author Topic: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption  (Read 18277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #145 on: July 23, 2012, 06:22:40 AM »
I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.

You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?

Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #146 on: July 23, 2012, 06:29:10 AM »
In this case, however, it is blatantly not true.  We have not “been over this” before.  I have not seen you post a single response to the content of Harvard study entitled  Pessimism about Pedophilia, that I posted on Friday.  I suspect that you haven’t read it

Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

Quote
Quesi linked a study from Harvard that she seemed to believe gave evidence that the discrimination against pedophiles was warranted, however as it's been pointed out by others, any such study is highly flawed as their data represents a biased fraction of the pedophile population. If you read the study, the first half of it is a note about the limitations of their research. Their data comes from interviewing convicted pedophiles in prison.

That would be like interviewing convicted car thieves and then concluding that anyone who likes cars is likely to steal one. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and it's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles out there do not act on their compulsions and live normal lives. Frankly it's fear mongering and an institution like Harvard should be ashamed of publishing it.

So is it really blatantly not true that I haven't posted a response to it? Or is it this simply another example of you not reading carefully? If you can't devote enough attention to the conversation to read my replies, why should I waste my time respond to your questions?

Perhaps you are confusing the Pessimism about Pedophilia article with a different article I posted a few months back, published in the Harvard Medical Journal, on a topic pertaining to relationship between pornography and child abuse.
Clearly I'm not.

You dismissed the study by linking an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic, and declared victory.

You keep making this claim that I've ignored the studies you've linked, and suggesting I haven't read them. You are a fucking liar. Anyone who upvotes you is a fucking idiot for doing so. I've read and responded to every one of them. You on the other hand, have clearly ignored the evidence I've presented. I'm not surprised by Quesi who has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of intellectual honesty, but those of you blindly upvoting her without verifying her claims are incredibly dissapointing.

Perhaps a little memory refresher is in order for those of you who think Quesi's claims against me are valid.

Quesi claims that in response to her link to a Harvard study, I linked to "an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic." This is a lie. The truth is that I linked to three studies by an economics professor, a law professor, and a sexologist who is also the founding editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior. I linked them in a reply to Rickymooston's question before Quesi posted her link to the Harvard study in response, not the other way around as she claims.

The one she is referring to now which she is dismissing as  "an unpublished article that some economics professor had written" is Pornography, Rape, and the Internet by Clemson University Economics Professor Todd Kendall and written with assistance from the Stanford Law School. Here is the summary:

Quote
Using  state-level panel  data  from  1998-2003,  I  find  that  the  arrival  of  the  internet  was associated  with  a  reduction  in  rape  incidence.    While  the  internet  is obviously  used  for  many  purposes  other  than  pornography,  it  is  notable that  growth  in  internet  usage  had  no  apparent  effect  on  other  crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape data by offender age, I find that the effect of  the  internet on  rape  is concentrated among  those  for whom the  internet-induced  fall  in  the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the  largest  –  men  ages  15-19,  who  typically  live  with  their  parents.

It is well-written and thouroughly sourced. Apparently she believes that economics professors can't have valid opinions on crime statistics. Actually, analysing numbers and trends and forming hypothesis and predictions about them is something economists are quite good at.

She made one comment about this paper, stating that it is "about internet usage and rape statistics, and has nothing to do with child pornography or pedophilia."

This is a lie by over-simplification. The paper is not simply about "internet usage and rape statistics" but specifically makes the argument that the reduction in sexual crimes is not a coincidence and is not simply the result of increased internet access, but specifically the increased availability of pornography. She would know that if she actually read it.

I stated that increased access to porn lowers the rate of sexual crime, which I linked the paper to support. My argument was that the same would hold true with regards to child pornography and child sexual abuse because the function of all types of porn is the same: to provide a sexual release. This is true of straight porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, granny porn, tranny porn, midget porn, even torture, rape, and beastiality porn. She provides no evidence that refutes that argument.

In that same post, she makes this statement:

Quote
No one knows how many children are sexually abused, because most sexual abuse is not reported.  I could get on the phone right now and call up a dozen women I know personally who were sexually abused as children, by uncles at family barbeques, by step brothers throughout their tween years, by husbands in arranged (forced) marriages that would not be legally recognized in most parts of the world, by employers, by security guards at refugee camps where they sought protection, by coyotes who were paid by their parents to get them safely across a border, by traffickers who promised them a better life, and by soldiers who burned their villages.  There is no data on these women.  They are not included in anyone’s study of the sexual abuse of children. 

Really? She personally knows a dozen women who were sexually abused as children? That dubious claim aside, why are they not included in anyone's study of the sexual abuse of children? Not a single one of them reported it to the authorities? That's a shame because we do have people who are paid to deal with situations like that.

Besides, even if they didn't report it, they are included in the studies, under estimated number of unreported cases. Again, she would know that if she actually bothered to read any of the studies.

Quote
There are no reliable numbers that capture the reality of child sexual abuse this year or last year or 20 years ago or a hundred years ago because that data has not been collected.  So let’s not pretend that there are studies that say that child pornography (internet or otherwise) has decreased the incidence of child abuse.  There is no reputable study that could make that claim. 

Now, see what she did there? She's poisoned the well. She can claim I have no data to back up my argument because now she can refer back to this any time I cite a study to make my point. 

There are two problems with this. First, it's confirmation bias. While I certainly agree that none of the studies I've cited can be 100% accurate in their data collection, she is essentially saying that the number of child rape victims she personally "knows" outweighs the opinions of qualified experts who have done years of study and research.

Second, I can make the same argument about any study she cites, and render her data invalid as well.

I've repeatedly invited anyone to read the studies I linked and share your critique of their conclusion or method. The fact is if you read all of the studies that both of us have linked you will find that the ones Quesi posted get most of their data from interviewing inmates, and that the authors themselves have written in long warnings about how that affects the accuracy of their results.

The other two studies that I linked that she isn't mentioning (in a classic cherry picking) are:

Porn Up, Rape Down by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D'Amato. From the abstract:

Quote
The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan
Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

It further supports my argument that access to child pornography would almost certainly reduce the incidents of child sex abuse. Again, no response from Quesi about this paper. At all. Did she read it? Who knows.

And finally Sexual Science and the Law, by Richard Green, Harvard University Press, 1992. Green is an American sexologist, psychiatrist, lawyer, and author specializing in homosexuality and transsexualism, specifically gender identity disorder in children. Green is the founding editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and the founding president of the International Academy of Sex Research. He served on the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders.

From Dr. Green:

Quote
As for child pornography in Denmark, reproduction and sale of child pornography was not illegal between 1969 and 1980. Between 1967 and 1973 child molestation or "physical sexual interference with female children" showed a rapid decrease.

There is an inverse relationship between the availability of the wide range of pornographic materials in a society and the commission of sexual crimes.

The availability of portrayals of a forbidden activity accompanied by autoerotic behavior, or masturbation, may provide an outlet for antisocial sexual impulses. It may permit the person to experience vicariously or in fantasy what would otherwise have been acted out in a crime with a victim.

Quesi described this as "a book by a guy from Harvard who writes primarily about transgendered youth, with no indication of anything he has written about child pornography or pedophilia." Really Quesi? If you're not going to do the research just come out and say it. Admittedly a hard-copy book is not as easy to access as a direct PDF download, but it is a good book that makes some great points about pornography and specifically about child pornography use. If she didn't want to spend 37¢ to buy a used copy on Amazon or looked for a copy at the library, she could have just said that instead of claiming that the book was irrelevant to the discussion.

She never provided any thoughtful disagreement to the studies I posted, nor even demonstrated that she had in fact read them or understood how they supported my argument. In response, she linked to an article that was ]behind a fucking paywall. Did she pay $5 to read it herself? Or did she not read it either, knowing I wouldn't read it so she could then claim I was ignoring her evidence? Sure I could have shelled out 5 bucks to read the article, but I didn't want to. At least I immediately pointed out that I couldn't read the article instead of dodging and claiming it wasn't relevant to the discussion. She never responded to the note that it was not a free article, but here she is today complaining that I dismissed it.

In that same reply with the paywalled article from Harvard, she also linked an article from Psychiatry Online that was a reprint of a Mayo Clinic article and a Wikipedia entry about the relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse which included a study by the American Federal Bureau of Prisons. This was her evidence against my argument that increased access to child pornography would lessen the incidents of child sex abuse.

Remember how today she criticized me for linking "an unpublished article that some economics professor"? Well, that article was published, but the one she was using to support her argument, the study by the American Federal Bureau of Prisons had already been withdrawn from publication in a peer-reviewed journal over concerns that the results were too biased and did not represent the "large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography".

I read them and replied that the Mayo Clinic article did not make a case for a causal link between use of child pornography and acts of sexual abuse against children. I referenced it again later and summarized my argument against their results by saying "They simply state that most rapists use porn. It can obviously be stated that most porn users are not rapists."

In response, she posted an except from the article, highlighting the following text:

Quote
30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child.


In addition to this snippet from the Mayo Clinic article, she copied the wikipedia entry on the already debunked study from the American Federal Bureau of Prisons. I'm not sure how she thought that an unpublished and discredited study would help her win the argument, yet she still posted it.

I replied with the following:

Quote
I've already read both of the studies you mentioned, they are highly flawed as even their authors repeatedly point out. First, the claim that 30-80% of child porn consumers have molested a child is ridiculous. 30-80% is hugely vague and it's impossible to know how many child porn consumers are really out there, or how many of them have molested children.

Sure, you can interview pedophiles arrested for molesting children and ask them if they viewed child pornography, and I'm sure most of them did. I'm sure most rapists of adult victims also viewed pornography. I'm sure most of the people arrested for unpaid parking tickets also viewed pornography. Is there a connection between bad parking and pornography use or are these numbers simply reflecting the fact that most people watch porn?

I later added this in reference to Quesi's linked studies.

Quote
However that doesn't take into consideration the studies that conclude that sex crime worldwide has gone down since the advent of the internet and the proliferation of freely accessible pornography. Many many studies on both general pornography and specifically child pornography have demonstrated that increased access to porn gives an outlet to sexual energy and leads to fewer incidents of rape.

Very few studies have reached the opposite conclusion, I've read them, and I find their methods to be highly flawed. Even the authors of the studies preface their conclusion with a warning that it's impossible to determine how accurate they are. They emphasize the point that the vast majority of rapists use porn but don't seem to consider the fact that the vast majority of porn users are not rapists.

The vast majority of rapists probably also watch TV, eat ice cream, and like long walks on the beach. Of course nobody blames those things for rape because society doesn't feel the need to demonize those behaviors like they do sex. Just because porn is related to sex does not mean there is a causal link between porn and rape, and indeed no causal link is proven in the studies, but merely suggested.

In reply #415 I mentioned to a new user Atheistisaweirdword the studies I had cited earlier "that conclude that increased access to pornography (including child pornography) leads to a reduction in sexual assaults and rape." Quesi claimed that was bullshit, accused me of making up facts and retreating from the argument made by the studies she linked.

I reiterated my problems with the Mayo Clinic study, which was not actually a Mayo Clinic study at all, but merely regurgitated and inflated figures from an earlier paper from the American Prosecutors Research Institute, which in turn got it's data from a U.S. Postal Inspection Service report that was quoting a statement by the director of The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And as I pointed out, even the authors of the Mayo clinic paper prefaced the article with a statement casting doubt on it's accuracy. As the 2005 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children report puts it "we do not know if these child porn possessors were representative of all Internet-related child porn possessors."

In other words, my concerns about the accuracy of her studies are valid. She ignores them.

I re-posted the link to Todd Kendall's article with an excerpt that backed up my argument, as well as a link to another study by Dr. Milton Diamond, University of Hawaii, Department of Anatomy & Reproductive Biology that stated that not only does greater access to pornography lead to fewer sex crimes, but specifically included statistics demonstrating that legalizing child pornography lead to a significant reduction of child sex abuse cases in Denmark, Japan, and the Czech Republic.

On June 21st, in an exchange with Rickymooston, I said that I believed children were maturing later in life because we coddle them. I was quite obviously referring to their mental maturity, as I even added that they were reaching puberty (physical maturity) earlier in life.

Quesi demonstrated that she clearly misunderstood me by smiting my comment and replying with this:

Quote
No Joe.  CHILDREN ARE NOT MATURING LATER. As I've cited a few times, children are maturing earlier.  Puberty at 8.5 years for girls is now considered within the normal range.

Obviously she had thought I used the word maturing to mean physically maturing, despite my clarification. Lucifer points out to Quesi that he (correctly) thought I had meant emotionally maturing, not physically. I reply that Lucifer was correct, and I was in fact referring to emotional maturity. I made a similar misunderstanding with someone a while back, but the person had written his post in such a way that he invited misunderstanding so I didn't feel it was my fault. In this case, my meaning was clear and Quesi chose to continue to argue against a strawman even after repeated clarifications. She never acknowledges her mistake or apologizes. This just goes to demonstrate the shameless depths of her intellectual dishonesty.

You see Joe, I do you the courtesy of reading the articles you link.

Do you really? The evidence suggests otherwise. You've never once given a rebuttal to any of them other than vague comments that don't specifically address their content.

But all of this running around in circles distracts from the questions that are of real importance.  Joe, you have said repeatedly that pedophiles can and do control their urges.  And yet inconceivably high numbers of children continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level. 

You seem to think those are two conflicting statements. They are not.

For example: Men can and do control their urges. Is that not a true statement? Yet inconceivably high numbers of women continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level. Is that not also a true statement?

Your suggestions so far, to address this problem have included 1) Increasing access to child pornography, so that potential abusers can watch children being abused having sex, and hopefully the act of viewing the rapes consensual sex with a minor will have the effect of quenching, rather than amplifying their sexual desires

Corrected that for you. If you want me to agree that it was my suggestion, then you have to let me define it. Otherwise, as you wrote it, it is not an accurate assessment of my position.

, and 2) Lowering the legal age of consent so that children who want sex can have it without endangering their adult partners. 

Sure, I'll agree with that.

As a father, who has done such extensive research on this topic that you can laugh at the inaccuracies in studies conducted by Harvard and the Mayo Clinic, is that the best you can offer?

Is that the best you can offer? You notice there's not actually an argument there? There's not actually any refutation of the points you've just listed. You just ignore all of the data, research and testimony of qualified experts in the legal and medical profession that I've provided. You just ignore the flaws in the studies you keep referring to that even their authors are quick to point out. You don't even suggest your own alternative. You just list my two points and somehow claim victory. That, Quesi, is how pigeon chess is played. Bravo.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 06:53:20 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #147 on: July 23, 2012, 07:35:34 AM »
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?

I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #148 on: July 23, 2012, 08:19:12 AM »
I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

That was the only point I was trying to make:  That imposing different ages for different rights and responsibilities is not necessarily hypocritical, since not all rights and responsibilities are equal to each other.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?

Well, no.  But then, I never supported trying such youths as adults in the first place.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #149 on: July 23, 2012, 08:21:28 AM »
Sorry Adzgari, I am having a similar exchange with jaimehlers and I got my replies mixed up.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #150 on: July 23, 2012, 08:33:59 AM »
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?

I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #151 on: July 23, 2012, 09:01:58 AM »
Joe, I must say that I am flattered that you have put so much time and energy into researching our correspondence on this issue over multiple threads and several months.   Thank you.  And I believe I am mistaken.  It appears that you did reply to the most recent Harvard Study that I posted.  I apologize. 


You keep making this claim that I've ignored the studies you've linked, and suggesting I haven't read them. You are a fucking liar. Anyone who upvotes you is a fucking idiot for doing so. I've read and responded to every one of them. You on the other hand, have clearly ignored the evidence I've presented. I'm not surprised by Quesi who has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of intellectual honesty, but those of you blindly upvoting her without verifying her claims are incredibly dissapointing.

I thank you for attentively responding to each study I've linked.  I especially enjoyed your feedback about the sexual abuse of children in foster care.  Perhaps you could repost some of those comments, so that everyone here can appreciate them.  Or your responses to the article about victims of child abuse at a prestigious NYC school, and how the abuse they suffered as children has impacted into their adulthood. 

I have to go into a meeting now, but I will try and stop by later. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +507/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #152 on: July 23, 2012, 09:32:31 AM »
You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?
Given that I rephrased your question in that other thread so that it was more accurate, and you responded by rephrasing it yourself, you may not have intended to play word games, but that's certainly how it came across.  Especially with a tongue-in-cheek response such as this.

By the way, what I actually said is that "I don't consider a fourteen-year old to be capable of performing an adult's responsibilities, or to be the equal of an adult".  Perhaps I should have elaborated and said "the average fourteen-year old" or "most fourteen-year olds", but to be honest, I didn't think it needed to be said.  Obviously I was mistaken.

You've indicated that you think that the age of consent for sex should be 14.  So, let me ask two questions.  First, do you think that same age should apply for other things which are currently restricted by age, such as driving, voting, and cigarettes/alcohol?  And second, what benefit would come to the minor by having the age of consent reduced so?  Remember that even someone under the age of consent can still have sex with other minors within a certain age limit without getting either party in trouble.  So how would the minor benefit from a change in the age of consent law?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #153 on: July 23, 2012, 10:21:48 AM »
I thank you for attentively responding to each study I've linked.  I especially enjoyed your feedback about the sexual abuse of children in foster care.  Perhaps you could repost some of those comments, so that everyone here can appreciate them.  Or your responses to the article about victims of child abuse at a prestigious NYC school, and how the abuse they suffered as children has impacted into their adulthood. 

Yet again, you are lying! You are attempting to cover up the fact that you were wrong by implying that I dodged those topics, yet they weren't even directed at me. You mentioned sexual abuse in foster care in response to a question Gnu Ordure asked you. Foster care is not adoption, foster parents take in children on a temporary basis for profit, not for love. This has nothing to do with me and nobody asked my opinion, so how dare you accuse me of dodging?

The other issue about the sex abuse at a New York school had nothing to do with the discussion about legalizing the possession of child pornography. You didn't seem to be directing your comments at anyone in particular. You didn't quote anyone, you didn't ask anyone's opinion. As a result, nobody made any comment about it. So I guess everyone dodged that?

I think from this post I've finally learned my lesson. You cherry pick and ignore logical arguments without making any of your own, then accuse others of doing the very same thing when they clearly haven't. When you're called out on your bullshit, you dive deeper into the bullshit. You're not intelligent enough to debate, which isn't a problem by itself, but you're also dishonest. You're not worth my time.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #154 on: July 23, 2012, 10:38:02 AM »
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #155 on: July 23, 2012, 10:48:36 AM »
Quote
We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life.
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.

Possibly in extreme cases like murder, but does that argument hold up when we charge kids as adults for stealing cars? And the argument completely falls apart for victimless crimes like pot possession. Also, when you consider that kids tried as adults have much higher recidivism rates than kids charged as juveniles, it is in fact creating more crime, not less.

It's very optimistic of you to give the system the benefit of doubt, but the real reason kids are charged as adults more and more often at younger and younger ages is greed. Longer prison terms means more money earned by our privatized prison systems. You see unlike state-owned facilities, these actually pay dividends, and who are the biggest shareholders? Why, our state congressmen and senators and their friends of course! They sell off our prisons to corporations, then pass more laws to put more people in jail for longer, and personally profit from the resulting misery. This is why they continue to stiffen penalties against pot possession despite waning public support for the war on drugs and mountains of studies that say marijuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol. As if that weren't bad enough, state run prisons cost the taxpayers less than half as much to operate but the politicians have sold the public on the idea of privatized prisons so they can pocket the difference.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #156 on: July 23, 2012, 10:51:19 AM »
So, to the fucking Pit with ye.

Fixed.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Online Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6425
  • Darwins +457/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #157 on: July 23, 2012, 10:58:54 AM »
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities?
We do this rather than the very expensive, time consuming and inaccurate assessment process; it is a convenience. Such age limits are often reviewed.

You still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?
The assessment is before the trial; it is unlikely that, in the heat of the moment, the adult and minor would take a break for the minor to be assessed.

Such an assessment, if carried out, would have to include an assessment of preparedness for every variation of erotic action possible – again it is impractical.

Or perhaps you are suggesting, for want of a better phrase, “a Sex licence” – a child of any age may apply for this and, if it is granted, may do as they wish –fisting to necrophilia and everything in between?

I think this would have presentational difficulties as 99.9% of the adult population would be opposed to this. The other thing is the minor would have to be sufficiently mature [compare this with your description of the 'fit for adult trial' examination] and it would have to be shown that there was not the slightest element of coercion by a lustful adult; the practical difficulties are simply not worth it.

Quote
We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life,
It is not done, “in order to destroy a young life” but to determine the most appropriate method of administering justice one that the accused can grasp.

Quote
Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
The assessment for trial is neutral, rather than evil.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 11:00:57 AM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #158 on: July 23, 2012, 11:03:00 AM »
Quote
We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life.
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.

Possibly in extreme cases like murder, but does that argument hold up when we charge kids as adults for stealing cars? And the argument completely falls apart for victimless crimes like pot possession. Also, when you consider that kids tried as adults have much higher recidivism rates than kids charged as juveniles, it is in fact creating more crime, not less.

It's very optimistic of you to give the system the benefit of doubt, but the real reason kids are charged as adults more and more often at younger and younger ages is greed. Longer prison terms means more money earned by our privatized prison systems. You see unlike state-owned facilities, these actually pay dividends, and who are the biggest shareholders? Why, our state congressmen and senators and their friends of course! They sell off our prisons to corporations, then pass more laws to put more people in jail for longer, and personally profit from the resulting misery. This is why they continue to stiffen penalties against pot possession despite waning public support for the war on drugs and mountains of studies that say marijuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol. As if that weren't bad enough, state run prisons cost the taxpayers less than half as much to operate but the politicians have sold the public on the idea of privatized prisons so they can pocket the difference.
wah wah wah...
so here you have a mix of pedophilia and systemic greed.
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #159 on: July 23, 2012, 11:53:18 AM »
You still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?
The assessment is before the trial; it is unlikely that, in the heat of the moment, the adult and minor would take a break for the minor to be assessed.

Yes, before the trial, but after the crime has been committed. Nobody is suggesting we perform the test before the crime. What I'm asking is why can't we use the same method of determining whether or not a minor should stand trial as an adult and apply it to statutory rape cases as well? Note that that means every act was consensual. If the minor gave consent, and the court determines that she was capable of giving said consent, case dismissed.

Obviously there would be no need in cases of forced rape, as no consent is given.
Such an assessment, if carried out, would have to include an assessment of preparedness for every variation of erotic action possible – again it is impractical.

Or perhaps you are suggesting, for want of a better phrase, “a Sex licence” – a child of any age may apply for this and, if it is granted, may do as they wish –fisting to necrophilia and everything in between?

I think this would have presentational difficulties as 99.9% of the adult population would be opposed to this. The other thing is the minor would have to be sufficiently mature [compare this with your description of the 'fit for adult trial' examination] and it would have to be shown that there was not the slightest element of coercion by a lustful adult; the practical difficulties are simply not worth it.

A sex license wouldn't work? Got it, thanks. But wait, I never sugges-- oh, I get it now! So you create a preposterous position that nobody was advocating and then proceed to tear it down? What a clever and novel approach to debate! You can shame your opponents into stunned silence with your obviously superior argument. But wait, I think I've discovered a flaw. What if someone notices that the position you created and then attacked is not their own position? That might make it look like you intentionally misrepresented their argument in order to more easily defeat them. Well, back to the drawing board I guess.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 12:00:51 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #160 on: July 23, 2012, 11:55:15 AM »
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?

Well, I hope you don't think that. That would make you very stupid. Would you mind explaining what I specifically said to lead you to this conclusion before I go ahead and assume that?

I was saying that we shouldn't try children as adults. Which by the way would mean they would go to juvenile detention centers, not prisons. Juveniles tried as adults who go to prisons are 5 times more likely to be raped while serving their sentence. So by arguing in favor of trying kids as adults, you are the one condemning more children to sexual abuse.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 11:58:42 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #161 on: July 23, 2012, 01:31:44 PM »
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities?
We do this rather than the very expensive, time consuming and inaccurate assessment process; it is a convenience. Such age limits are often reviewed.

Umm, no we don't.  A single age doesn't exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities, collectively.  Which is what I was saying with my post, and which should be obvious to anyone who read the context (ie. the post to which I was replying).
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #162 on: July 23, 2012, 04:44:19 PM »
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.


False dichotomy, Screw.

A third option would have been to moderate the single person calling other people 'fucking liars', which I understand from recent discussions is no longer allowed.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 06:31:28 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #163 on: July 23, 2012, 05:03:10 PM »
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.


Don't mind me for butting in, but I always thought the pit was for there

-Threads with little hope may be moved here to fester until a final death-

I've been gone for two days, so I haven't read the comments since Saturday, but I was keeping up with it and IMO Kimberly, Quasi and Gnu were all making good points, and Joe was defending his views[1].

Perhaps the thread took a U-Turn since I last visited it, but I don't think this thead has little hope.

I agree with Gnu. What happened to moderation?
 1. not that I agree with his views
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 05:18:54 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #164 on: July 23, 2012, 05:14:22 PM »
I thought the thread was proceeding fairly smoothly, all things considered.  Oh well.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Apatheist
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #165 on: July 23, 2012, 05:21:39 PM »
I was glad to see some new faces participating in this debate. I hope the threads new placement in the pit doesn't scare everyone off.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6196
  • Darwins +781/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #166 on: July 23, 2012, 06:05:39 PM »
I also thought the thread was a useful discussion. Just because a topic is difficult and contentious does not mean it should be shut down. I don't agree with Joe either most of the time, but he has a right to express his POV. Exchanging ideas is how we learn. Even a cuckoo clock can be right sometimes... :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #167 on: July 23, 2012, 06:32:46 PM »
i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #168 on: July 23, 2012, 06:43:44 PM »
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?

Well, I hope you don't think that. That would make you very stupid. Would you mind explaining what I specifically said to lead you to this conclusion before I go ahead and assume that?

I was saying that we shouldn't try children as adults. Which by the way would mean they would go to juvenile detention centers, not prisons. Juveniles tried as adults who go to prisons are 5 times more likely to be raped while serving their sentence. So by arguing in favor of trying kids as adults, you are the one condemning more children to sexual abuse.
thanks, it was a bad post...
in a round about way children perpetrators should be seen as children but innocent children used as sex toys should be seen as being able to engage adults as equals?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #169 on: July 23, 2012, 08:04:15 PM »
Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

<snip>

blah blah blah 

<snip>

That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record.


Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 08:25:18 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Apatheist
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #170 on: July 23, 2012, 08:10:15 PM »
^I'm pretty sure it would make Dave Mabus proud.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #171 on: July 23, 2012, 08:41:33 PM »
Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

<snip>

blah blah blah 

<snip>

That post contained 31 links, possibly a forum record.

Since nobody is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

And in one case, I was wrong.  I specifically remember following the thread in real time, and being outraged that Joe had not responded to my link on the Pessimism about Pedophilia article.  But Joe clearly did make a comment.  It is there now. 

Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.


Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Apatheist
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #172 on: July 23, 2012, 08:56:10 PM »
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.

This happened to me. I quoted a block of text[1] and responded to it. Went back a few hours later to re-read the last few pages of the thread because something was being quoted that I never read. Turns out he edited his post while I was making my post. I didn't mention it because we are talking about 2-3 min time lapse, but I missed it for at least a day.

I think it would be helpful if Joe added a note when he's changing the major tone of his post. If I do an edit to add a comment or information not previously addressed I will always put "Edited to add ________________". Unless my edit was only spelling or grammatical corrections.

IDK if everyone does that, but I find it very beneficial.
 1. Of Joe's.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
« Reply #173 on: July 23, 2012, 10:24:14 PM »
That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record.

Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

So since you're too lazy to bother with any fact checking, that somehow means I've committed a fallacy? Are you serious? It would take perhaps 10 minutes to read my post and verify everything I said. There was a time when people would actually read things to learn, I think they called them books, and I'm pretty sure they were a lot longer than my post. In the future I'll try to keep my exchanges with you limited to T-shirt slogans ok Gnu? I certainly wouldn't want to hurt your little brain with all them big mean facts.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT