|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,258 Year: 6,515/9,624 Month: 93/270 Week: 6/83 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Holmes & Tal: Harm | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Explanation of topic proposal:
This thread is a spin of, from the Moral Judgements thread, where pedophilia was raised as a topic during debate. Subsequently comments were made, that sexual activity was not harmful to anyone regardless of age. This incited heated debate, which was somewhat of topic to moral judgement, and more to do with generalisations and harm.
Comment that provoked the discussion:
I never said such a thing, unless you mean when I said there is no evidence that sexual activity causes any harm to anyone of any age? That stands. Definitions:
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage. 2. Wrong; evil. Harm&r=67 Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com 1 : physical or mental damage http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&... Forbidden 403 Forbidden 1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&... Definition:[n] activities associated with sexual intercourseForbidden "Sexual activity includes both sexual contact as well as noncontact sexual experiences, such as being exposed to pornography or exhibitionism."Page not found - Home Security Blog The clinical definition of a pedophile is as follows: A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. C. The person is at least 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. . . . cited in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders 4th ed. p. 528. Please Note: The views expressed by posters to this thread are personal opinion only, and are not endorsed by the EvC site or members generally. This topic is of a sensitive nature, and I would like to ask for people please treat the subject matter with the respect it deserves. Shaz NOTE: Original post edited, to remove bias from the current start from scratch arena. This message has been edited by Shaz, 15 January 2005 12:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
until we can decide if we really want this discussion. It's way away from the EvC content.
Can I please ask that you good folk honor my request and refrain from taking this to other threads until a decision is reached. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-12-2005 23:27 AM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please try to keep this one on topic and work very hard to keep it from becoming personal.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6046 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
NOTE (general): Given the rather sensitive nature of this topic, and the inability of some people to handle rational discussion on sexual topics, I am going to be very selective in who and what I address within this thread. Any person using innuendo or insults will be given one warning by me, after which (if they do not clean up their act) they will simply be ignored. I'm handling this one very carefully (avoiding my own sarcastic tendencies).
NOTE (to Shaz): When you quote from my posts, can you please put "..." when you skip portions of my statements. The quote you provided, when abbreviated the way it was did not read as I was intending it to. Also, you seemed to have my position a little bit wrong and Tal's quite wrong. He was quite clear in thinking that pedophilia is wrong, he was simply indicating that another person had no objective evidence to draw a line using the moral system (this may have been a wrong accusation but it was what he was making). Although I appreciate the start you gave, I want to suggest we approach this differently. I hope you will agree when I explain... I think we should not approach this from an end point and work backward. That is we shouldn't start with present assumptions and definitions and then try to refute them. I think it will make more sense to start from scratch and build mutually agreeable definitions and rules, adding evidence as needed. The complication: This subject contains many different issues and each one could be its own thread. Here are the different issues (outside of definitional issues like what do we mean by harm)... 1) Does sexual activity cause harm (esp in minors and esp when engaged in with adults)? If so, what kinds of harms and to what extent? And possibly how such harms compare to those from other sources? This subject would primarily be evidentiary. 2) Is sexual activity with minors morally wrong? Although this could include evidence from 1, it is not necessary depending on the moral system. This would not involve as much evidentiary discussion as philosophical arguments on criteria for judging wrong as it applies to sex, and then down to specifically sex and minors. 3) Should sex be regulated (esp with regard to minors esp with adults)? If so, why and how? This will also be less evidentiary with most discussion being on practical or legal concepts regarding sex. Each of those subjects are completely separate and not contingent upon each other. For example there may be no evidence of harm, and it may not be "wrong", yet there be perfectly good reasons to regulate it based on practical issues or issues of rights. Conversely there may be some harm, and it may be viewed as wrong, yet because of rights or practical issues it should not be regulated. I lay this out here so that, if you agree with the above, we can choose a specific topic and realize none decide the entire topic. That tends to take the pressure off of debate when people worry about how it impacts other issues and start working in new/unnecessary arguments. It seems to me that you are interested in addressing the first issue, which is whether sex causes harm (esp in minors and esp with adults. That would be fine. If so, we could then start creating definitions. But I will say that if we do approach #1 then the onus is going to have to be on the person arguing that sex causes harm to provide evidence for harm. That not only makes more sense in the guilty until proven innocent vein, but it is a practical impossibility to prove something does not exist. Assuming this is what we are going for then let me get some potential misunderstandings out of the way. I think it is safe to remove overt cases of rape and coercion from discussion. In adults and children alike, violent actions or inducing fear to get something (sexual or not) definitely has a negative impact of some kind. I am also quite in agreement that obsessive problems in anyone (and of any kind) can cause problems. Thus adults whose sexual desires drive them to actions they do not want to engage in and actually prevent them from working/living are suffering a psychological problem. If they are driven to force others into sexual acts (or any other acts) they will be inflicting some form of harm on a victim. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Thank you for choosing to reopen this Jar, it shows that this is a site which does not shirk from sensitive issues. I assure you that I am not the type to treat people with disrespect anyway. Thanks again.
Shaz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Holmes indeed I may have your position a bit wrong. I have certainly been following the posts and I agree with much of what you propose. My beef is though (apologies admin if this is considered personal), you made a generalised statement. I gave you opportunity to rephrase it, yet you refused and said that you still stood by it.
Again your comment: Holmes writes: "I never said such a thing, unless you mean when I said there is no evidence that sexual activity causes any harm to anyone of any age? That stands." Post-146 Now Holmes that is a generalisation, and one that is wrong, which I evidenced on the other thread this afternoon. Forgive me but I am slightly disturbed and even emotive about this, particularly as I requested for you to rephrase the original comment. Subsequently I now hold a personal bias toward discussion with you, and until this matter is addressed I don't believe we can move forward. That would be a shame, because I see in many many of your posts, that you make valid and reasonable points. Therefore my position is that this is not something that can just be discarded, not when children die in situations directly applicable to that comment. My stand may be considered to be unrealistic, or illogical, but for even one life, I will continue to make it. For the record I take this view with all things, and you will find me equally defensive of abuse toward perpetrators if you had made a similar generalisation. Shaz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6046 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Now Holmes that is a generalisation, and one that is wrong, which I evidenced on the other thread this afternoon. Forgive me but I am slightly disturbed and even emotive about this, particularly as I requested for you to rephrase the original comment. I think we my find ourselves at an impasse unless you are going to recognize that what I mean and what you are taking out of my statement are two different things. Sexual activity is as you have noted a range of activities and conditions. It seems that you are reading my statement to mean that a person can do the entire range of activities and under all conditions and there would be no harm. That is not even close to what I am saying, and hopefully you'll breathe a sigh of relief at that. What I am saying is that sexual activity itself (within common sense ranges and conditions) does not cause harm to anyone of any age. In the other thread you mentioned: fatalities, STDs, and physical injury. I think that really boils down to two issues: physical injury (up to and including fatal), and STDs. I am in total agreement that you CAN cause injury to someone using sexual means. That is regardless of age, though the methods which can cause physical damage increase as ages of a person being penetrated decrease. One can also damage a person of any age during sex through violent activities (but then the cause is violence and not sexual activity). This said, I think it is a bit of an equivocation to say that "sexual activity" causes harm when the actual problem you are looking at is "sexual activity without regard for physical well being (crudely put, not worrying about putting a large object into something which will not contain it), or use of violence". I think you would agree that there are some sexual activities which simply cannot cause sexual harm. To select sexual activities which will or are likely to cause harm in any specific case is pretty much a willful act of violence, or one of sheer ignorance. And that is at any age. As far as STDs go, I will once again point out that sexual activities do not cause STDs. That is pretty much beyond question. STDs are only spread by sexual activity, and that is when a person who is infected has sex with someone who is not infected. Yes, choosing to have sex with anyone when you are not sure of your sexual health, or know that you are infected, is a potentially harmful act. But then I would argue that is a choice, just like trying to penetrate someone whose size simply (and quite obviously) cannot physically accomodate that act. Thus the two harms collapse into one: physical injury (up to and including fatal, as well as STDs)... and that gets attached to sexual activity in a clause which specifies a certain set of conditions, and does not pertain to just plain "sexual activity". To say "sexual activity" causes harm, or that there is evidence that "sexual activity" causes harm, paints too large a stroke and covers activities which are pretty patently harmless physically. Yet I suppose what you are seeing me say (by using "sexual activity" causes no harm), is something which paints too large a stroke and absolves all activities including ones which are patently harmful. Let me amend it this way, and see if you agree... "Outside of specific actions which in a specific situation are likely to cause physical injury, there is no evidence that general sexual activity itself causes any harm to anyone." This of course covers anyone of any age. The idea that because one desires sex with another (or even with onesself) that all physical activities are possible, or healthy, is not realistic. It is possible to choose specific harmful acts in a situation, but then one is choosing not to engage in acts which are likely not to harm. Can we agree thus far? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Holmes:
I must apologise for my emotive reasoning in my last post, I was tired and I allowed that to affect my response. I'm sorry for that.
I think we my find ourselves at an impasse unless you are going to recognize that what I mean and what you are taking out of my statement are two different things. Attempting to recognise what someone means with this medium, can only come from the interpretation of words and context, and in that lies many variables. Therefore I consider it reasonable that the interpretation of something may indeed be different to what the writer intended. I personally hold the view, if in doubt, seek clarification. If that is not forthcoming, then I can only interpret the comment on content, in accordance with the words and my understanding of them.
Sexual activity is as you have noted a range of activities and conditions. It seems that you are reading my statement to mean that a person can do the entire range of activities and under all conditions and there would be no harm. By generalisations in your comment, yes I did interpret it as such. Blanket statements (generalisations) are indicative of an ‘all component’. You did this by your use of the words, ‘to anyone’, ‘no harm’, ‘no evidence’, and ‘any age’.
That is not even close to what I am saying, and hopefully you'll breathe a sigh of relief at that. I only illustrate this, because I would like to state for the record, that emotive positions are usually irrelevant to me when challenging an issue. I try to argue points on a technical basis, I should have been a lawyer. I will usually state though if I am emotive, use ‘lol’ or , anything else is normally clinical.
In the other thread you mentioned: fatalities, STDs, and physical injury. I think that really boils down to two issues: physical injury (up to and including fatal), and STDs. I do not know of any medical condition that could not be construed to be injurious in a physiological sense; albeit I may be wrong.
I think you would agree that there are some sexual activities which simply cannot cause sexual harm. Sorry Holmes I cannot agree, on your basis of using ‘simply cannot’. If you had said ‘there are some sexual activities which usually do not cause sexual harm’, then I would have agreed. However this is again a separate argument, because one then gets into the measurement of harm on a cultural, physical and psychological basis.
As far as STDs go, I will once again point out that sexual activities do not cause STDs. Agreed they do not cause infection, but they can still be a cause of infection. As you said yourself, it is a potentially harmful act, when one knowingly takes part in sexual activities whilst infected. Simple cause and affect basis applies, cause ~ the act, effect ~ contact with infection source. Therefore, the act can be the source and subsequently 'the cause' of infection, but I would not say that, ‘the act is the cause’. Again we argue semantics Holmes, but we do it so well don’t you think.
To say "sexual activity" causes harm, or that there is evidence that "sexual activity" causes harm, paints too large a stroke and covers activities which are pretty patently harmless physically. Agreed, but if you had made that statement I would likely have challenged it too.
Let me amend it this way, and see if you agree... "Outside of specific actions which in a specific situation are likely to cause physical injury, there is no evidence that general sexual activity itself causes any harm to anyone." Unfortunately Holmes I am still unable to agree, because your statement implies that there is an absolute of ‘no evidence’, and by saying ‘to anyone’, you apply a standard measurement of harm to all. What is hearsay to one, is fact to another, what is evidence to one, is chopped liverwurst to another, your own signature says as much. I would say, ‘Generally sexual activity does not cause harm, unless inappropriately applied’. Now the measurement of inappropriate is again another argument. However I believe that allows individual measurement to be applied with respect to cultures and the actual individuals, interpretation of ‘harm’, i.e. a culture that allows sexual relations with minors, may only consider it inappropriate if there was harm contrary to that custom, or the rights of the individuals concerned.
Can we agree thus far? It is entirely likely, that there will never be a complete agreement reached between us on this issue. For the record: I am also quite aware that I am being pedantic. I don't mean anything personal toward you by that, it is simply my response to generalisations used with sensitive topics. We may very well be at an impasse. Therefore we could choose to drop this whole thing, or simply agree to disagree with what has passed, choose a topic and start again.Do you have a preference? Shaz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6046 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It is entirely likely, that there will never be a complete agreement reached between us on this issue. Actually I came away from your post with a much more positive feeling. I think we'll reach some form of agreement. It seems that this is mainly a semantics problem. I used terms which you took to mean something broadly open, and which I take to mean something not nearly as broad. I certainly can't say it makes you wrong, and I will use it as a check that I should try and be more specific. In my defense I will say that I was writing that quickly as a side note on a subject to a person I have talked with before and did not feel my words would be seen as broad as you interpreted them. So let's get back to work...
I do not know of any medical condition that could not be construed to be injurious in a physiological sense; albeit I may be wrong. I agree with this which is why I collapsed it later to simply one issue which is causing injury. I only started with STDs as separate as your post had listed them separately.
Sorry Holmes I cannot agree, on your basis of using ‘simply cannot’. If you had said ‘there are some sexual activities which usually do not cause sexual harm’, then I would have agreed. However this is again a separate argument, because one then gets into the measurement of harm on a cultural, physical and psychological basis. To be honest rereading the sentence I don't even agree with it. I guess I was writing too quickly and put in a couple words I hadn't meant to. In fact if someone else had written it I would have asked why there couldn't be other types of harm than "sexual harm". I meant something else.
Agreed they do not cause infection, but they can still be a cause of infection. Heheheh... you are a stickler for semantics on one subject and I am a stickler on this one. I think most people get confused when "cause" is used and so should not be used unless necessary. Sexual contact with those who are infected can be the cause of infection, sex in general cannot. From hindsight one can say for this infection sex was the route (or cause of), but it was sex with a particular person. Thus I argue for saying it is a possible path for an infectious disease, and not it is a cause of infection. A good example to follow how we handle a cold. We would not say breathing is the cause of a sinus infection. What we'd say is contact with a sick person is the cause of the infection. This makes things more clear and takes away the implication sex is somehow infectious.
your statement implies that there is an absolute of ‘no evidence’, and by saying ‘to anyone’, you apply a standard measurement of harm to all. Actually I will have to stand by this, there really is no evidence for harm coming intrinsically from sexual acts toward anyone (and that means all). It is the specific conditions of any particular act which may create conditions for harm. I think your argument is really that my general sounding statement must be altered to include the possibility of specific conditions, such that people cannot take it to mean there is no possibility of causing harm while having sex.
I would say, ‘Generally sexual activity does not cause harm, unless inappropriately applied’. Now the measurement of inappropriate is again another argument. However I believe that allows individual measurement to be applied with respect to cultures and the actual individuals, interpretation of ‘harm’, i.e. a culture that allows sexual relations with minors, may only consider it inappropriate if there was harm contrary to that custom, or the rights of the individuals concerned. I think this is an interesting argument and I would agree the statement would allow different cultures to apply their own standards. I have already said that cultures can very well view something as a harm that another would not, as well as creating harm in order to fulfill expectations. However that is not what I was trying to discuss at all. I was trying to get at a more scientific/objective point which is irrespective of socio-cultural influence. That is must sexual activity inherently cause harm, regardless of culture? That is what I was getting at when I would refer to it as "general sexual activity" or "sex itself". This objective assessment is important as it does affect how people assign blame or wrong. Homosexuals would argue that despite cultural views of it as harmful, there is no intrinsic harm in homosexual activity, and so should not be considered wrong. To data that might point to a correlation between homosexuality and harm, they would argue that it is culturally created (a cultural artifact) and so not a problem of homosexuality per se. They would demand that evidence be built up to show that there is an intrinsic harm from the physical acts themselves. This is arguably a more accurate approach, which science is increasingly accepting, which can and should be applied to all sexual acts, including those involving minors. With this all in mind let me propose another statement... "There is no evidence that sexual activity inherently causes harm, regardless of age of participants, except through negligent or irresponsible behavior." The last part refers to not taking precautions or regarding common sense physical limits (though not intentionally trying to break them, which would overtly be acts of rape or violence and not sex). To the phrase above could also be added: "However there is evidence that harm can be generated by environmental factors in which any particular sex act takes place, such as use of violence and fear as well as the general expectations and moral labels cultures may impose on sex acts." This would take care of your concerns for allowing cultures to define their own harm, yet recognize it is generated from the environment they have created. Maybe we are closer to agreement. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Ah Holmes, the waters are always muddy, aren't they?
What we'd say is contact with a sick person is the cause of the infection. Partially agree, it appears you are saying that sexual activity with an 'infected' person is a cause of infection. Based on contact alone is not relevant, because I can share a home with a HIV person and not contract the condition. Therefore there needs to be a particular type of contact, hence why I said, 'sexual activity can be a cause of infection'. The cold scenario is a little weighted, as the means of contraction is different, it merely requires me to inhale the airborne virus, whereas an STD requires a sexual act. This is irrelevant to another person, I can equally have infected myself (as ludicrous as it sounds, it is possible albeit extremely unlikely, if one was to borrow someone's vibrator). Now this in no way implies that sex in general causes infection, it merely states that a sexual activity has to occur for there to be infection. Semantics, Pedantics, I know. lol
Shaz writes: 'your statement implies that there is an absolute of 'no evidence', and by saying 'to anyone', you apply a standard measurement of harm to all. Holmes writes: Actually I will have to stand by this, there really is no evidence for harm coming intrinsically from sexual acts toward anyone (and that means all). I will equally have to stand by my statement, because you are applying one measuring stick of harm in relation to all. Now of course I am from a Western culture, where psychological trauma is becoming almost a norm. Regardless of where they stem from though, they do exist, and for that reason I can not endorse anything which applies the standard of harm as merely being relevant to a generalised interpretation of harm. To do so, would imply that what I see and experience in my culture in relation to individuals, and their perspectives of harm is not real. That then brings into question psychosomatic tendencies, and culural bias, again another argument.
It is the specific conditions of any particular act which may create conditions for harm. Indeed you are right, and specific conditions, includes environmental and information. We are not talking morality here though Holmes, we are talking the intricate relativity of harm.
Now the idea of supreme value is what I personally believe is responsible for most all manner of actions regardless of cultural environment. In this I see actions as stemming from a belief that what one knows (believes to be truth) is more than what the next person knows, and indeed this could never be judged. Therefore to apply my standards as being equal to another would be an act of supremacy. It is for this reason that I attempt to apply a, 'minimise harm' standard to all that I do. In my interaction with people, I consider who they are, location, cognitive function, physiological condition, psychological condition and urgency of relevance. That is my personal opinion, and why I choose not to endorse generalised perspectives.
I think your argument is really that my general sounding statement must be altered to include the possibility of specific conditions, such that people cannot take it to mean there is no possibility of causing harm while having sex. Indeed my argument is about your generalised statement, but specific conditions would be impossible to achieve. You could spend years working up a list of specific conditions apply them across the board, and then possibly learn that you had still missed one. In doing this you would not be acknowledging one minority group or one person, and that in my opinion removes equal value from them.
I was trying to get at a more scientific/objective point which is irrespective of socio-cultural influence. That is must sexual activity inherently cause harm, regardless of culture? Holmes honestly nobody must do anything, and nothing must be applied to anything, my personal opinion is if we removed the word must from the dictionary we might be a happier world. What we do though, is according to our own agenda, and for every action there is a reaction; that is fact.
This objective assessment is important as it does affect how people assign blame or wrong. I agree, if we do not use an objective assessment then 'blame' or 'wrong' is assigned subjectively. However using an objective assessment, becomes a contradiction if we apply it in a subjective manner, which is what we do when we generalise. At times I too am guilty of doing this, and when noted address it accordingly, but to ask me to endorse someone else doing it is not feasible given my view.
This is arguably a more accurate approach, which science is increasingly accepting, which can and should be applied to all sexual acts, including those involving minors. Such as is arguably done in courts of law, however not everything can come to a court of law. In an 'ideal world', we would be able to be our own law onto ourself, and our interactions with others would respect all. In this there would be no harm intentionally done, there would be no disregard for the rights of others, and there would be most definitely no supremacy of value above another. That is my idealist view, and I realise that, which is why I do not hold it up to anyone else as a measuring stick against them.
"There is no evidence that sexual activity inherently causes harm, regardless of age of participants, except through negligent or irresponsible behavior." No affirmation from me on your sentence, as it stands alone, it is regarded as a full view and one that I cannot endorse.
"However there is evidence that harm can be generated by environmental factors in which any particular sex act takes place, such as use of violence and fear as well as the general expectations and moral labels cultures may impose on sex acts." Adding this would indeed change the basis of your first sentence. It would also be a direct contradiction of the first statement. In the first you say there is no evidence of harm, in the second you say there is evidence of harm. I make this point because your first sentence still reads as a generalised statement whereas your second states harm being specific to various factors, when indeed I believe not one of us could list all the factors.
This would take care of your concerns for allowing cultures to define their own harm, yet recognize it is generated from the environment they have created. Regardless of how it was created, cultures have individual societal customs and that is their reality. That there are also deviations of these customs within individual members of a society is also real. To globalise and give one a polar position in my estimation would be a form of judgement, or act of supremacy on one being of more value than another. Therefore citing individual examples, i.e. causes of harm, is placing a basis on subjective reasoning and interpretation, making a generalised position of harm also allows for interpretation and one standard of measurement. It is in my personal opinion that each of us has an accountability to ensure we are not misinterpreted. That does not mean that such would still not be the case, but it is my belief that by doing what we can to eliminate possible misinterpretations is far better for the world in general. Holmes I would like to break down your statement to further illustrate why I am unable to agree with it.
quote: I would also like to add; using the terms 'anyone' or 'any age', in conjunction to sexual activity, limits it to a subjective status. One could argue for sex with animals or even sex with a spirit entity (lucky Tal isn't here, he might be horrified ). Therefore in reference to sexual activity, I find the use of any generalised boundary to be subjective. So here is my overall conclusion: Sexual activity is one playing field, harm is another, age is another, what constitutes as evidence is another. Each of these playing fields has hundreds of different correlations, therefore to generalise with anything, though often done it is subjective. Therefore my statement would be:
Or Perhaps we are still at an impasse Holmes, and it seems as if everyone is leaving us to haggle it out alone. Shaz Edit to add point and clarify statement ~ Holmes I edited post no 1, in an attempt to remove bias of interpretation, to where this topic is currently at (hope that makes sense). Please could you let me know if that is not to your approval? This message has been edited by Shaz, 15 January 2005 17:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6046 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What's funny is that you seem to some away with each post sort of down. I am only seeing a movement toward a center, with perhaps a few arguable personal prefs.
The only problem I see is that you are perhaps pushing this more toward conclusion about harm, rather than creating a statement regarding evidence. That is not necessarily wrong but the whole thing was generated about a statement of what scientific evidence we have regarding harm. I freely admit that any comment such as that will be limited by the knowledge base of the speaker, but that happens in all fields and can be challenged by people with a broader knowledge base. I guess I also think you are bringing in a few irrelevant factors (such as inability to assess risk... that itself does not create a harm, as well as STDs since they are not an inherent part of sexual activity), but your final statements are not anything I would disagree with at all. This sounds almost perfect... "Sexual activity does not cause harm, unless subjectively viewed to do so." To make it perfect (in order to address what I was getting at) I'd rather it read like... "Current evidence indicates that sexual activity does not inherently cause harm, regardless of age, unless subjectively viewed to do so." Or maybe more accurately... "Currently there is no evidence to suggest that sexual activity inherently causes harm, regardless of age, unless subjectively viewed to do so." Now since evidence is continually updated, and I may be unaware of a study (perhaps from another nation), this could be wrong, but it is as right as my saying "current evidence is that time travel is impossible given modern technology". A person may always challenge my statement regarding the actual state of current evidence. I do need to stick in "regardless of age" for the purpose of the discussion at hand. I do agree it could be left out in general statements regarding sex. end note: I did disagree with your argument about "cause of" for sex and STDs, but that is minor, wholly semantic preference, and will only throw us off topic so I'll drop it. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
What's funny is that you seem to some away with each post sort of down. Not sure what you mean here, but I read it that you are saying I am down, as in mood. If that is the case, then I fail to see how you could have drawn that conclusion unless I expressed that to you.
The only problem I see is that you are perhaps pushing this more toward conclusion about harm I guess I also think you are bringing in a few irrelevant factors (such as inability to assess risk... No. I am pushing this toward the GENERALISATION of sexual activity, harm, and the ‘regardless of age’, component in your comments, and I always have been, contrary to how it may appear. Inability to assess risk is a very relevant factor, and it is entirely dependant on ones cognitive understanding. Take the first quote in this post for example; you interpreted something and inaccurately. However this medium leads to confusion; the same can be said for someone who is not cognitively developed. Current evidence shows a correlation, between cognitive development, elements of risk taking and subsequent harm. People with an intellectual disability and children are cognitively immature, and subject to confusion in relation to understanding basic elements of many activities. As a result of this confusion, their actions are inherently subject to risk taking and subsequent harm. Therefore including ‘current evidence’, and ‘regardless of age’, in relation to harm in your comment, is a direct contradiction. This can be supported, by current evidence in relation to cognitive immaturity.
~ there is evidence to show a direct correlation to cognitive immaturity and activities resulting in harm, including sexual activities. Therefore a generalised statement is not applicable.
I do need to stick in "regardless of age" for the purpose of the discussion at hand. I do agree it could be left out in general statements regarding sex. That’s your choice, but in doing so in a generalised statement we will not reach agreement. Generalised statements do not imply division of scenario and/or individual incidents. Your comment is a blanket statement and does not address some incidents, therefore it is inaccurate. Example: An intellectually disabled man, of 30, (age) assaults (sexual activity) an 8 year old (age) causing damage (harm) in the process which requires medical intervention (current evidence of physiological differences). Therefore in this instance sexual activity has caused harm. My point being, that in your generalization you are saying that sexual activity does not cause harm. As a generalization that is not applicable, because sexual activity, and harm, are subjective. You may say that this is a separate incident, and different to general sexual activity. Yet you would be contradicting your own statement as it stands; a generalization by its very nature incorporates all, so there is no room for separate incidences.
"current evidence is that time travel is impossible given modern technology". A person may always challenge my statement regarding the actual state of current evidence. Equally they might challenge your use of the word impossible, however citing an example such as this is unequally balanced in relation to the topic we are discussing which is children, and pedophilia. Let’s try my example: 'There is current evidence, that men who talk about pedophilia molest children.'Now this statement is utter rubbish, though in some instances it may be the case, it could not ever be applied as a generalisation toward all men who discuss pedophilia. Therefore as a generalised statement it is as inaccurate, as the 'regardless of age', sexual activity and harm correlation in your statement. Here is where the line is: I have shown that ‘regardless of age’, in relation to harm and sexual activity as a generalisation is inaccurate. Attempting to define a line of sexual activity, as being seperate to one of force, is not possible, because sexual activity is subjective. I have supported that with evidence on another thread, and yet we are still debating that generalisation, which is actually your subjective view. If you want to change this position then my recommendation is that you personalise your comment, by adding ‘I believe’. You will then receive no argument from me, that is your opinion and one I have no bearing on, as you are responsible for your 'belief' whatever it may be. So do you agree:
Shaz This message has been edited by Shaz, 16 January 2005 09:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
Another point in relation to generalisation:
If I said to you, cars are not dangerous, I would be correct, equally if I said sex is not dangerous, or bullets, or guns, or bombs, equally I would be correct. Bullet = SexGun = Person Pulling the trigger = Activity A gun in my hand is not a gun in your hand.
Therefore if I say sexual activity (shooting) causes no harm, I generalise and would be wrong, but if I say sexual activity can cause harm, it doesn’t mean it will, doesn’t mean it wont, it merely means that there is the potential there for it to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6046 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Not sure what you mean here, but I read it that you are saying I am down, as in mood. I meant that the messages ended on a down note, that is to say that you are skeptical that we will reach an agreement. I didn't share that feeling until this last reply. As I said I was willing to agree with the statement you had mentioned in the reply before this, but it needed to be tweaked in order to actually address what I was saying at the time (the statement you initially disagreed with). I do not actually understand your hesitation to use how I tweaked it given your arguments. I completely concur that if someone wanted to just make a blanket generalization about sex, kind of a general pronouncement, then the one you had come up with is fine. The problem is that I was not just making a blank statement, I was reacting to a specific situation. There were already generalizations made, which I will note that you did not react to, that any and all sex involving children under a certain age was harmful. I believe there were even statements that there was evidence for this (though I could stand corrected on that). In that context your general statement would not act as a rebuttal. I was trying to make a statement regarding the actual state of scientific knowledge (as far as I am aware) on the effects of sex on children. Indeed you later claimed that there was evidence that children were harmed by sex, but now in this post you seem to be undercutting your own position (which is to say that you can make such a generalized statement). Yes I do agree that definitions and methods of measurement of sexual activity and harm will have subjective components. I disagree that they cannot be focused such that we get down to whether it is the sexual contact itself which is causing a specific set of physical and psychological harm. I also disagree that evidence is subjective. What counts as evidence could be, but once fixed as criteria, the absence or presence of evidence should be quite objective. ... Shoot I was hoping to be able to give you a full response today, but I ran out of time. I'll try and get back to you later tonight, or tomorrow. Sorry about that. I guess I should have answered your post first. This message has been edited by holmes, 01-16-2005 06:07 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaz Inactive Member |
...messages ended on a down note The down note, you observed was a result of inner turmoil, and is relevant to knowing pedophiles, and supporting them, as I also do with victims.
"I was trying to make a statement..." You generalised to do it. You may not like my position, or the argument that I put forth, but I have seen the evidence, and for that reason I took you up on your comment. As for the rest of my position on this, or what I know but cant use, it is irrelevant. Personal is not objective. Given that, I feel that I have done a reasonable job, at remaining objective in this discussion.
"Indeed you later claimed that there was evidence that children were harmed by sex..." At the time you made your original statement, I challenged it, you posted that it was typical of people to speak of evidence and then run away. Knowing full well my conflictual position, I came back to show you what evidence I could easily gather and use. The implication you are making that I have not supported my case, I feel is unfounded and unfair.
"...but now in this post you seem to be undercutting your own position (which is to say that you can make such a generalized statement)." If by undercutting my position you mean, trying to meet you in the middle and be non judgemental, then you could say that. That is simply who I am. I also believe we can make as many generalised statements as we wish, so long as we personalise them.
There were already generalizations made, which I will note that you did not react to,... Yes indeed you are right here, and at the time it was a matter of weighing up the heaviest, in relation to the minority groups that I advocate for. However I am not an army, I am one person. I will also state that since we started this discussion, I have seen a post to be totally deragatory and full of assumptions towards yourself. I wanted to challenge that, but decided this one took precedence. Two days ago, I also came across a post where someone used the label 'mental retard'. That one was the most difficult to walk away from, but as I stated I am but one person, and I had made a commitment to this discussion with you.
"...actual state of scientific knowledge (as far as I am aware) on the effects of sex on children." People are not statistics, or numbers, death, disease, pain, shame, humiliation, are not all measured scientifically. Playing tug of war games in relation to people, is damaging not just to the victim but also to the perpetrator. If you intended for this to be over, you found the way to do it. Cheers Holmes. Shaz Edit to add ~ how do I support both groups? Simple, each is an individual, and I treat them that way. This message has been edited by Shaz, 17 January 2005 00:15 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024