Ok, Holmes. here is a bit of stuff.
I said put it in the pertinent thread. I will be more than happy to discuss it there... not here. It looks like it could be interesting, and appears pretty objective (from what I read so far).
Why are you defending the issue that kids exposed to sex at a young age are in general not harmed?
The position I have taken is more detailed in the other thread. However I am not defending anything. People have made claims that there is objective harm, and it is regardless of societal effects. I spent years looking for this in research (both in the past and then again more recently) and have found none.
It was in conjunction with work on a paper for pornography, and then later during research for a documentary on pornography with a possible angle on porn's effects on kids. I have education in sociology and sociological research, so it wasn't like this was simply flailing around and not understanding the research I was looking at.
I have stated that it is possible for harm to come about through overtly violent and coerced sexual activity, as well as within cultures that deride such activity (or sex in general) due to the effects of societal expectations. Thus I am at no time saying there is no possibility of harm under any condition, simply that there is no research that i am aware of which indicates harm intrinsically stemming from sexual activity under all conditions, and as far as this thread goes I have addressed what aoc laws are based on... which is primarily morality.
I think that this is an attempt on your part to justify the abuse that victims close to you have suffered.
You are wrong. You are probably thinking this because you are caught in the witchhunt mentality currently ongoing in the world toward sex, which inevitably makes people think that those who state rational arguments which undercut irrational hatred, must be allied in some way with those that are hated.
Do you believe that a child exposed to sexual situations from an adult ten years older or more suffers any abuse some(1-25%) much(26%-55%) or most of the time?
It depends on the culture. But inherently (outside culture) there is no mechanism I can think of which makes the touch of someone 10 years older create a different effect in someone's brain. Can you? As Quetzal pointed out in another thread there really are cultures which exist that do not carry such stigma and so do not suffer the problems we assume come with sex.
If not, where are your statistics?
How do you prove a nonexistence? You know what is much easier? Proving something that is supposed to be so obvious, because there is so much evidence. That is why there is a thread open. Provide the evidence.
If not, explain why else you have such a legal passion for proving that no victimization has taken place?
I am also quite passionate in arguing for homosexual legal rights including marriage, despite not ever being in the position to 1) get married, or 2) have a gay relationship at all. That includes entering the military which I could do just fine.
Why do you think I defend them?
I am quite passionate for the rights of Palestinians, despite not being a Palestinian, nor going to benefit from anything that they could get.
Why do you think I defend them?
I am also passionately defending the right of a guy to get a fair trial, despite not knowing MJ personally, and not carrying if in the end he is found innocent or guilty.
Why would I defend him?
Oh yeah, I have also stated repeatedly for the record that I do believe there are reasons for aoc laws which are moral based, and under the laws I think should be in place regarding aoc MJ would still be indictable as he is now, and that if evidence can really be found that harm is intrinsically generated by sexual activity in children, aoc laws can be strengthened accordingly.
So what does this add up to PB?
It means that regardless what you "think" my sexual history is, or what my actual position on all of this is (which you have already misstated anyway to arrive at your conclusion of my sexual history), I have other more important commitments.
I believe in reason and evidence as the best methods to reaching conclusions, and that free societies function best when the laws are restricted as much as possible such that they focus on preservation of people's rights, rather than setting a singular morality regarding any issue.
Interestingly enough (about the only anecdotal stories you will get on this topic from me) I know of people harmed by the current laws and hysteria. False charges and real hurt. Charges were taken back, revealed to be patently false, but too late. Everyone wanted to believe, wanted to hate.
I was almost part of a "lynch mob" regarding such an issue and due to my staying calm and looking at facts I discovered the charges against several people were false. Charges were revealed as false (just like in the salem witch trials folks). If I had not said anything more than likely someone would have been in jail or worse. That really shook me up. Oh yeah, turns out one of the main people leading the "mob" had actually molested a child once. We all found that out later.
Yeah, events like that can really shape your attitude. Give me evidence and reason.
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)
™ Version 4.2
