Vital Prime Male Enhancement : Where Can...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Social Media Backlash Against Russia
I notice there are a lot of 'boycott the Winter Olympics' and protest posts against the Russian attitude towards the LGBT community; and quite rightly so.
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim; Throughout, he is establishing how different peoples views are/were formed on paedophilia, but nowhere is he claiming that it is some form of psychological disorder to be identified as a stand-alone sexual aberration, as has been stated. I stand by my 1st quote above, and on the age of consent, Tatchel is not demanding parity, he actually thinks it should be lowered to 14.
Regarding my remark on universities (to LG), I am not, (obviously) suggesting that they are comparable institutions, but of the ones listed, all were also founded on a Christian ethos, and all have thriving departments of theology, no reason alone for dismissal of any their espoused views.
Regarding my remark on universities (to LG), I am not, (obviously) suggesting that they are comparable institutions, but of the ones listed, all were also founded on a Christian ethos, and all have thriving departments of theology, no reason alone for dismissal of any their espoused views.
This is what Tatchell actually said.
"I don’t advocate that young people have sex before the age of 16. It is best if they wait. But if they do have sex before they are 16 they should not be criminalised. Criminalisation is not protection."
"Adults should never have sex with children. Abuse is always wrong. This is a legitimate concern"
"One option would be to keep the age of consent at 16, but decriminalise sex involving youths aged 14-16, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages.
This would, for example, end the criminalisation of two 15 year olds, while continuing to prohibit sex between 15-year-olds and 50-year-olds"
"Even then, I would favour a reduction to 14 only if it was backed up with assertiveness training and earlier, better quality sex and relationship education in schools, to help young people make wise, responsible sexual decisions, including the choice to not have sex.
Such measures are likely to have the knock-on effect of helping cut the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV"
http://
That seems a fairly measured and thoughtful response to the state of play regarding human sexuality and the age of consent, to me. Not a charter for the buggery of children, as you seem to believe.
And more weasel words from you regarding the comparison of Liberty University with Cambridge, Oxford or Harvard. Merely mentioning them in the same paragraph is linking them, offering them up as similar institutions. The fact is that Liberty University is a joke amongst educationalists except those of an evangelical christian persuasion, and stands no comparison to a genuine institution of higher learning.
The facts remain. You are desperately attempting to defend your notion that adult male homosexuality predisposes to paedophilia/child abuse in a way that adult male heterosexuality does not.
The evidence does not support this.
"I don’t advocate that young people have sex before the age of 16. It is best if they wait. But if they do have sex before they are 16 they should not be criminalised. Criminalisation is not protection."
"Adults should never have sex with children. Abuse is always wrong. This is a legitimate concern"
"One option would be to keep the age of consent at 16, but decriminalise sex involving youths aged 14-16, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages.
This would, for example, end the criminalisation of two 15 year olds, while continuing to prohibit sex between 15-year-olds and 50-year-olds"
"Even then, I would favour a reduction to 14 only if it was backed up with assertiveness training and earlier, better quality sex and relationship education in schools, to help young people make wise, responsible sexual decisions, including the choice to not have sex.
Such measures are likely to have the knock-on effect of helping cut the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV"
http://
That seems a fairly measured and thoughtful response to the state of play regarding human sexuality and the age of consent, to me. Not a charter for the buggery of children, as you seem to believe.
And more weasel words from you regarding the comparison of Liberty University with Cambridge, Oxford or Harvard. Merely mentioning them in the same paragraph is linking them, offering them up as similar institutions. The fact is that Liberty University is a joke amongst educationalists except those of an evangelical christian persuasion, and stands no comparison to a genuine institution of higher learning.
The facts remain. You are desperately attempting to defend your notion that adult male homosexuality predisposes to paedophilia/child abuse in a way that adult male heterosexuality does not.
The evidence does not support this.
Way back on page 3, I actually gave Khandro a link to a statement by Tatchell which comes with the following disclaimer in bold in big grey box right at the top:
"I do not support adults having sex with children.
I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16.
But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.
Perhaps the ideal solution would be that the age of consent remains at 16 but that sexual behaviour involving young people under 16 should not be criminalised, providing there is informed consent, no one is harmed and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages. This would end the criminalisation of similar-aged young people, while protecting the under-16s against sexual abuse by those much older. I hope this reassures you - Peter Tatchell"
http://
But there again Khandro doesn't seem to have bothered reading it then, so I guess there's no reason to assume he will now.
"I do not support adults having sex with children.
I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16.
But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.
Perhaps the ideal solution would be that the age of consent remains at 16 but that sexual behaviour involving young people under 16 should not be criminalised, providing there is informed consent, no one is harmed and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages. This would end the criminalisation of similar-aged young people, while protecting the under-16s against sexual abuse by those much older. I hope this reassures you - Peter Tatchell"
http://
But there again Khandro doesn't seem to have bothered reading it then, so I guess there's no reason to assume he will now.
kromo; You are correct, I did fail to read your link which I should have done, I simply quoted you saying he wanted the consent level dropped to 14. I don't know why a grown man would be so concerned for this, and would think the 'demand' if there is one, should come from 14 year olds. His disclaimers sound, at least to me, suspicious.
LG; The reference to other universities was to highlight your dismissal of the American research, apparently not on content, but on the fact that the university in underpinned by a religious ethos, and they are far from alone in that and I picked glaring examples. I'm sure you wouldn't dismiss the work of the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, (full name: College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity) because he goes to church on Sundays. There is no connection between the institutions, I refer to your grounds for dismissal.
LG; The reference to other universities was to highlight your dismissal of the American research, apparently not on content, but on the fact that the university in underpinned by a religious ethos, and they are far from alone in that and I picked glaring examples. I'm sure you wouldn't dismiss the work of the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, (full name: College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity) because he goes to church on Sundays. There is no connection between the institutions, I refer to your grounds for dismissal.
@ Khandro " I don't know why a grown man would be so concerned for this, and would think the 'demand' if there is one, should come from 14 year olds. His disclaimers sound, at least to me, suspicious. "
This says it all. To you it sounds suspicious, because you mistrust homosexuals and think that it predisposes to child abuse. To anyone else, the issues around the age of consent and sex education should be of concern to any responsible adult, parent or otherwise, so a discussion around the age of consent should be perfectly acceptable.
"LG; The reference to other universities was to highlight your dismissal of the American research, apparently not on content, but on the fact that the university in underpinned by a religious ethos, and they are far from alone in that and I picked glaring examples. I'm sure you wouldn't dismiss the work of the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, (full name: College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity) because he goes to church on Sundays. There is no connection between the institutions, I refer to your grounds for dismissal"
Failure of comprehension on your part yet again. I mentioned the fact that the "research" was essentially an opinion piece that had not passed peer review, and was not even by an academic in the field. They tried to add gravitas to the paper by linking to "Prof Judith Reissman", but she is an expert in communication, not psychiatry or human sexuality. But when weighting studies, the source and potential conflicts of interest are also important.
The fact that it was published by an advocacy group with a strong christian ethos and homophobic agenda ,endorsed by a professor from a different discipline but associated with an evangelical educational institution/ diploma mill means you should be viewing the "evidence" presented with some scepticism. You seem incapable of this if it supports your own prejudice.
Once again, lets remind ourselves of your contribution to this thread. You claim that adult male homosexuals are more predisposed, by virtue of their homosexuality, to child abuse than their heterosexual counterparts, but you have been able to present no compelling evidence to support your conclusion.
You offer strawman equivalences; ( Grown men crying, vs. teen girls gagging for it) which were disgraceful.
You have demonstrated irrational thinking; Arriving at a conclusion through personal prejudice and then cherry-picking the available data to pick those that support your conclusion.
You have offered bad science/statistics, with a nonsense bayesian analysis of human sexuality, and you have offered the odd newspaper clipping about individual child abusers to try and support your contention.
You attempt to equate Liberty University with respectable institutions of higher learning.
You offer Angelides paper, signally failing to recognise that the paper refutes your prejudice.
Despite the wealth of considered rebuttals, you continue to hold fast to your central thesis/prejudices, quibbling over peripheral issues. Its like watching a dumb version of Canute, stubbornly trying to hold back the tidal wave of evidence and fact, to be honest.
This says it all. To you it sounds suspicious, because you mistrust homosexuals and think that it predisposes to child abuse. To anyone else, the issues around the age of consent and sex education should be of concern to any responsible adult, parent or otherwise, so a discussion around the age of consent should be perfectly acceptable.
"LG; The reference to other universities was to highlight your dismissal of the American research, apparently not on content, but on the fact that the university in underpinned by a religious ethos, and they are far from alone in that and I picked glaring examples. I'm sure you wouldn't dismiss the work of the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, (full name: College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity) because he goes to church on Sundays. There is no connection between the institutions, I refer to your grounds for dismissal"
Failure of comprehension on your part yet again. I mentioned the fact that the "research" was essentially an opinion piece that had not passed peer review, and was not even by an academic in the field. They tried to add gravitas to the paper by linking to "Prof Judith Reissman", but she is an expert in communication, not psychiatry or human sexuality. But when weighting studies, the source and potential conflicts of interest are also important.
The fact that it was published by an advocacy group with a strong christian ethos and homophobic agenda ,endorsed by a professor from a different discipline but associated with an evangelical educational institution/ diploma mill means you should be viewing the "evidence" presented with some scepticism. You seem incapable of this if it supports your own prejudice.
Once again, lets remind ourselves of your contribution to this thread. You claim that adult male homosexuals are more predisposed, by virtue of their homosexuality, to child abuse than their heterosexual counterparts, but you have been able to present no compelling evidence to support your conclusion.
You offer strawman equivalences; ( Grown men crying, vs. teen girls gagging for it) which were disgraceful.
You have demonstrated irrational thinking; Arriving at a conclusion through personal prejudice and then cherry-picking the available data to pick those that support your conclusion.
You have offered bad science/statistics, with a nonsense bayesian analysis of human sexuality, and you have offered the odd newspaper clipping about individual child abusers to try and support your contention.
You attempt to equate Liberty University with respectable institutions of higher learning.
You offer Angelides paper, signally failing to recognise that the paper refutes your prejudice.
Despite the wealth of considered rebuttals, you continue to hold fast to your central thesis/prejudices, quibbling over peripheral issues. Its like watching a dumb version of Canute, stubbornly trying to hold back the tidal wave of evidence and fact, to be honest.
Khandro, you've just moved the goalposts again. Angelides' language clearly indicates that a link between homosexuality and paedophilia originated not out of any statistical basis but as an attempt to defend the traditional man. Someone who calls such a link "rhetorical" and "apparent" and other words loaded with scepticism does not take that claim even remotely seriously. Nor even is he claiming that paedophilia is somehow made-up, exactly. Rather, our views on how children should be treated changed, and suddenly something that could have been regarded as essentially normal became very quickly something to be treated as an abuse.
If even your own sources fail to support your position, what does that say about that position? It says that it has -- that you have -- nothing to go on. No facts, no data, no evidence, and no support.
If even your own sources fail to support your position, what does that say about that position? It says that it has -- that you have -- nothing to go on. No facts, no data, no evidence, and no support.
LG -- of course, Canute was trying to demonstrate the futility of trying to hold back the tide, and then, so the story goes, made a point of saying how foolish he was. Perhaps soon, Khandro will stop and say "and that, folks, is why you should defend a lost cause!" We can but hope...
[Slight revision of the above: paedophilia pre-1980 was not necessarily regarded as normal. It was, so Angelides says, regarded as a sign of weakness, and the blame was sometimes even placed on the children over the adult!]
[Slight revision of the above: paedophilia pre-1980 was not necessarily regarded as normal. It was, so Angelides says, regarded as a sign of weakness, and the blame was sometimes even placed on the children over the adult!]
"His disclaimers sound, at least to me, suspicious."
I can see why - they are not convenient to your argument otherwise.
He does make explicitly clear that he is only in favour of lowering the age of consent if it's between two people of similar age, and combined with better sex education for young people. This is very similar to the situation in Italy and elsewhere, so is hardly unprecedented.
Unfortunately, you've already decided what you think, and you don't much care about whether the evidence supports it or not.
I can see why - they are not convenient to your argument otherwise.
He does make explicitly clear that he is only in favour of lowering the age of consent if it's between two people of similar age, and combined with better sex education for young people. This is very similar to the situation in Italy and elsewhere, so is hardly unprecedented.
Unfortunately, you've already decided what you think, and you don't much care about whether the evidence supports it or not.
kromo; //Unfortunately, you've already decided what you think,// - Haven't you?
jomifl was correct when earlier he said, I might be right, but I need 'kosher stats'. To obtain these I would have to return to the far east, north Africa and various seedy spots around the world and witness the boy-sex tourists again, ponder that all these awful people are from only a 2% cohort of the population, and then my reports would be dismissed as being merely conjecture- 'no hard facts'.
Angelides quotes many of these people's demands for the lowering (and even removal) of the age of consent, and it doesn't demand much imagination to see why. Articles such as http://
I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, but this has become repetitively boring. One last thing though, it is unfair to say I am homophobic and mistrust homosexuals, I am not, in fact my favourite uncle was homosexual and was a delight to be with, but he and his partner were 'consenting adults'.
jomifl was correct when earlier he said, I might be right, but I need 'kosher stats'. To obtain these I would have to return to the far east, north Africa and various seedy spots around the world and witness the boy-sex tourists again, ponder that all these awful people are from only a 2% cohort of the population, and then my reports would be dismissed as being merely conjecture- 'no hard facts'.
Angelides quotes many of these people's demands for the lowering (and even removal) of the age of consent, and it doesn't demand much imagination to see why. Articles such as http://
I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, but this has become repetitively boring. One last thing though, it is unfair to say I am homophobic and mistrust homosexuals, I am not, in fact my favourite uncle was homosexual and was a delight to be with, but he and his partner were 'consenting adults'.
"I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, but this has become repetitively boring. One last thing though, it is unfair to say I am homophobic and mistrust homosexuals, I am not, in fact my favourite uncle was homosexual and was a delight to be with, but he and his partner were 'consenting adults'. "
It has become boring yes, largely because you are unable to process information that counters your prejudice.
And it is certainly not unfair to label you homophobic based upon your comments and opinions posted here. Now you want to play the "some of my best friends are gay" card?
That Angelides article offers you no support at all. I am surprised you offered the reference in the first place, to be honest.
It has become boring yes, largely because you are unable to process information that counters your prejudice.
And it is certainly not unfair to label you homophobic based upon your comments and opinions posted here. Now you want to play the "some of my best friends are gay" card?
That Angelides article offers you no support at all. I am surprised you offered the reference in the first place, to be honest.
"Haven't you? "
If you provided me with good enough evidence, I would change my opinion. I've done so several times on AB.
"Angelides quotes many of these people's demands for the lowering (and even removal) of the age of consent"
I didn't have time to read that article, but you have wilfully ignored Tatchell's own explanations for his age of consent proposals (which would still keep it illegal for older people to have sex with under-16s) even when he has taken the trouble to put it into clear writing.
"Articles such as http://
It's a source written from a highly social conservative perspective. No source is perfect, but you should at least retain some kind of critical awareness of the ones you decide to use. I find it rather telling that the the only sources you can find to back you up are the ones that are extremely biased.
"I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, but this has become repetitively boring."
That's because you keep saying the same things and failing to prove them. You've trotted out one proof after another, and absolutely none of them stand up to scrutiny. You have nothing else, but you never cared about evidence anyway.
"my favourite uncle was homosexual and was a delight to be with, but he and his partner were 'consenting adults'. "
The overwhelming majority of homosexuals are. I wonder what he would have to say about some of your arguments. Do you think he would agree that homosexuality and paedophilia are related?
On evidence - I gave you a large scale, peer-reviewed meta-study (comprising data of reports from around the globe), and a separate study of around 4,000 paedophiles in the USA earlier in the thread. You ignored both.
If you provided me with good enough evidence, I would change my opinion. I've done so several times on AB.
"Angelides quotes many of these people's demands for the lowering (and even removal) of the age of consent"
I didn't have time to read that article, but you have wilfully ignored Tatchell's own explanations for his age of consent proposals (which would still keep it illegal for older people to have sex with under-16s) even when he has taken the trouble to put it into clear writing.
"Articles such as http://
It's a source written from a highly social conservative perspective. No source is perfect, but you should at least retain some kind of critical awareness of the ones you decide to use. I find it rather telling that the the only sources you can find to back you up are the ones that are extremely biased.
"I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, but this has become repetitively boring."
That's because you keep saying the same things and failing to prove them. You've trotted out one proof after another, and absolutely none of them stand up to scrutiny. You have nothing else, but you never cared about evidence anyway.
"my favourite uncle was homosexual and was a delight to be with, but he and his partner were 'consenting adults'. "
The overwhelming majority of homosexuals are. I wonder what he would have to say about some of your arguments. Do you think he would agree that homosexuality and paedophilia are related?
On evidence - I gave you a large scale, peer-reviewed meta-study (comprising data of reports from around the globe), and a separate study of around 4,000 paedophiles in the USA earlier in the thread. You ignored both.
Latest Posts
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.