The current mantra of “hope and change” marks the Progressive problem: hope for what, and change to what, are not specified. We get constant change, driven by the rejection of “old morality” and in exchange we are forced to accept the “new reality” which is imposed upon us, mostly by unelected judges. This is implemented in the Hegelian manner of incremental steps between thesis, antithesis and synthesis, repeat. Repeat. Repeat. The pressure is constant, like water eroding the granite foundations of great structures of yore.
The synthesis is never a slippery slope, according to the antithesis protagonists. We just want this one concession. To claim slippery slope is hysterical, they say. The evidence, however, is conclusive. The slope is not merely slippery, it no longer has any traction at all.
Progress never stops for the progressive, and the march toward elimination of moral principles is indefatigable. Moral principles hamper the Progressive view of themselves, which is that they are self-endowed with overweening “morals” which supersede the old morality. The replacement of “old moral principles” with new ones which are dictated by the Progressive results in the new moral principle of “tolerance”: tolerance of only those principles with which Progressives agree, and complete intolerance of disagreeable principles and those who hold them.
Tolerance of me, not of thee.
This is born out in universities which allow only Leftist speech and Leftist professors, and now the major institutions of government are found to be nearly completely populated with Leftists (who are free, and enabled, to persecute those deemed disagreeable). Disputing this is futile, considering the daily news reports.
Tolerance proves to be something other than a behavior, something other than an attitude. Tolerance in Progressive parlance means to do nothing, to ignore whatever onerous encroachments onto the culture which the Progressives seek at any particular time. To object (ie. Not ignore, to do something contrary to Progressive cant) is deemed a moral failure: intolerance, which is not to be tolerated, so is designated Hate, and where possible is codified into criminal law.
Intolerance of Contrary Opinion, With the Claim of Tolerance.
The issue of the slippery slope is borne out with
(a) no-fault divorce resulting in destruction to marriage with divorce now destroying half of marriages (that’s the synthesis), and the next antithesis being homosexual marriage;The list goes on and on. Gays? AIDS. Responsibility for consequences? denial. Persecution of dissenters? punish whistleblowers who contribute to dissent by revealing Leftist activities.
(b) women’s right to kill their unborn progeny resulting in more than 50 million deaths (the synthesis) and unaccountable abattoirs focused on blacks, with the new antithesis being the push for the Right to kill defective newborns and young children;
(c) the sexual revolution resulted in the current fad of cohabitation until tired of it, with countless single mothers and fatherless children resulting and expected promiscuity in every TV show and movie;
(d) the unionization of education resulted in ever increasing illiteracy;
(e ) the unionization of government employees, resulting in Leftist policies of persecution by government agencies;
(f) the war on poverty resulted in more poverty and increased taxation of the productive as well as the re-enslavement of blacks onto the Progressive plantations of welfare entitlement.
The idea that there is no slippery slope with Progressivism is false.
It is demonstrable that Progressivism is destructive when the government becomes the messiah for the culture. Progressivism is infested with elitist messiahism and self-anointed messiahs. Progressives feed their egos by designating categories of victims for whom to provide salvation from their oppressors. Thus the existence of oppressors is absolutely required, so they are designated and vilified constantly and shrilly: oppression is intolerable, and the oppressors cannot be tolerated. And denial of the moral authority of the messiahs is also intolerable: messiahism is exactly the moral thrust of Progressivism. As discussed above, that which is designated intolerable is the moral crime of “hate”, which must be abolished from humanity by means of harshest punishment. So Hate Legislation ensues to harshen punishment of otherwise ordinary crimes, but against protected categories.
Continuums of Normal Behavior: A Moral Concept
The Kinsey Report, the Kinsey book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and its enthusiastic acceptance by progressives is a case-in-point. The metanarrative of Kinsey’s position is that there is a continuum of behavior, none of which should be accorded moral approbation. Hence, homosexuality is purely a behavior (not a disorder) and thus not subject to moral judgment.
”But the scientific data which are accumulating make it appear that, if circumstances had been propitious, most individuals might have become conditioned in any direction, even into activities which they now consider quite unacceptable. There is little evidence of the existence of such a thing as innate perversity, even among those individuals whose sexual activities society has been least inclined to accept.”
Kinsey, et.al., ”Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”, Saunders and Co, pubs, 1948, pg 678.
Kinsey reported extensively on child sexuality, from anal contact to coitus to oral contact and orgasms. (Ibid, pp 157 – 192).
He proceeded to address the concern of “normal” vs. “abnormal”:
"Most of the complications which are observable in sexual histories are the result of society’s reactions when it obtains knowledge of an individual’s behavior, or the individual’s fear of how society would react if he were discovered. In various societies, under various circumstances, and (as we shall show later) even at various social levels of the population living in a particular town, the sex mores are fundamentally different. The way in which each group reacts to a particular sort of history determines the “normality ‘or “abnormality’ of the individual’s behavior – in that particular group (Benedict 1934). Whatever the moral interpretation (as in Moore 1943) , there is no scientific reason for considering particular types of sexual activity as intrinsically, in their biologic origins, normal or abnormal. Yet scientific classifications have been nearly identical with theologic classifications and with moral pronouncements of the English common law of the fifteenth century. This, in turn, as far as sex is concerned, was based on the medieval ecclesiastic law which was only a minor variant of the tenet of the ancient Greek and Roman cults, and of the Talmudic law (Angus 1925, May 1931)….”The concept of amoral spectrums of behavior has permeated western society, at least the Progressive faction. This is coupled with the moral protection of the continuum or spectrum concept, which is now a moral feature, and to some extent protected by law, and enforced governmentally.
The question of how pedophilia fits into this environment is almost moot; with the ever-changing DSM, the ever present pressure against old standards, and the always present slippery slope, the hazard of social acceptance of pedophilia is possible. Not by present standards, of course, but due to the philosophy that “cultural acceptance” changes (note 1), and that morality is culturally deterministic. There is no possible way to predict that culture will never accept any given change, especially in an atmosphere where “change” itself is revered for its own sake.
The idea that mental disorders as presented in the DSM are fixed concepts or representative of reality is not the case. The DSM has just changed, yet again, to its fifth iteration. The author of the DSM IV is a heavy critic of the content of the new DSM V, and it is becoming clear that even the definitions of the term “disorder” are debatable. So under the American Psychiatric Association, mental disorders are relative to the opinions of certain influential people or groups, they are not fixed, objective principles of nature, or the universe, or biology, or even psychology. Again, relativism leads to continuums of arguably unproblematic symptoms.
Still, DSM IV TR retains the definition of DSM III and DSM III R, as follows:
In DSM IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or patter that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example the death of a loved one. Whatever it’s original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction of the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above).Further, DSM IV TR defines paraphilias (pedophilia is a paraphilia) thus:
DSM IV TR, pg xxxi. (emphasis added).
”A Paraphilia must be distinguished from nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors as a stimulus for sexual excitementin individuals without a paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships).For homosexuality, the issues of distress, impairment, legal complications, and social relationships have been eliminated as factors because they are now attributed to cultural stigmatization of that behavior. The idea of nonconsenting individuals concerns rape, which is a separate legal issue: that of consent and who can consent, and legally, who actually did or did not consent when they could have. (Note 2)
(emphasis in original)
For Pedophilia, the same issues and eliminations can logically apply.
In fact, the DSM IV TR definition of pedophilia disorder (actually a paraphilia) is not predicated solely on the possession of a certain set of mental proclivities or attitudes, it is predicated on the consequences of those proclivities or attitudes:
(a) possession of sexual urges or feelings regarding children;Both (a) and (b) must be in place in order for the diagnosis of pedophilia to be made. Thus, just feelings or urges alone do not qualify for the diagnosis of pedophilia; action is required. It is the action which is a moral consideration under the current culture (which will be discussed below). And it was denied in the original definition, above, that deviant sexual behavior is a reason for diagnosing a disorder. So the diagnosis of Pedophilia is somewhat of an incoherent statement, contradicting the very definition of disorder.
(b) acting on those feelings.
It has been suggested by a reader that a disorder is defined as follows:
1. Harm to others or selfNone of these conditions suggests the possession of a pathological mental attitude or urge, including the propensity toward behaviors which are culturally repugnant. All of these conditions are specifying only the consequences, personal or social. And even the personal consequences can be explained in terms of social approbation. So there is still no deviancy seen in pedophilia, except in the social context.
2. Personal distress
3. Inability to fulfill necessary obligations, (viz, employment, parenthood).
4. In violation of cultural norms (which is flexible and changes over time).
However, if we accept that the definition of disorder is actually those four consequences of a behavior, rather than the possession of the psychological need to behave a certain way, then there are few, if any behaviors which are not acceptable… unless specific circumstances stack against a certain specific individual. For example, there is no way to predict that loving sex with a child will always produce problems for the child later in life. There is no way to predict that every and all parents will have problems with the fact of their child having loving sex. There is no way to predict that all pedophiles have problematic lives due to their proclivity for sex with children. So there is no disorder to be predicted with pedophilia, except the cultural revulsion, which can be destigmatized just as was homosexuality (Note 1), which still engenders revulsion in most of the population.
This concept was brought to fruition in 1998 when the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed study by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman, which was a metastudy of 59 other studies. Now known as the Rind Study, it concluded that the activities traditionally called child sexual abuse, or CSA, were not only not necessarily harmful to children, but also were not necessarily associated with long term psychological harm in adulthood. The abstract is here:
”Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.”After an organization called NARTH discovered and revealed the study to a wider audience, conservatives took note and objected, resulting in an unprecedented condemnation of the article by both chambers of Congress, which had never before condemned a scientific finding.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hconres107
The findings were referred to the AAAS:
”On July 12, 1999, our meta-analysis on child sexual abuse published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the American Psychological Association's (APA) premiere journals, was condemned by the U.S. Congress (H. Con. Res. 107). The condemnation followed months of attacks on the article, the APA, and us by various social conservatives and psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was asked by the APA to independently review our article. After considering criticisms of it and the article itself, AAAS declined, but commented that it was the criticisms, not our methods or analyses, that troubled them because these criticisms misrepresented what we wrote.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12119-000-1025-5
In 2005, a subsequent study by Heather Ulrich confirmed the findings of the Rind Study:
Abstract:
”Research conducted during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s consistently reported widely accepted negative outcomes associated with child sexual abuse. In 1998 Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman conducted a meta-analysis challenging the four most often reported correlates of child sexual abuse. The present study attempted to reexamine the four main objectives of the Rind et al. (1998) study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001). The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance. In addition, the current meta-analysis supported the finding that there was a gender difference in the experience of the child sexual abuse, such that females reported more negative immediate effects, current feelings, and self-reported effects. The implications of these findings, problems with replicating the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis, and future directions are discussed.”
http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html
Further observation:
”In addition to their perceived potential misuse by individuals with certain personal or ideological agendas (e.g., individuals with favorable attitudes toward pedophilia), one likely reason that Rind et al.’s findings were roundly denounced is that they directly contradicted many individuals’ intuitions and convictions. The Rind et al. affair demonstrates that when social science research and common sense clash in the court of public opinion, common sense is often the winner (see Shermer, 1997, for other examples). Dr. Laura’s remark that any scientific findings that conflict with common sense should typically be regarded as erroneous strikes a responsive chord with much of the general public. Nevertheless, it reflects a deep—although widely held—misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise.The purely rational conclusion, scientifically supported and without moral input, would be that in loving family environments the natural sexual urges of children could be fulfilled without harm to the child, even later in adulthood. Without harm, the practice is acceptable. One might argue that intellectual, social, and hunger appetites are willingly fulfilled by loving adults in the child’s life; how does that differ from sexual appetites and development? I’m certain that if I can conceive of this train of thought then the pedophile community can also dredge it up.
Karl Popper (1965) and many others (e.g., Meehl, 1978; Platt, 1964) have pointed out that science involves placing favored hypotheses in grave danger of refutation. The more cherished a claim, the more deeply ingrained it is in a belief system, the more crucial subjecting it to the risk of falsification becomes. As Carl Sagan (1995) pointed out, one must be especially cautious about accepting claims that accord with strongly held beliefs, as such claims are often found to be subjectively compelling or even intuitively obvious (see also Rind, Bauserman, & Tromovitch, 2000). The scientific method remains the optimal means of rooting out error and myth (Bartley, 1984; Popper, 1965), and this method grinds to a halt if the process of self-correction that is so essential to science is short-circuited. If Richard Feynman (1985, p. 311) was correct that the essence of science is bending over backward to prove oneself wrong, then scientists must be encouraged to report findings anddraw conclusions that run counter to common sense. It is also probably worth recalling Voltaire’s (1764/1972) admonition that common sense (which, in contrast to my usage here, Voltaire conceptualized as scientific/logical reasoning) is not especially common.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20030429000006/http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ble/SciSoc/lilienfeld02.pdf
The Issue Of Consent
If child sexual activity can be harmless and supported in certain environments, then the remaining objection is functional: the child cannot consent. Yet parents consent all the time to various commitments for the child, commitments which the child might even hate, like attending school or eating vegetables or doctor appointments and vaccinations or not playing video games. And the parents can commit the child to pleasurable activities like going to parties, soccer teams, summer camp, etc. When pedophilia is mainstreamed, the issue of consent becomes moot. Parents these days are told to accept their child’s homosexuality as normal; should they not be told to accept their child’s budding sexuality as normal?
Any further objections are moral in nature, and concern the “ick” factor which is roundly rejected as a valid response to any behaviors on the continuum, especially homosexuality, transgenders, fetishists, etc., who recently have been mainstreamed. Morality is no longer accepted; the continuum of acceptable is amoral, and moral proclamations regarding behaviors on the continuum is now designated to be Hate thought. So the “ick” factor and any moral concerns are dismissed, a priori, as valid objections regarding behaviors along the continuum of behaviors.
The Over-Arching Principles of Tolerance And Change
The dedicated pursuit of cultural and political amorality to which Progressives adhere is unconstrained, morally, except for self-defensive principles such as “tolerance” and “change”. Tolerance becomes the anti-moral principle, declaring all behaviors to be acceptable. Change becomes the Great Commandment for the messiah class: all society which is not Progressive (or is the stupid herd) is evil and must be changed. Constraint and personal restraint in the moral sense, including personal responsibility for consequences, are intolerant demands on the pursuit of Change. It can be seen that messianic failures never constrain future messianic assaults on cultural norms; personal responsibility is never taken by the messianic class. (Note 3)
The demolition of morals and “good character” has consequences which can be foreseen, especially given the history of Hegelian Progressivism and its anti-moral assaults on culture. Those consequences include the acceptance of almost any behavior (logically, the absolute acceptance of all behaviors), and the denial of responsibility for consequences of their own beliefs and behaviors. As with government spending, failure (economically or socially) means only that more is needed. More Progressivism is always the answer, regardless.
NOTES:
Note 1: The homosexual war for cultural acceptance is outlined in the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90's (Plume) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Sep 1, 1990).
Note 2: For some Progressives such as Whoopi Goldberg, sex with children who consent is not “rape rape”, and punishment is unfair and unjust.
Note 3: Thos. Sowell, “The Vision Of The Anointed; Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”; 1995; Basic Books/Perseus Book Groups.
21 comments:
Hello Stan,
This reply is part of my longer and more comprehensive reply (which I will be posting on my blog shortly).
Firstly, I agree that spectrums of behavior ARE often observed and acknowledged, but that doesn't preclude parts of those spectrums from being cordoned off and designated as unacceptable. Look for yourself. From an evolutionary perspective it was probably adaptive for some of us to have violent outburst (men usually), but that doesn’t stop virtually everyone from recognizing murder and violence as unacceptable.
Closer to the topic at hand - has anyone in the progressive community seriously considered legislation to legalize child molestation (and if they have, has it ever come close to coming into law)? Nope. Furthermore, even after certain findings that diminished the harm of child molestation generally, how many serious psychological or psychiatric scientists have argued for the legalization of child molestation? If they exist their opinions aren’t taken seriously by anyone, and the community by and large (the APA, the World Health Organisation, a multitude of experts), reject the idea that it ought to be acceptable by law, or even in a cultural sense. Even the authors of the Rind Study said that they did not support the legalization of child molestation/sex with children!
What I ask of you, Stan, is to provide a reasonable body of evidence of a wide-reaching consensus (taken for granted, presumed to be fact/the correct attitude) among progressives (as he defines the category) that seeks to normalize pedophilia. Here I define 'normalize' as not only providing the research, but also the explicit endorsement of the acceptance of child molestation IN LAW i.e. IN PRACTICE.
Also, I giggled when you mentioned that when the Rind Study was released, "conservatives took note and objected, resulting in an unprecedented condemnation..."
Many of the people who objected with the conclusions were other people who you may consider 'progressives', such as psychiatrists and psychologists. In the aftermath, the bulk of criticisms were from other scientists, who critiqued the methodology (that's why rational scientific inquiry is so great!). I won't provide references for this response because you didn't, but you get the idea.
"The purely rational conclusion, scientifically supported and without moral input, would be that in loving family environments the natural sexual urges of children could be fulfilled without harm to the child, even later in adulthood. Without harm, the practice is acceptable."
This is incorrect, because a 'purely rational conclusion' would also take into account what we know and do not know. We don't know, for instance, the consequences of allowing, by LAW, sexual relationships between adults and children on a population level. It may lead to more sexual abuse over all. Thus the risk is too great and the rational thing to do would be to strictly oppose any such move to normalize 'child sex'.
But that's besides the point. Saying that the purely rational process comes to an undesirable conclusion is setting up and knocking down a strawman. Progressives still depend on morals, Stan. I am in agreement with Dawkins here - morals are still indispensable to decide on what to do - the real debate is, where do these morals come from?
Kritical Strike,
You make a lot of undocumented assertions and you ask a lot of questions for more information, but you don’t address the issues head-on, much less with actual data.
What is presented to you is the well documented and well known slippery slope of the relentless march of Progressivism toward its messiahist objectives which it does not enumerate, its well-known disasterous consequences for the previous Progressive misadventures, and the obvious probable outcome.
You do not even address that, except to deny that it can occur (I guess that’s your point). What you ask for is evidence that it is happening right now, as if the lack of that proves that it cannot happen. (That is evidence contained in the article: Rind et. al. want the label of “child abuse” removed, and the new terminology to be child sex or something similar which does not contain a reference to abuse.) The probability of Progressive degradation of society in unpredictable ways is virtually certain. The deleterious consequences of that can be denied, but the denial cannot be rationally supported. So attempting to deny it by showing lack of “wide spread” activity at the moment has no bearing on what will occur in the future when social degradation has hit a congenial low.
My point is that Progressives have only one morality in common: Consequentialism. When the time is right, and the standards of society have been sufficiently eviscerated by the Progressive attack, then the moves will be made. That NAMBLA has little clout now is of absolutely no consequence to the argument.
If you think there are no arguments being made by some professionals in defense of child sex, then you haven’t searched very seriously. I have given references; you have given nothing but opinions and denials.
” This is incorrect, because a 'purely rational conclusion' would also take into account what we know and do not know. We don't know, for instance, the consequences of allowing, by LAW, sexual relationships between adults and children on a population level. It may lead to more sexual abuse over all. Thus the risk is too great and the rational thing to do would be to strictly oppose any such move to normalize 'child sex'.”
That is anti-liberty speak. It is the onerous enforced Precautionary Principle applied. It is the same as the Progressive push to deny DDT to third world nations who are plagued with malaria deaths on the pretext that someone might get hurt. It is the same as criminalizing home-schooling in Progressive Germany, where the state controls the child for its own protection. There is no rational basis for denying liberty due to unproven dangers. Such denial is purely totalitarian in nature. You have applied a moral principle which reveals a certain side of yourself: willingness to suppress personal choice, based on your unsupported opinion of potential hazard. Now, if that had been done in the case of homosexuals, they would all still be in the closet. That approach has been negated, because homosexual society is still a danger to itself, yet it has been normalized. Victim classes will be identified, and they will be liberated. Behaviors exist along a continuum; they are criminalized only because of cultural phobias: Kinsey said so, so it must be right.
(more below)
” But that's besides the point. Saying that the purely rational process comes to an undesirable conclusion is setting up and knocking down a strawman. Progressives still depend on morals, Stan. I am in agreement with Dawkins here - morals are still indispensable to decide on what to do - the real debate is, where do these morals come from?”
Progressives make up their own morals, as Dawkins has done. That is the equivalent of no morality at all. It is done under self-anointed personal moral authority to decide what others can and cannot do; it is elitist; it is subjective, temporary, and volatile (subject to change) in nature. Further, Progressive morality is tailored to the proclivities of the Progressive, making the Progressive tautologically moral, and dissenters tautologically immoral… from the Progressive’s viewpoint. For Progressives the discussion of morality covers, not principles for individual character development of the Progressive elitist who obviously doesn’t need it, being a moral authority, Progressive morality defines behaviors for the Other, behaviors which the Progressive elitist determines to be beneficial to the “flourishing” of the herd at the expense of the individual. In fact, it has been said in Progressive circles that personal “character” as a concept should be eliminated because it is just too hard for some people to develop good character, so the concept is discriminatory.
Progressive morals are worse than no morals at all, because they are morals to be placed on others. This is demonstrated in the moralization of Tolerance, which is demand of the Other, but never reciprocated by the Progressive. And that is because the Progressive must be tolerated completely under the Progressive morality, and any dissent is immoral because it is intolerant. Progressivism du jour is always right, moral and inviolable. As Obama has said, Progressive objectives are “fierce moral urgencies”. This fierce moral personal elitism makes Progressives isolated from comprehending any criticism, cloistered into peer cliques, and dangerous to the Other.
This has been pointed out; you have not addressed any of this. In fact you ignore it when you make comments like that last one.
Stan,
"What is presented to you is the well documented and well known slippery slope of the relentless march of Progressivism toward its messiahist objectives which it does not enumerate, its well-known disasterous consequences for the previous Progressive misadventures, and the obvious probable outcome."
Absolutely not. You haven't made a convincing case as to why progressivism is a slippery slope.
Here is my response to each of your points. My apologies if the way in which I address you here is a bit weird, it was copy and pasted directly from my own blog.
"(a) no-fault divorce resulting in destruction to marriage with divorce now destroying half of marriages (that’s the synthesis), and the next antithesis being homosexual marriage;"
No-fault divorce is compatible with 1. Individual freedom (you should be able to opt out of a marriage, for any reason, period. Marriage these days is about companionship and certain financial breaks, not an irrevocable contract).
But how do we know no-fault divorce is the reason divorce rates are so high? Divorce rates could be attributable to a number of other factors (i.e. the turbulent economy, shifting norms and values, the decline of religiosity).
At which point Stan may say that this is in fact evidence that progressivism is bad. More divorce = more broken families. Except anyone who thinks this is missing the point – we have decided as a society that individual freedom is more important than merely keeping families together. If we want to create a society where children can grow up in an optimal way (and I think I speak for everyone when I say that WE DO), we will need to do it in a way that doesn’t involve irrevocable marital contracts.
Also, homosexual marriage is a non sequitur. Gay men and women getting married has zero consequences for people who choose to enter into more ‘traditional’ marital contracts.
"(b) women’s right to kill their unborn progeny resulting in more than 50 million deaths (the synthesis) and unaccountable abattoirs focused on blacks, with the new antithesis being the push for the Right to kill defective newborns and young children;"
This definitely isn’t a black and white issue, so doesn’t definitely suggest the progressive ‘slippery slope’. There is an ongoing debate as to whether fetuses of a certain age qualify as ‘human life’. I’m not going to get into that here, other than saying that we have arbitrarily drawn the line of life somewhere around the 2nd trimester (if I’m not mistaken, and it depends on the country/state). Why is it arbitrary? Because deciding on ANY point where the fetus qualifies as human life is inevitably going to be arbitrary. Declaring something as human the moment the sperm hits the egg is equally arbitrary, in my opinion. I would love to hear what 'objective' alternatives you have in mind, and why.
“…with the new antithesis being the push for the Right to kill defective newborns and young children; “
I am not aware of anyone in the progressive community pushing for the right to do either of these things. Evidence is welcome. Keep in mind that that evidence should suggest that the progressive movement by and large agrees if it is to support Stan’s thesis.
Part II
"(c) the sexual revolution resulted in the current fad of cohabitation until tired of it, with countless single mothers and fatherless children resulting and expected promiscuity in every TV show and movie;"
I agree that fatherless children and single mothers often lead to bad outcomes, but let’s not forget that the ‘progressive’ movement to free up sexual behavior was not for the purpose of breaking up families: it was to free up human experience and woman’s rights.
Let’s also not forget that other factors contribute to broken families, which were not acknowledged – economic activity (employment), education, and incarceration are big factors too, especially for certain minority groups.
"(d) the unionization of education resulted in ever increasing illiteracy;"
So declining literacy (in the United States, no so much in other developed countries, if at all) is because of unionization? I don’t know much about this topic (especially in respect to the US) so I decline to comment.
Question for Stan: Is unionization inextricably linked with progressivism?
"(e ) the unionization of government employees, resulting in Leftist policies of persecution by government agencies;"
Basically the same as above: So persecution of government agencies is due to unionization of government employees? Is this the best explanation? And again, is unionization necessarily from progressives?
"(f) the war on poverty resulted in more poverty and increased taxation of the productive as well as the re-enslavement of blacks onto the Progressive plantations of welfare entitlement."
This is a bold claim that is still under debate. The failure of the war on poverty be blamed on slumping economies, by the way. Other people seem to think that neo-liberal policies are the source of this mess, and I’m fairly sure that neo-liberals fall outside of ‘progressivism’.
He finishes this section with:
"The list goes on and on. Gays? AIDS. Responsibility for consequences? denial. Persecution of dissenters? punish whistleblowers who contribute to dissent by revealing Leftist activities."
"The idea that there is no slippery slope with Progressivism is false."
Again, a list of bold claims that have no weight unless he is willing to expand on them in a convincing way. “Gays? AIDS.” So should I believe that homosexuality is a problem because of AIDS? AIDS is pretty serious, but I don’t see how that leads to: ‘progressives condone homosexuality therefore progressivism is partially to blame for the spread of AIDS’. But I won’t go any more detail in debunking these when Stan hasn’t bothered explaining them.
Summary: While some of these points may have merit, there are far (some much more than others) from definitive. In the end, even cumulatively, they don’t do much to support Stan’s initial statement: Progressivism = slippery (moral) slope.
He has assumed that his argument is not only convincing, but definitively convincing. But the argument itself is simply not convincing at all. This is dissapointing coming from someone who evidently prides himself on his logical skill, specifically how each point here makes a shoddy causal inference.
"Progressive morals are worse than no morals at all, because they are morals to be placed on others. This is demonstrated in the moralization of Tolerance, which is demand of the Other, but never reciprocated by the Progressive. And that is because the Progressive must be tolerated completely under the Progressive morality, and any dissent is immoral because it is intolerant. Progressivism du jour is always right, moral and inviolable. As Obama has said, Progressive objectives are “fierce moral urgencies”. This fierce moral personal elitism makes Progressives isolated from comprehending any criticism, cloistered into peer cliques, and dangerous to the Other."
This whole paragraph is sheer conjecture. You're making it out to be that progressives are some massive clique with no internal conflict whatsoever. Those who may fall under 'progressivism' are a verrry diverse group, and there is much disagreement among them.
"Progressives make up their own morals,"
Yep. Because who else is going to come up with them? God?
"...as Dawkins has done. That is the equivalent of no morality at all. It is done under self-anointed personal moral authority to decide what others can and cannot do; it is elitist; it is subjective, temporary, and volatile (subject to change) in nature"
Then it would follow that progressivism leads to moral anarchy and all-around shittiness. I give you two examples that call that into question: Australia is full of progressives, and so is my own country, New Zealand. We seem to be doing pretty fine with our people-generated morals.
"That is anti-liberty speak. It is the onerous enforced Precautionary Principle applied. It is the same as the Progressive push to deny DDT to third world nations who are plagued with malaria deaths on the pretext that someone might get hurt. It is the same as criminalizing home-schooling in Progressive Germany, where the state controls the child for its own protection. There is no rational basis for denying liberty due to unproven dangers. Such denial is purely totalitarian in nature. You have applied a moral principle which reveals a certain side of yourself: willingness to suppress personal choice, based on your unsupported opinion of potential hazard. Now, if that had been done in the case of homosexuals, they would all still be in the closet. That approach has been negated, because homosexual society is still a danger to itself, yet it has been normalized. Victim classes will be identified, and they will be liberated. Behaviors exist along a continuum; they are criminalized only because of cultural phobias: Kinsey said so, so it must be right."
Before I reply, some friendly advice: Your writing would be more enjoyable if it was more concise and clear. This whole paragraph could be summarised as "It is anti-freedom/liberty to deny someone doing something based on unproven claims".
And to that I would reply, there actually is replicated evidence that child molestation can lead to bad psychological outcomes in the child. Thus, the benefits (letting some people **** children, presumably making them happy) do not outweigh the risks (some children will pay dearly down the line).
I don't have to supply a reference for this one, because you have done it for me. The Rind report shows that in some instances, child molestation certainly DOES lead to bad outcomes. That is more than enough reason to outlaw child molestation altogether.
"If you think there are no arguments being made by some professionals in defense of child sex, then you haven’t searched very seriously. I have given references; you have given nothing but opinions and denials."
Oh and one last thing - you mean Rind and Kinsey? They don't defend child sex. Rind in particular just said it wasn't as harmful as we had thought, and in some instances the children grow up to be normal. But he also has said that he still doesn't think it should be legal because (as I said before) there are still times when if leaves the child FUBAR, or impaired in some way. Not acceptable, according to Rind and pretty much every other progressive thinker, including myself.
”"What is presented to you is the well documented and well known slippery slope of the relentless march of Progressivism toward its messiahist objectives which it does not enumerate, its well-known disastrous consequences for the previous Progressive misadventures, and the obvious probable outcome."
Absolutely not. You haven't made a convincing case as to why progressivism is a slippery slope.
Not being convinced is not an argument; it is not even an opinion. It is merely denialism. That you are not convinced is of no concern to the facts. The Progressive mantra is “Change”, undefined, undifferentiated, unlimited new moral principle. Change is not given specifics because there will be more and ever more as the masses are de-acculturated, a process which is gradual but is now accelerating since the concept of objective morality itself has been sidelined for several generations, and Americans have been maleducated simultaneously. With morality being dictated by Progressive chanting, as well as denialism such as you produce above and doubtless will continue with, the millennial generation, for example, has been stripped of any ability for moral reasoning, save the amoral tactic of Consequentialism, and of course the Tolerance Commandment (and they have been rendered generally unsuitable for employment by this Progressive insult to their mental capabilities).
(more below)
The evidence of messiahist Progressive-induced degeneration and decay is now virtually everywhere. The war on poverty has destroyed and enslaved subcultures; the unionization of public workers has brought cities into bankruptcy, and led the US government into agencies which persecute opposition to Progressivism and send weapons to drug cartels; Progressivism leads to the pursuit of unilateral disarmament in the face of totalitarian enemies, and failure to close and protect the national borders; Progressivism wants to reduce productive nations into economic congruence with third world nations with open borders (already done in the EU, where Germany is being bled out in order to support the parasitics); Progressivism wishes to control and shift wealth in bulk, to punish producers with taxes, and reward non-producers with welfare and food stamp perquisites which are not earned and lead to addictive dependency; Progressives in the media warp the news for their Progressive readers/viewers (hence the Obama hatred of Drudge); Progressives in entertainment are totally without personal moral constraint, yet make Progressive, moral pronouncements; Progressives in universities value free speech for only the airing of their own ideology, and demand the removal of non-compatible speakers; unelected Progressive judges make law for everyone when they should enforce laws made by elected representatives; this list can go on for days.
This has been documented by authors such as Paul Johnson, “Intellectuals”; Julien Benda, “The Treason of the Intellectuals”; Thomas Sowell, “the Vision of the Anointed”; Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind”; J. N. Black, “Freefall of the American University”; Iserbyt, “The Deliberated Dumbing Down of America”; Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism”; Jackson, “The Big Black Lie”; Bergman, “Slaughter of the Dissidents”; Kupelian, “Marketing of Evil”; Himmelfarb, “Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution”; Stove, “Anything Goes: Origin Of The Cult Of Scientific Irrationalism”, Voegleli, “Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State”, Windschuttle, “The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past”, and many more.
The consequences of Progressivism have been predicted by De Toqueville, “Democracy In America”; Hayek, “the Fatal Conceit”, and “The Road to Serfdom”; Nietzsche, “Beyond Good and Evil”; Sowell, “The Quest For Cosmic Justice”.
Tactics are described by Alinsky, “Rules For Radicals” (Taught by Barack Obama, the “community organizer); and by Kirk and Madsen, “After the Ball; How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s”.
The denial of the slope which the USA has endured is nothing less than fatuous, in my opinion.
(more below)
Regarding no-fault divorce: the other factors you inject as possible causes, (i.e. the turbulent economy, shifting norms and values, the decline of religiosity), marriage didn’t suffer during the depression, it collapse in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Shifting norms and values is exactly the point of Progressive assaults, as is the decline of religiosity. These support the assertion of Progressive-accompanied degeneration.
Homosexual marriage definitely does enter into the Progressive-induced degeneration since it was based on the concept of a continuum of normal behaviors which are not to be encumbered with moral judgment. Denial of that is denial of history. (Kinsey; Kirk and Madsen)
Regarding abortion: you say, ” There is an ongoing debate as to whether fetuses of a certain age qualify as ‘human life’.” Only because Progressives want to assert their self-anointed moral authority into the equation. There is no argument regarding the obvious fact that every human, including Progressives, went through the process of fertilized egg to fetus to birth, that every human, including Progressives, were individuated at the necessary stage of fertilization; that individuation of personal characteristics are contained in the fertilized egg; and that no human, including Progressives, can exist without going through ALL the normal stages of human development, from fertilized egg to death. An abortion kills a living, viable human at a normal, necessary stage of human development.
It is the Progressive habit not to accept the obvious consequences of his seizure of moral authority over the lives of others. The most convenient path for denying the obvious consequences is to redefine the issues so that the consequences are forgotten in the debate over the redefinition. The consequences of abortion are clear: two living parties enter the abortion abbatoir and only one of them leaves: killing is the business within those walls, and death is guaranteed. This consequence is avoided in the Progressive rush to claim the moral authority to define who is a “person” and who is not. In other words, to define which humans Progressives deem Killable. This is the mental process of eugenics, “negative eugenics” if you prefer; and Progressives consider it to be one of their moral imperatives. And this is one more reason that Progressives and Progressivism are dangerous, both to societies and to individual humans.
”“…with the new antithesis being the push for the Right to kill defective newborns and young children; “
I am not aware of anyone in the progressive community pushing for the right to do either of these things. Evidence is welcome. Keep in mind that that evidence should suggest that the progressive movement by and large agrees if it is to support Stan’s thesis. “
(more below)
First, you must surely have heard of Peter Singer? If not, then you seem not very acquainted with the Progressive movement.
Here is an organization: Post Natal Abortions Community.
Here are two Aussie ethicists:
”Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.””
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
And, ” Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, [position] was that it would be arbitrary to use any point in that timeline to draw a legal limit on abortion rights.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
And, Planned Parenthood representative endorsed post natal abortion on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEv1afKaLhA
Post Natal Abortions Already Being Done In Netherlands:
http://www.blogicus.com/archives/post_birth_abortions.php
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/
The decision to kill:
There are no official guidelines for ending the lives of those who are unable to make their own decision, such as in the case of a baby, but Groningen Academic Hospital has conducted such procedures under its own, internal guidelines.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/
”Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
“The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini [see him above also] and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Second, in no conceivable manner is the agreement of the Progressive movement at large necessary for the Hegelian antithesis to be asserted and asserted vocally. This caveat is not suggested by anything I have presented and it is prejudicially added presumably to avoid the appearance of having an antithesis which presents the slippery slope. I reject the imposition of this gratuitous insertion of a false condition onto my arguments.
More links on child sex and the Rind controversy:
http://www.mhamic.org/rind/
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12119-000-1025-5
http://web.archive.org/web/20030429000006/http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ble/SciSoc/lilienfeld02.pdf
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/08/rind-study-justifying-pedophilia.html
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/1.html
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/cont.html
I am preparing for a trip several states away in order to attend my father's funeral. I will be gone for nearly a week, but I will try to find time to continue my response to Atheist Progressivist claims and to respond to other issues as well.
My condolences.
I too will be busy these next few days, but I will reply (again, comprehensively) eventually.
I have found a little time, so I will continue.
”(d) the unionization of education resulted in ever increasing illiteracy;"
So declining literacy (in the United States, no so much in other developed countries, if at all) is because of unionization? I don’t know much about this topic (especially in respect to the US) so I decline to comment.
Question for Stan: Is unionization inextricably linked with progressivism? “
Yes. It is part of the messiah/victim codependent political relationship. Unions vote for Leftists; the Leftists promote union legislation. Obama even gave General Motors to the union and stiffed investors. The National Education Association (teacher’s union) and the Department of Education are Leftist, and their control of education has produced an unconscionable illiteracy rate and dropout rate; college freshmen commonly have to be re-educated in order to move on to freshman level work.
”Basically the same as above: So persecution of government agencies is due to unionization of government employees? Is this the best explanation? And again, is unionization necessarily from progressives? “
The IRS is unionized; Obama signed an executive order making the union co-managers of the IRS (hard to believe, but true). Both the IRS employment and the union are virtually totally Democrat Leftists. Unions are always Leftist. Always.
”"(f) the war on poverty resulted in more poverty and increased taxation of the productive as well as the re-enslavement of blacks onto the Progressive plantations of welfare entitlement."
This is a bold claim that is still under debate. The failure of the war on poverty be blamed on slumping economies, by the way. Other people seem to think that neo-liberal policies are the source of this mess, and I’m fairly sure that neo-liberals fall outside of ‘progressivism’.
Slumping economies? The War on Poverty started under Lyndon Johnson, nearly half a century ago. It has failed under all economic conditions. And the cash poured into the poor is not a function of the economy anyway; it is a function of Democrat influence in government. The attitudes of the poor are still either the same as ever, or even worse due to the promise of welfare, food stamps, etc. The poor are sustained in their poverty lifestyles (so far) in return for their votes (for which they need not show I.D. for citizenship or residency because that would be too hard for them). Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, are nearly bankrupted because of things like fleeing productive workers, huge public union pensions, unemployable populations remaining behind.
(more below)
”He finishes this section with:
"The list goes on and on. Gays? AIDS. Responsibility for consequences? denial. Persecution of dissenters? punish whistleblowers who contribute to dissent by revealing Leftist activities."
"The idea that there is no slippery slope with Progressivism is false."
Again, a list of bold claims that have no weight unless he is willing to expand on them in a convincing way. “Gays? AIDS.” So should I believe that homosexuality is a problem because of AIDS? AIDS is pretty serious, but I don’t see how that leads to: ‘progressives condone homosexuality therefore progressivism is partially to blame for the spread of AIDS’. But I won’t go any more detail in debunking these when Stan hasn’t bothered explaining them.”
Seriously? You cannot see the connection? When the homosexuals were unleashed to pursue their lifestyle by the Progressive removal of moral constraints, the lifestyle was not, and is not, primarily monogamous, rather it was rampantly promiscuous. Homosexual STD’s also went rampant, and many homosexuals died. AIDs is still primarily a homosexual / bisexual and needle sharing problem in the USA. Your previous issue regarding not allowing the practice of certain behaviors because they might be dangerous applies in spades to homosexuality. But it is not, because homosexuals exercised the Progressive entry into acceptance by “tolerance” of repugnant behaviors and intolerance of dissent.
”Summary: While some of these points may have merit, there are far (some much more than others) from definitive. In the end, even cumulatively, they don’t do much to support Stan’s initial statement: Progressivism = slippery (moral) slope.”
This demonstrates that you will not be convinced by train-loads of evidence. As I said in the beginning, Progressives always deny that their unconstrained, undefined Change leads to unconstrained and undefined consequences, which is the definition of a slippery slope. The objective of purposeful destruction of constraints on behaviors (objective morals) has the obvious danger of leading to – unconstrained behavior(!) While this is obviously tautological, it is denied by Progressives who must protect their personal investment in their messiahism as moral.
(more below)
” He has assumed that his argument is not only convincing, but definitively convincing. But the argument itself is simply not convincing at all. This is dissapointing coming from someone who evidently prides himself on his logical skill, specifically how each point here makes a shoddy causal inference.”
And here you have judged without giving any substantive reason or reasoning; your judgment is mere opinion, without any contrary facts or refutations. Any counter claim which is made without reasons attached is made without reasoning attached to it. The claim of “not being convinced” as the only counter argument is less than weak; it is non-existant, logically speaking and rationally speaking. The claim of “shoddy causal inference” is without metric support; it is merely denialism, which supports my original observation of how Progressives deal with dissenting facts. They just deny them.
If Progressive messiahist adventures had been successful, say the Leftist educational programs in government schools, or the war on poverty, or preventing DDT from helping the third world, or the UN Rights of the Child, or whatever Progressive crusade you wish, and the results had been positive, there would be no stopping Progressives from taking credit. It is absurd for them deny responsibility when their programs fail; then it is always someone else’s fault. And it is just as absurd to deny the onerous consequences of their adventures as well.
Just as Atheists have no criteria by which they reject theist arguments, Progressives have no criteria by which they reject accusations of failure and nasty consequences attending to their adventures. Their opinion is all they can muster; they offer no metrics by which they can be held responsible. They think that they have good intentions, so that obviates any negative criticism. And in their new, Progressive Planetary Hegemony, that will, in fact, be enough. After all, as they say in the IRS, eliminating dissent is a very good intention, and we are very intentional about it.
"Progressive morals are worse than no morals at all, because they are morals to be placed on others. This is demonstrated in the moralization of Tolerance, which is demand of the Other, but never reciprocated by the Progressive. And that is because the Progressive must be tolerated completely under the Progressive morality, and any dissent is immoral because it is intolerant. Progressivism du jour is always right, moral and inviolable. As Obama has said, Progressive objectives are “fierce moral urgencies”. This fierce moral personal elitism makes Progressives isolated from comprehending any criticism, cloistered into peer cliques, and dangerous to the Other."
This whole paragraph is sheer conjecture. You're making it out to be that progressives are some massive clique with no internal conflict whatsoever. Those who may fall under 'progressivism' are a verrry diverse group, and there is much disagreement among them.
Really? Show me a Progressive who disagrees with Tolerance as a major moral value.
Your type of demurral is not refutation because it is not accompanied by any actual facts; your comments are merely opinions. And your comment here in no way refutes what I said.
”"Progressives make up their own morals,"
Yep. Because who else is going to come up with them? God?”
For the AtheoLeftist Progressive, his own opinion serves as his morality. There is no objective moral code, therefore it is subjective, temporary, and can change as he wills it. Oh, I said that already:
"...as Dawkins has done. That is the equivalent of no morality at all. It is done under self-anointed personal moral authority to decide what others can and cannot do; it is elitist; it is subjective, temporary, and volatile (subject to change) in nature"
Then it would follow that progressivism leads to moral anarchy and all-around shittiness. I give you two examples that call that into question: Australia is full of progressives, and so is my own country, New Zealand. We seem to be doing pretty fine with our people-generated morals. “
I suspect that your over-arching morality has been influenced and/or stolen from Judeo-Christianity. Otherwise, it would be individually determined, situationally relativist and therefore it would be chaotic.
”Before I reply, some friendly advice: Your writing would be more enjoyable if it was more concise and clear. This whole paragraph could be summarised as "It is anti-freedom/liberty to deny someone doing something based on unproven claims". “
Perhaps you fail to comprehend the evidence contained within it. Or perhaps you wish to avoid addressing them? Your approach, avoidance of factual refutation, is coming into sharp focus.
”And to that I would reply, there actually is replicated evidence that child molestation can lead to bad psychological outcomes in the child. Thus, the benefits (letting some people **** children, presumably making them happy) do not outweigh the risks (some children will pay dearly down the line). “
This, of course, is contradicted by your position on homosexuality and AIDS, where the risks – many homosexuals pay dearly down the line – is of no concern. By contrast, the Rind study identifies the domestic situation as pivotal to whether a child incurs harm later in life, not sexual contact. Dealing with the domestic situation is the important factor, as it is in any child abuse. It is not the child sex which is abuse, and that is made clear in the study. Your objection is not sustainable when the entire Rind concept is considered.
”I don't have to supply a reference for this one, because you have done it for me. The Rind report shows that in some instances, child molestation certainly DOES lead to bad outcomes. That is more than enough reason to outlaw child molestation altogether.”
You undoubtedly will maintain this to the death because the facts contained in Rind are contracausal to your worldview, Progressivism, which must be protected as a moral pursuit.
(more below)
"If you think there are no arguments being made by some professionals in defense of child sex, then you haven’t searched very seriously. I have given references; you have given nothing but opinions and denials."
Oh and one last thing - you mean Rind and Kinsey? They don't defend child sex. Rind in particular just said it wasn't as harmful as we had thought, and in some instances the children grow up to be normal. But he also has said that he still doesn't think it should be legal because (as I said before) there are still times when if leaves the child FUBAR, or impaired in some way. Not acceptable, according to Rind and pretty much every other progressive thinker, including myself.”
You now claim to know what all Progressives think, and they think just like you; this seems to contradict your previous claims that Progressives are a diverse bunch with lots of differences. Where is your evidence to support this claim?
Plus, your denial of freedom to those in beneficial home situations which do not lead to harm is a denial of freedom which is in contrast to your claim to be pursuing sexual freedom for women even though it results in harm to children. So your internal non-coherence seems to based on personal moral preference, and personal disgust regarding certain sexual preferences along the continuum, not on harm to children as you assert.
Kritical Strike,
You mention that you have a blog. I am unable to locate it, but I did find one which seemed to be a gamer blog, and likely not related. What is the location of your blog - assuming that it is open access of course?
Ah it's under a different name. You're welcome to visit:
http://jedenpol.wordpress.com/
Post a Comment