For years folks have been accused of a slippery slope fallacy when it comes to sexual behavior.
Well, if folks like Professor (Stephen Kershnar is a distinguished teaching professor in the philosophy department at the State University of New York at Fredonia and an attorney) Steven Kershnar have their way, pedophilia will be normalized quite soon.
I guess we should be grateful that the branch of SUNY where he is a "distinguished teaching professor" is willing to stand up and condemn this sort of thing.
26 comments:
So, you're saying SUNY opposes sex with kids? They've come out publicly to disavow this perv?
Fun fact: It appears your professor is a libertarian/conservative. And it is true that there are some in Libertarian circles that might make this argument, it's not a mainstream argument that will hold water with liberals or religious conservatives, which make up the vast majority of our nation. This does point to one of the problems with libertarianism - this sort of amoral dystopic view of government.
If you're a privileged white doctor like Rand Paul and don't want to be certified by official organizations as a practicing doctor? Just make up your own "certification" board!
If you're a privileged white professor like this fella and don't think it's rational to protect minors from older predators? Just decriminalize pedophilia! (For what it's worth, I'm not sure this professor is/was advocating decriminalizing it. It sounds more like a philosophical argument where he appeared to be questioning why we would consider it wrong? But then, I didn't dig too deeply because this is a non-issue. Just another scare tactic from the poor conservatives who are soon to be so oppressed and maligned! Poor conservatives, woe is them!!)
https://meaww.com/suny-fredonia-philosophy-professor-stehen-kershnar-cant-see-anything-wrong-in-pedophilia-video
Art,
I'm saying that SUNY has come out against what this guy said. I'm not sure that measn they really oppose sex with kids, just that they don't want the negative press to rub off on them
;)
Fun fact, who cares. He's literally making an argument for pedophilia.
This post isn't about Libertarianism or Rand Paul.
Well done with the "ridicule it and it'll go away" trope.
The problems with your head in the sand approach are as follows.
1. This isn't the only instance of pedophilia advocacy/normalization.
2. Advocacy by academics lends credibility to the movement.
3. When C follows, B, which follows A, (and those steps have been predicted), then it's not a slippery slope fallacy anyomere.
4. Pointing out the reality of pedophilia advocacy/normalization, and pointing out the fact that they are using virtually the same arguments used to normalize any other sexual practice, is simply acknowledging reality.
What's interesting, is that you've managed to attack libertarians, conflate conservatives with libertarians, and bash Rand Paul, but haven't managed to condemn pedophilia.
So, be sure to take a stand when liberatarian/conservative types advocate changing policy and I will, too. Or, even if a liberal proposed such a move, which is doubtful.
What I HAVE heard are mental health types saying we should not demonize people with this trait, any more than we should demonize narcissists or psycho/sociopaths. But that's not the same as decriminalizing harmful behavior.
And I have not attacked libertarians, I pointed out the reality that this guy is a libertarian. I have noted that there is a problem with libertarian thinking that sometimes it devolves into a sort of anti-gov't, amoral dystopia. And that is a fair assessment that I don't think the Rand Paul types would disagree with (well, except that they might consider it a utopia instead of a dystopia.) They don't want gov't passing down rules telling people what they can and can't do, that's libertarianism.
Also, by and large, in today's politics, libertarians ARE in the conservative camp. Again, see Rand Paul and his ilk.
So, I will stand with you in opposing the conservatives and/or libertarian types who might advocate changing rules to decriminalize pedophilia. Just don't pretend like this is something associated with liberalism/progressivism.
Finally, I haven't condemned pedophilia? Get serious. " it's not a mainstream argument that will hold water with liberals or religious conservatives."
It's not mainstream or supported by liberals BECAUSE WE'RE OPPOSED to old men abusing, molesting children. It's part of the reason why decent people were opposed to Trump. Of course, I've always been opposed to normalizing actual perverts who prey on non-consensual women or children the way Trump has and the way you're suggesting maybe this conservative professor is. (And once again, I don't know that he's talking about changing policy, I think he was making a philosophical point.)
But by all means, try to stir up the fearful ones into thinking there is a movement (maybe in Hollywood? Maybe be liberals??) to harm children. You'd fit in great with Q-anon, today.
I've always found it difficult to truly place libertarians with conservatives. They seem like lefties who don't want government taking their stuff. They have the same perverse notion of right and wrong being a "my" truth kind of thing so common among lefties. They are more like the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" set which nauseates. Thus, if this prof is a libertarian, he's far more lib than conservative with comments like his regarding sexual matters.
Impressive example of not conflating condemning pedophilia with condemning one's political enemies.
Strangely most libertarians I'm aware of lean conservative on a few issues, but are in line with the left on many as well.
Interesting attempt to "kind of" accuse Trump of pedophilia.
FYI, the folks trying to mainstream pedophilia are making arguments based on consent, love, and all the same crap used to normalize any other sexual behavior.
I could be wrong, but it seems impossible for Dan to simply say something like, "Adults having sex with children is absolutely wrong.". Instead he has to drag in Trump, and all sorts of other extraneous crap and try to speak for the entirety of liberalism.
Strange, that.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/11/18/the-lefts-appalling-efforts-to-normalize-pedophilia/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/01/10/pedophiles-pedophilia-sexual-disorder/8768423002/
https://wbsm.com/california-proposal-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia-opinion/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/i-pedophile/278921/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/what-can-be-done-about-pedophilia/279024/
It's like a greatest hits compilation of all the sexual cliches. "Born that way", "Sexual Orientation", The APA redefinintion, "Age Orientation", "Minor Attracted Persons", stressing consent (as if minors are really capable of informed consent to a multitude of things including sex with an adult), etc.
Marshal... "I've always found it difficult to truly place libertarians with conservatives."
Well, whether or not YOU "find it" easy or difficult to place libertarians with conservatives, that's how they self-identify. And they vote GOP. Although, interestingly, they've been turned off somewhat from GOP in recent years because (and good on them for noting this), the GOP is no longer identified as the party of fiscal responsibility.
The data shows that self-identified Libertarians tend to vote (often in large numbers) for GOP.
"In the past, our research shows, most libertarians voted Republican—72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000, for instance, with only 20 percent for Al Gore, and 70 percent for Republican congressional candidates in 2002. But in 2004, presumably turned off by war, wiretapping, and welfare‐state spending sprees, they shifted sharply toward the Democrats. John F. Kerry got 38 percent of the libertarian vote. That was a dramatic swing that Republican strategists should have noticed."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/examining-libertarian-vote-depth
Craig... "I could be wrong, but it seems impossible for Dan to simply say something like, "Adults having sex with children is absolutely wrong."
I don't have to say it because it's obvious. That's the advantage of having consistent moral reasoning and positions. One need not ask, "Dan are you okay with drone strikes that kill innocent bystanders," because I'm always opposed to killing innocent bystanders. One need not ask, "Dan are you okay if a Democrat harasses women or ogles at teen-aged girls" because I'm always clearly opposed to it. And of course, one need not ask if I'm opposed to harming children in any way - including sexually predatory behavior - because I'm always opposed to it.
That's the difference between progressives like me and many modern conservatives and conservative evangelicals. You all are opposed to slavery and forced marriages generally... BUT, there are times you think may be exceptions. You're opposed to sexually harassing women, but, you're not really gone speak out against it strongly when it's your GOP leader who is boastfully doing it... even when he's boasting about abusing his power and wealth and white privilege to ogle teen-aged girls.
As to your Atlantic article, it's clearly noting mental health experts making a distinction between demonizing someone who has a sexual attraction towards children - something some people have naturally - and someone ACTING on those impulses. The former is natural and just a reality to deal with, the latter is harmful and wrong.
Consistency and reasoning: These are good things.
Craig... "I could be wrong, but it seems impossible for Dan to simply say something like, "Adults having sex with children is absolutely wrong."."
I could be wrong, but it seems impossible for Craig to simply say something like, "Rich powerful white men going back stage to ogle teen-aged girls and later laugh about it publicly is absolutely wrong. The same is true for rich powerful white men joking about sexually assaulting women, 'grabbing them by the *****' - it's absolutely wrong, full stop, and people should NEVER vote for such a deviant! I will speak out against those who vote for such a sick man..."
I could be wrong, but it seems impossible for Craig to simply say, "Slavery is wrong. Period. It's always and in every instance a great evil and not anything a good God would ever condone. The same is true for forced marriages - such arrangements are tantamount to rape and it's a great evil."
You'd think Craig or any moral rational person could easily take such a stand, but Craig can't. Weird.
Quite an impressive bunch of crap to avoid simply making a simple, straightforward statement.
Of course the double standard (Dan can get away with bland, generalized, vague, "condemnations", but everyone else must condemn specific actions), is powerfully on display.
The problem is that I've already said all of those things, and you just pretend like I haven't.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/02/04/atheist-philosopher-tells-atheists-how-to-be-moral-on-atheism/
Another post with some additional links regarding normalizing pedophilia.
I guess it's easier to ignore what doesn't fit your narrative, and focus on bullshit instead.
"Well, whether or not YOU "find it" easy or difficult to place libertarians with conservatives, that's how they self-identify."
So what? You identify as Christian without being one. I fully acknowledge how libertarians vote. The GOP simply comes closer to their beliefs than the marxist Dems do. Their understanding of liberty is better represented with the GOP despite their personal application being distinct from conservatism. Put another way, while libertarians acknowledge the severe flaws of leftist Dems, many enable the moral anarchy of the left. This professor represents one example of that.
"I don't have to say it because it's obvious."
Mr. Missthepoint. Craig's was that it isn't enough for you to agree pedophilia is wrong. The point was that you have to attempt to make some connection to Trump as if there is one. Don't ever complain about being slandered again, hypocrite.
And as if that wasn't enough to indict your well known hypocrisy, you defend yourself by insisting you don't and shouldn't have to state your opposition to various bad behaviors, but expect...DEMAND...constant expressions of condemnation for bad behaviors by right-wingers. Such then implies we have no problem with bad behaviors, whether real or imagined by the likes of you, if perpetrated by right-wingers. What's more, we've been consistent in opposing the bad behaviors of our own...like Trump's, since your derangement compels you to bring his to the fire every chance you get...while you blow off those of your as insignificant and of little concern.
Then there's your constant corruption of Scripture with regard to "slavery and forced marriages" and pretending we allow for some forms of true slavery or rape. You're a pathetic liar as bad as Biden, but typical for a leftist.
"Rich powerful white men going back stage to ogle teen-aged girls and later laugh about it publicly is absolutely wrong."
Would it make a difference if they were ogling from the audience with all the other people there simply to look at beauty contest contestants? Would it make a difference if they were average, middle/lower class black/Asian/middle eastern/Eskimo men? Can the beauty of a teen-aged girl in a beauty contest be decided without some degree of ogling? Do you have anything akin to brain cells in your skull, or do they not function while your head remains so far up your ass?
"The same is true for rich powerful white men joking about sexually assaulting women, 'grabbing them by the *****'"
Are you still lying about this? Are you still so enamored of the thought of people grabbing women by the crotch that you bring this up in order to appease your own desires? And again, would it matter the wealth, power or race of any man who describes gold-diggers in those terms? Are all such people who recognize the lengths some women (men, too) will go to profit sick and deviant simply because the recognize such women exist? Clearly not. You're just lying again to promote this as unique to Trump because you need to deflect from your own immorality by pointing to his less than perfect character.
And in your own hypocrisy, you insist we must constantly condemn the man while you sit back insisting you need not do so when those of your own kind misbehave. You're a clown.
Craig... "Another post with some additional links regarding normalizing pedophilia. "
? He's citing the same conservative libertarian (Kershnar) you've already cited. Additional links to the same conservative - who appears to have his comments lifted out of context and may not be saying, in context, what you all want this conservative to be saying - is not "additional links" in the sense of more data. Just repeating the same story about some conservative professor.
There is a demeaning throwaway citation to a transgender professor who is NOT advocating for decriminalizing pedophilia. This second link - to a far right website that is abusive and oppressive and irrational in its wording - appears to be another instance of yet another conservative/conservative group twisting facts to attack and demonize an historically oppressed group of people.
From that second article (in the oppressive words of the conservative author, not something Professor Walker has said)... "Walker’s attempt to legitimize non-offending pedophiles isn’t the first of its kind."
NON-OFFENDING pedophiles, In other words, adults who are attracted to children AND WHO DO NOT ACT on those impulses. You recognize, don't you, that being a NON-OFFENDING pedophile is a GOOD thing?
In defense of children from actual predators (like Trump and his conservative ilk and defenders), it HELPS us to distinguish between actual predators and those who have the attraction but WHO DO NOT ACT UPON IT.
The advantage to de-stigmatizing this attraction is that THEN those who have those attractions are less likely to cover it up and more likely to get help SO THAT they don't actually harm children.
These stupidly backwards attempt to demonize the destigmatization of non-offenders will result in more children being attacked by people like your president, Trump, and other actual perverts.
Don't support actual child predators. Just stop it. Use your head and God-given reasoning.
Looking into NAMBLA (the boy-man sex group) and found this...
" The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was founded in December 1978 and is a Libertarian pedophile coalition group, many members have been convicted of pedophile offenses. Naturally because of what this organization represents, they often implore people to vote Republican...
The organization consists of pedophiles in denial about the harm they do. Pedophiles as a group are notorious for refusing recognise that they are doing damage. The pedophiles also imagine or pretend that boys can “Freely choose” to love adult men. All this overlooks the power adults have to manipulate kids into doing what the adults want. In civilized countries the law protects underage boys and girls from the manipulative power of adults. Mark Foley acted like a member of this group, so liberals aren't inclined to support NAMBLA. "
I am opposed to those conservatives and libertarians who would actually abuse/molest/entice children. And liberals, when it's a liberal doing it. But from what I'm seeing, it's more of a conservative/libertarian/GOP kind of thing.
That explains a lot about Trump's acceptance by the modern GOP and his defense by people like Craig (and YES, it is "defense" when you minimize the degree of wrong/perversion/danger he represents and his attacks on the free press and his attacks on our election system and his abuse of his useful idiots willing to vote for him...) It wouldn't surprise me to discover Q-Anon and other Trump supporters are as littered with pedophiles as they are with racists.
Roy Moore, Trump, at least one of the Jan 6th insurrectionists...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/04/politics/capitol-rioter-rape-charge/index.html
Nathan Larson...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Larson_(politician)
Josh Duggar...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/04/30/josh-duggar-child-porn-charges/
Sovereign Grace Ministries...
https://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/evangelical_church_accused_of_ignoring_sexual_abuse_pedophilia_ring_partner/
Hm. I wonder how long this could go on?
Craig... "Of course the double standard (Dan can get away with bland, generalized, vague, "condemnations", but everyone else must condemn specific actions), is powerfully on display."
Of course, you're comparing apples and rotten trash.. When I say I am opposed to slavery, I'm always supposed to slavery. Period. It's a great wrong and evil in every circumstance.
You can't make such a claim and you won't make such a claim and so it's reasonable to get clarification from you on things like that.
When I say I am always opposed to grown adults engaging in sexual activity towards unconsenting minors or unconsenting women, I mean just that. No exceptions.
You appear to have exceptions, For instance, if you think God commanded you or allowed you to forcibly wed women against their will or children against their will, it may not be wrong. I'm consistent and you are inconsistent.
And that is the difference between you and me.
Dan,
Your obsession with making everything about what part of the political spectrum that someone is on seems ridiculous. Who the hell cares about what political philosophy pedophiles identify with?
The fact that you choose to ignore the reality that I've answered your questions before, and you pretend otherwise mitigates the impact of your claims/accusations.
The difference between you and me is that you hold yourself to one standard (bland, general condemnations of things), while demanding that I meet a different standard (addressing every single specific complaint you find worthy, and in the way you find appropriate).
Once again, Dan is so obsessed with deflecting from his own perverse defense of deviancy that he finds highlighting right-leaning perpetrators of behaviors he can inflate in seriousness in order to overshadow his defense of perversion. It's the ultimate "whatabout". OK, so what about:
https://www.pacificpundit.com/2017/09/13/democrats-have-a-pedophilia-problem/
This next one highlights companies with well known leftist slant:
https://visionlaunch.com/why-are-there-so-many-pedophiles-in-power-who-is-protecting-them/
But Dan wants to focus on his man-crush, Donald Trump:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/trump-busts-1500-pedophiles-media-keeps-silent
I found various links to lists of members of both parties. One site, which had a rather lengthy list of Republicans had no Democrat list to go with it. Maybe the site's operator felt there were plenty of those already out there one more wasn't necessary. I also found links to lists of perpetrators from both parties.
But it isn't a matter of who is doing it. That's bad enough that the urge/desire/orientation (or whatever) afflicts people without regard to political persuasion. What matters is which side of the divide has a history of enabling, promoting or minimizing the "stigma" of sex with children (keep in mind that there are differences between sex with a teen and sex with an elementary school aged kid, though we can combine them all here for this "discussion"). No honest person can disagree that lefties are the main drivers of legitimizing all sexual behaviors Scripture defines as sinful. Their push to legitimize sex outside marriage and then homosexual sex was at the forefront of enabling all others. With a culture sliding to perdition, it is not so strange to see members of the more moral party succumb to their own temptations. One can easily argue that they would not have done so were it not for the leftist push to make it OK to do whatever one desires.
Let's not forget Epstein and his close ties to DFL power brokers. Weinstein, the mayor of Seattle, just to name a few. Dan's obsession with trying to use something a vile as pedophilia as a club to bash Trump and "conservatives", while pretending that this is something limited to one side of the aisle is pathetic.
The fact that he chooses to ignore the reality that pedophilia is just the most recent "sexual orientation" to be taken mainstream is sad as well.
And that last bit is true regardless of politics, because it's only a political issue when a party or politician moves to legitimize the practice in law. So far, that deviant discussion takes place in academia and the world of psychology. Let's hope it stays there if it must remain at all.
The slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy. I see it as more of a cliff than a slope. The arguments the Left, including the "Christian" Left, used to justify homosexual perversions just "happen" to also justify the rest of their perversion cornucopia. They didn't press them all at once, but they use the same justifications -- i.e., it (allegedly) doesn't hurt you, love wins, Jesus was a bigot, blah blah blah.
Art, I agree that it doesn't become a political issue until one party or another starts to propose changes in the laws. But as we've seen with other "sexual orientations" in the past, it's highly unlikely that this one will stay in the academy for much longer. Because that's how it works.
Neil.
Great to see you back. Hope all is well for you.
I agree. When the predictions come true, then it's not a fallacy any more. I think that as we look at the track record for mainstreaming new "sexual orientations" it's safe to say that past history allows us to predict the trajectory pretty accurately. As you note, it's the same arguments that have been used since the 70's just tweaked for the newest orientation.
Post a Comment