United States Co-founder of gay activist group HRC charged with sex abuse of 15-year-old boy

[Abhorsen]

Explain to me then how the same argument for homosexuality being moral doesn't work for pedophilia.

Easily. The argument for homosexuality is that it's consensual between all participants, and thus it's okay. Kids can't consent, thus this doesn't work for pedophilia.

Also, the higher propensity is doubtful. From what I've read, many that are into boys are straight with adults, making them not gay, but child fetishists.

As for the slippery slope arguments, I'd again put forward that this has to do with the inevitable collapse of the civil rights movement after it won everything it should have. Now there's all this machinery that people want to keep running because it's useful to get elected, but has no legitimate target. So they go and invent stuff. It's caused other stupidity in the past, but they didn't stay and try for every last bit until now. That's why you see stupidity not only with LGBT movements, but also BLM, people being pro-abortion (not just pro-choice), etc.

The other reason is that the long march through colleges seems to have timed well with gay rights winning, so colleges are now more effective than ever at churning out ideologues that believe in both moral progressivism and moral absolutism.

 

[Laskar]

Always with the slippery-slope argument.

Lol, "slippery slope." That ain't the get-out-of-jail-free card that you think it is.

Slippery slope is a fallacy when you assert that a change will lead to a completely unrelated change. Reducing the tax on gasoline will lead to more teenagers smoking dope, for example. There is no connection between the two, so one won't lead to the other.

It is also a fallacy when it ignores the principles at play. Take, for example, an assertion that someday the NRA will be fighting to allow kids to carry concealed guns in school. The thinking is that concealed carry for adults everywhere leads to concealed carry for children anywhere. But the principle in play is that mature, reasonable adults should have the ability to defend themselves with the best tool for the job. Children are not adults, they are not mature, so the NRA doesn't want them carrying concealed weapons.

Slippery slope does not apply when you are pointing out the logical extension of the principles at play. Let's say that a group organizes tomorrow with the name of Mothers Against Fast Cars. This group believes that speed kills, and the speed limit should be lowered to save lives. And the women in this organization keep saying those dreaded words: "If it saves just one life, it will be worth it."

It is no fallacy to point out that if they keep getting their way, highway speed will eventually be reduced to thirty miles per hour. Their campaign has no limiting principle, and they think that they have an overriding moral duty to prevent traffic fatalities. So they'll keep pushing to lower speed limits until traffic is unlivable and people fight back.

So. The principle of the LGBTQUIAA2+ movement is that people should have sex with whoever they lust after. Yes, I know we call it "sexual attraction" these days, but I also believe that Mark Twain once said "never use a five dollar word when a twenty-five cent one will do." If you lust after women, you should have sex with women. If you lust after men, you should have sex with men.

What are the limiting principles at play here? Well, there is a general consensus that pedophilia and incest are icky, but that principle is in tension with other principles like "traditional morality shouldn't restrict what people do in the bedroom" or "children have wisdom that we lack."

That last principle, by the way, is why adults say with a straight face that parents shouldn't contradict their eleven-year-olds when the kids come out as queer. It's why grown-ass adults take children like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg seriously.

And this goes straight back to thinkers like Michel Foucault and Alfred Kinsley. Kinsley kicked off the sexual revolution with his studies, and he wouldn't shut up about how "children are sexual beings". And Michel Foucault... well without postmodernism, there wouldn't be queerness or a LGBTQ identity movement. Michel Foucault explicitly said that he wanted postmodernism to expand the potentialities of being, and it's not hard to see why. He was always pushing against the bounds of what was socially acceptable. He wanted to be an academic when his father wanted him to be a lawyer. He was a homosexual in a society that found homosexuality to be distasteful. He was a sadist in a society that frowned on sadism. He was a pedophile in a society that strung up pedophiles from lampposts. So when Foucault said he wanted to expand the potentialities of being, he wanted to expand the potential for people to be like him.

 

[Bacle]

Lol, "slippery slope." That ain't the get-out-of-jail-free card that you think it is.

Slippery slope is a fallacy when you assert that a change will lead to a completely unrelated change. Reducing the tax on gasoline will lead to more teenagers smoking dope, for example. There is no connection between the two, so one won't lead to the other.

It is also a fallacy when it ignores the principles at play. Take, for example, an assertion that someday the NRA will be fighting to allow kids to carry concealed guns in school. The thinking is that concealed carry for adults everywhere leads to concealed carry for children anywhere. But the principle in play is that mature, reasonable adults should have the ability to defend themselves with the best tool for the job. Children are not adults, they are not mature, so the NRA doesn't want them carrying concealed weapons.

Slippery slope does not apply when you are pointing out the logical extension of the principles at play. Let's say that a group organizes tomorrow with the name of Mothers Against Fast Cars. This group believes that speed kills, and the speed limit should be lowered to save lives. And the women in this organization keep saying those dreaded words: "If it saves just one life, it will be worth it."

It is no fallacy to point out that if they keep getting their way, highway speed will eventually be reduced to thirty miles per hour. Their campaign has no limiting principle, and they think that they have an overriding moral duty to prevent traffic fatalities. So they'll keep pushing to lower speed limits until traffic is unlivable and people fight back.

So. The principle of the LGBTQUIAA2+ movement is that people should have sex with whoever they lust after. Yes, I know we call it "sexual attraction" these days, but I also believe that Mark Twain once said "never use a five dollar word when a twenty-five cent one will do." If you lust after women, you should have sex with women. If you lust after men, you should have sex with men.

What are the limiting principles at play here? Well, there is a general consensus that pedophilia and incest are icky, but that principle is in tension with other principles like "traditional morality shouldn't restrict what people do in the bedroom" or "children have wisdom that we lack."

That last principle, by the way, is why adults say with a straight face that parents shouldn't contradict their eleven-year-olds when the kids come out as queer. It's why grown-ass adults take children like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg seriously.

And this goes straight back to thinkers like Michel Foucault and Alfred Kinsley. Kinsley kicked off the sexual revolution with his studies, and he wouldn't shut up about how "children are sexual beings". And Michel Foucault... well without postmodernism, there wouldn't be queerness or a LGBTQ identity movement. Michel Foucault explicitly said that he wanted postmodernism to expand the potentialities of being, and it's not hard to see why. He was always pushing against the bounds of what was socially acceptable. He wanted to be an academic when his father wanted him to be a lawyer. He was a homosexual in a society that found homosexuality to be distasteful. He was a sadist in a society that frowned on sadism. He was a pedophile in a society that strung up pedophiles from lampposts. So when Foucault said he wanted to expand the potentialities of being, he wanted to expand the potential for people to be like him.

And I can come back and point out how Alan Turing was treated, and eventually driven to suicide, because he was gay. Never mind all the other good he did helping to defeat the Nazi's, him being gay meant he was a legit target for abuse, both unofficial and official in nature.

You also seem to forget the Stonewall Riots were a thing, and that they use to proscribe fucking lobotomy for homosexuals and bisexuals to 'cure' them.

The LGB community needs to get rid of people like the pedo's/NAMBLA fuckers who keep parasiting onto us.

However going on diatribes like this against them only reminds LGBs that there are a lot of people who want to shove them back in the closet, and remove their ability to get same-sex marriages, if they get back into power.

Homosexuality and bisexuality existed long before scum like Foucault was even born, trying to act like he and Kinsley are 'thought leaders' for LGBs is farcical.

 

[LordsFire]

Easily. The argument for homosexuality is that it's consensual between all participants, and thus it's okay. Kids can't consent, thus this doesn't work for pedophilia.

And the pedophiles claim it is consensual.

Who gets to decide? What basis do they get to decide that on?


To be clear I can differentiate between what is immoral, and what should be illegal. I believe homosexuality is immoral. I believe it is not the business of the state to regulate adults hurting themselves, so long as they are adults. I can logically structure how this applies to adults, but the same doesn't apply to an adult with a child, because I have a worldview that differentiates.

God gave us stewardship over our own bodies, so that is the principle by which I can say 'This is immoral, but it is not the place of me or the state to stop you, because you are only harming yourself.' By Biblical example, a minor does not get to make that decision, because they reason as a child, so that responsibility falls to their parents.

Trying to claim homosexuality is moral, I have never seen an argument beyond 'But X person is attracted to the same gender, so there's nothing wrong with it.'

What is the limiting principle on that? Because you can no longer apply Christian limiting principles, because deciding homosexuality is acceptable rejects Biblical authority and Christian doctrine. So where does the limiting principle come from?

Because 'Adult X is attracted to a 13 year old, and the 13 year old is attracted to them' is literally the exact same argument as used to justify homosexuality.

Also, whatever worldview you're building this argument from, also needs to have an objective way of defining 'harm.'

 

[DarthOne]

And I can come back and point out how Alan Turing was treated, and eventually driven to suicide, because he was gay. Never mind all the other good he did helping to defeat the Nazi's, him being gay meant he was a legit target for abuse, both unofficial and official in nature.

You also seem to forget the Stonewall Riots were a thing, and that they use to proscribe fucking lobotomy for homosexuals and bisexuals to 'cure' them.

The LGB community needs to get rid of people like the pedo's/NAMBLA fuckers who keep parasiting onto us.

However going on diatribes like this against them only reminds LGBs that there are a lot of people who want to shove them back in the closet, and remove their ability to get same-sex marriages, if they get back into power.

Homosexuality and bisexuality existed long before scum like Foucault was even born, trying to act like he and Kinsley are 'thought leaders' for LGBs is farcical.

Yes, but the point I think he's trying to make here is that because of the likes of Michel Foucault and Alfred Kinsley and people like them who laid the groundwork for the LGBTQ+ movement, the foundation of that movement is rotten and corrupt. Never mind how that makes it easier for activists who are either just as perverse or want to keep moving the goalposts (because, well, if they didn't they wouldn't have a job anymore) to get inside.

Also, if the LGBT community doesn't start pushing back against these sort of people, and I mean hard, things are going to get nasty for them when the pendulum swings back. Something that is already happening; I believe seeing reports that Millenials overall have even less tolerance than Gen X.

 

[Cherico]

Yes, but the point I think he's trying to make here is that because of the likes of Michel Foucault and Alfred Kinsley and people like them who laid the groundwork for the LGBTQ+ movement, the foundation of that movement is rotten and corrupt. Never mind how that makes it easier for activists who are either just as perverse or want to keep moving the goalposts (because, well, if they didn't they wouldn't have a job anymore) to get inside.

Also, if the LGBT community doesn't start pushing back against these sort of people, and I mean hard, things are going to get nasty for them when the pendulum swings back. Something that is already happening; I believe seeing reports that Millenials overall have even less tolerance than Gen X.

I think in the long run modernity is dying and with that the era of social experiementation.

Any one who can't make an accomidation with tradition is going to be hard fucked.

Dispite what people say, the black community, latinos, asiasns their all going to do all right, because the traditions of western civilization are not inherently racist and accomidations can be made easily.

Right now for the LGBT community this is a period of threading the needle, they have a window where if they pull it off they will be able to assimilate into society. Gay marrage is a big deal on that front if gay people can get married and have stable relationships that makes it easier for them to assimilate into the upcoming traditionalist society.

I think Gay men, Lesbians and bi sexuals are fully capable of making it through it but in order to do so the pedofiles will have to be thrown under the bus. If things go as badly as I think they will that will be quite litteral at times.

Trans people...I don't know if they can make that transition their an edge case, the pedofiles though are not when modernity ends all tolerance for them ends as well. Protection of ones children is a core part of pretty much all of the worlds traditions.

 

[Bacle]

I think in the long run modernity is dying and with that the era of social experiementation.

Any one who can't make an accomidation with tradition is going to be hard fucked.

Dispite what people say, the black community, latinos, asiasns their all going to do all right, because the traditions of western civilization are not inherently racist and accomidations can be made easily.

Right now for the LGBT community this is a period of threading the needle, they have a window where if they pull it off they will be able to assimilate into society. Gay marrage is a big deal on that front if gay people can get married and have stable relationships that makes it easier for them to assimilate into the upcoming traditionalist society.

I think Gay men, Lesbians and bi sexuals are fully capable of making it through it but in order to do so the pedofiles will have to be thrown under the bus. If things go as badly as I think they will that will be quite litteral at times.

Trans people...I don't know if they can make that transition their an edge case, the pedofiles though are not when modernity ends all tolerance for them ends as well. Protection of ones children is a core part of pretty much all of the worlds traditions.

Why are LGBs more responsible for dealing with pedos than hetero's?

Why is it they who get the blame for pedo's even existing?

It's like some of you think without LGBs in the world, there would be no pedos.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It seems we're actually all on the same page here: the LGBT movement has become utterly cancerous. Criticise the movement, not so much the "people." It's important to remember that, like many lefty causes, they claim to speak for the "oppressed minority" but they don't really.

 

[BlackDragon98]

It seems we're actually all on the same page here: the LGBT movement has become utterly cancerous. Criticise the movement, not so much the "people." It's important to remember that, like many lefty causes, they claim to speak for the "oppressed minority" but they don't really.

The tail has been wagging the dog for quite some time.

The LGBT movement got hijacked a long time ago by the Cabal and it's now firmly in their hands.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The LGBT movement got hijacked a long time ago by the Cabal and it's now firmly in their hands.

I would strongly advise those of such orientations to bail on that movement as fast as they can. Do not get mixed up in the inevitable blow-back against it.

 

[BlackDragon98]

I would strongly advise those of such orientations to bail on that movement as fast as they can. Do not get mixed up in the inevitable blow-back against it.

What kind of blow-back are we looking at?

Nazi Germany level persecution?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Nazi Germany level persecution?

Doubtful, but I do worry as to them being penalised for the movement snowballing out of control. It would be deeply unjust to punish people for such a thing.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

I could see gay marriage being made a state issue instead of a Federal one. That's about as far as I see it going in the foreseeable future.

 

[Abhorsen]

And the pedophiles claim it is consensual.

So does a rapist. It doesn't matter what they think, what matters is that for a large number of things, kids can't consent, including contractual agreements, voting, and sex, because they are not mentally developed enough. Now where precisely to draw that line is up to the society (I've seen arguments for anywhere from 16 to 25), but the general idea stays. All the bible does is add 'one must be married'.

Without this argument, kids can also have sex as long as they are married according to a biblical arrangement, which defines old enough as puberty.

By Biblical example, a minor does not get to make that decision, because they reason as a child, so that responsibility falls to their parents.

See, that doesn't actually stop pedophilia, just curtail it. It still allows child marriage (as seen with some of the FLDS churches) with parental consent. That's also wrong, as the kid can't consent to sex, and one can't consent for someone else for sex.

Trying to claim homosexuality is moral, I have never seen an argument beyond 'But X person is attracted to the same gender, so there's nothing wrong with it.'

What is the limiting principle on that? Because you can no longer apply Christian limiting principles, because deciding homosexuality is acceptable rejects Biblical authority and Christian doctrine. So where does the limiting principle come from?

Because 'Adult X is attracted to a 13 year old, and the 13 year old is attracted to them' is literally the exact same argument as used to justify homosexuality.

Also, whatever worldview you're building this argument from, also needs to have an objective way of defining 'harm.'

No, it requires only one thing (with a lot of corollaries). It says that morally, consent is what matters when it comes to sex. Now being able to give consent is an important part of that, and one cannot consent in a variety of conditions, including under coercion, as a child, when severely mentally incapacitated, under date rape drugs, etc.

Now are there other rules? Yes, but they aren't needed for this.

As for the definition of harm, it would be simply violating the NAP is harmful to the violatee.

 

[LordsFire]

because they are not mentally developed enough.

This appears to be the crux of your argument.

Who sets the standard for developed enough?

 

[Abhorsen]

This appears to be the crux of your argument.

Who sets the standard for developed enough?

See, the actual theoretical moral standard for developed enough is not something I've researched enough to know exactly other than a rough sometime from 16-21ish, I'd guess. I'd expect further science to be able to get a better grasp of this, and I suspect how society treat teenagers with responsibility to have an effect and that it would be individualized (for an extreme example, for some severely developmentally disabled kids, I'd say it might be never). In a perfect world we'd have a machine that could just determine emotional/mental maturity, but we don't, so we rely on heuristics to determine this (in the US it's age, with some states allowing for close in age partners, others allowing for marriage, etc; I'd just go on pure age with an allowance for close in age partners). But these heuristics, although rough, aren't for determining theoretical morality, but how to follow morality in a practical day-to-day society. They don't need to be perfect, and likely can't be.

But note that you haven't given a good standard for why pedophilia is bad either. Your 'biblical' solution didn't solve the problem of pedophilia either, other than 'not before puberty', which my system already has a stronger version of, and just adds 'in marriage with parental permission for kids', which can have little effect at stopping pedophilia (see again: FLDS cultists, also Roy Moore who claimed this).

 

[LordsFire]

See, the actual theoretical moral standard for developed enough is not something I've researched enough to know exactly other than a rough sometime from 16-21ish, I'd guess. I'd expect further science to be able to get a better grasp of this, and I suspect how society treat teenagers with responsibility to have an effect and that it would be individualized (for an extreme example, for some severely developmentally disabled kids, I'd say it might be never). In a perfect world we'd have a machine that could just determine emotional/mental maturity, but we don't, so we rely on heuristics to determine this (in the US it's age, with some states allowing for close in age partners, others allowing for marriage, etc; I'd just go on pure age with an allowance for close in age partners). But these heuristics, although rough, aren't for determining theoretical morality, but how to follow morality in a practical day-to-day society. They don't need to be perfect, and likely can't be.

This does sound like a worthwhile line of scientific inquiry and pursuit, and I agree, it's for how to follow morality, not to determine it.

But note that you haven't given a good standard for why pedophilia is bad either. Your 'biblical' solution didn't solve the problem of pedophilia either, other than 'not before puberty', which my system already has a stronger version of, and just adds 'in marriage with parental permission for kids', which can have little effect at stopping pedophilia (see again: FLDS cultists, also Roy Moore who claimed this).

I could build the exigetical scriptural argument for why pedophilia is bad, but the short form of it is 'Because God did not design human beings to work that way, and thus commanded us not to do it.'

And I neither claimed that Christianity stops Pedophilia, nor that it's better at dissuading it; I suspect it's better at dissuading it, but I can't honestly say I have access to statistics to demonstrate that.

What I am putting forward, is that Christianity can say that Pedophilia is wrong, as part of a coherent worldview.

However, once one has accepted the same post-modernist morality that legitimizes homosexuality, there's nothing stopping you from using the same argument to justify pedophilia.

I still haven't seen you explaining why that isn't the case. For example, who gets to define 'harmed?'

 

[Abhorsen]

I could build the exigetical scriptural argument for why pedophilia is bad, but the short form of it is 'Because God did not design human beings to work that way, and thus commanded us not to do it.'

And I neither claimed that Christianity stops Pedophilia, nor that it's better at dissuading it; I suspect it's better at dissuading it, but I can't honestly say I have access to statistics to demonstrate that.

What I am putting forward, is that Christianity can say that Pedophilia is wrong, as part of a coherent worldview.

So what I was trying to convey (and failing, I'm not the best at communicating) is I don't see how you get that out of the bible. I could see "Only sex with married people", "only marry with parents permission", and "no sex with pre-pubescents". But I don't see anything that says "having sex with 14 year olds (whom you might have married) is bad".

However, once one has accepted the same post-modernist morality that legitimizes homosexuality, there's nothing stopping you from using the same argument to justify pedophilia.

I still haven't seen you explaining why that isn't the case. For example, who gets to define 'harmed?'

I have said this was the case, though I didn't use a post-modernist worldview. The principle of consent (a corollary of the NAP, but all that's needed here), basically covers what is acceptable. If all participants can and do consent, the action is okay with respect to that, as no one has been harmed (someone may have been hurt, but if in a consensual manner, that's not harm). If someone did not consent, then someone was harmed. Now what you can do when harmed is what separates the NAP from pacifism, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

So when two adult males have consensual sex, they harm no one, and thus the action is presumably moral (obviously there can be other extenuating circumstances, like they were supposed to be working or someone was cheating, but ignoring that).

But a child cannot consent to sex (for reasons said above). So anyone who has sex with a child has harmed that child because they have done something to that child that the child didn't consent to, because the child can't consent to this. (When two young kids have sex, they harm each other, but they aren't morally culpable for the for the same reason they can't consent.)

Now why chose the NAP? I don't have a good reason for you, it's an axiom, the same as some believe in God, I hold not attacking people to take their stuff/hurt them to be immediately obvious in a way that's impossible to prove, much like the existence of the empty set.

 

[Laskar]

And I can come back and point out how Alan Turing-

And you'd be wasting our time, because I'm not talking about tit for tat or sob stories. I'm talking about principles.

However going on diatribes like this

If you think that was a diatribe, you weren't paying attention. I'm the one calmly trying to talk about principles here. You are the one charging in, screaming "How dare you!"

"How dare you!" doesn't work. It only works when you've got social hegemony on your side, or when the other guy shares a common moral framework with you. We don't. So we can talk about the principles that make up that framework, or you can wag your finger at me.

Homosexuality and bisexuality existed long before scum like Foucault was even born, trying to act like he and Kinsley are 'thought leaders' for LGBs is farcical.

That right there is the equivalent of saying "The Indian subcontinent has never contributed anything fundamental to the field of mathematics" or "Actually, Plato was only a minor philosophical thinker."

Kinsey was huge. If you talk about sex as a spectrum, you're using the language he invented. The whole sexual revolution, the idea that sexual gratification is and ought to be a primary goal in life? The idea that being attracted to your fellow men defines who you are? That's his doing. He's the one who dressed it up in academic verbiage and got it trending in the academy.

Gay marriage requires two concepts. The first is that men and women are interchangable. A man and a man is as good as a man and a woman or a woman and a woman because the differences between men and woman are a social construct. And speaking of social constructs, marriage is a social construct itself. Marriage doesn't have to be a union between a man and a woman for the sake of raising children and supporting a family. It doesn't have to be about children, it doesn't have to be about men and women, it doesn't even have to be about family at all. It could be a legal union between two men for the sake of hospital visitation rights.

That's the argument put forward by the postmodernists like Foucault. "It's all made up, so we can make up whatever we want." And boy, howdy did these guys hate those age-of-consent laws.

Those very same arguments that they crafted to attack traditional sexual morality? They crafted those arguments to allow for anything. And that's why the LGBTQ movement, as a movement, has trouble with pedophilia in the ranks. Because when your only moral principle is consent, the doors are open to just about everything.

 

[Bacle]

And that's why the LGBTQ movement, as a movement, has trouble with pedophilia in the ranks.

No more than any other sub group has issue with lunatics and sicko's taking advantage of it. And rooting them out is a lot easier if people do not also fear people like you using the incident to try to attack same-sex marriage and LGB stuff on the whole.

After all, Old Dementia Joe has been sniffing a lot of girls, and Hunter has gotten up to all sorts of things verging on pedo stuff (including possibly involving family members) seem perfectly hetero.

Again, trying to blame LGBs and the whole LGB movement for there being pedo's in powerful positions, or existing at all, is like blaming flies for there being garbage around.