Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Judgments
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 259 (176455)
01-13-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
01-12-2005 8:53 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Phatboy asks:
quote:
If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?
Oh, "the people" couldn't possibly be the answer, could it? Nah. Humans could never come up with their own morality and rules.
I mean, they can't even come up with a game like Monopoly. That was divinely inspired, right?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 01-12-2005 8:53 AM Phat has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 182 of 259 (176458)
01-13-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:52 AM


Re: On consent
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
Why do we assume that a minor cannot give consent?
Because experience has shown us that they can't.
Now, is there something magic about being 17 years, 364 days old that makes one incapable of giving consent that an extra 24 hours will somehow provide? Of course not. It is a completely arbitrary division made purely for pragmatic reasons. But, it recognizes the fact that the ability to give consent is correlated with age. While for each individual the moment at which we can reasonably assume that the brain has figured out the mental processes required to think abstractly and predictively along with the other factors that allow a person to take responsibility for one's actions is unique, it is not surprising to find that younger people tend to be less likely to be able to do so than older people.
quote:
If a minor can be charged with murder as an adult, why can't they have sex as an adult?
You are assuming that minors should be charged with murder as an adult.
quote:
If you can be mature enough to understand the consequences of an action that takes a life, why can't you understand the consequences of sex?
You are assuming that the minor understands the consequences of actions that take a life.
You are also assuming that the process by which one acquires the ability to give consent is an all-or-nothing process. The ability to give consent is a multi-dimensional ability. Some of the pieces come before the others.
quote:
but that's a different thing than saying that nobody under the age of 18 can give consent.
Are you seriously saying that the typical 17-year-old is mentally equivalent to the typical 7-year-old? Because the example we were given was of 7-year-olds.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 259 (176461)
01-13-2005 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
01-12-2005 7:59 AM


Re: Higher Laws
holmes writes:
quote:
For the ongoing example (polygamous marriage to an 11 year old) there are cultures which think this is fine, and if extended up to 12 or 13 is possible within the US.
Yes, I do define sexual activity between an adult and a child of 11 or 12 as rape. Most children of that age cannot give fully informed consent. That's where the psychological harm is rooted: they are taken advantage of by someone old enough to know better.
I realize there are some types of adult-child sexual activity where the damage is more difficult to pin down. An example might be the Mary Laternau (sp?) case. The boy who was involved with her is now a man and seems to be a perfectly well-adjusted adult. Of course, that's only by appearance, we can't know for sure. Even if we accept the idea that he's suffered no ill-effects from this relationship, we must still recognize that Ms. Laternau had no way of knowing whether she might do serious harm to the boy by having sex with him. I have no sympathy for her.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 01-12-2005 7:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 8:55 AM berberry has not replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 259 (176468)
01-13-2005 4:34 AM


I opened up another thread for the pedophilic discussion as Holmes suggested. However Admin have closed it, until such a time as it can be decided if we want to discuss it.

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 185 of 259 (176473)
01-13-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Shaz
01-12-2005 8:38 PM


Re: Higher Laws
This is my point Holmes, you make that statement and then offer nothing to support it, much like Tal also did.
1) Just to let you know, Tal was suggesting that pedophilia was wrong. His only suggestion otherwise was when probing those that say they can find a difference between homosexuality and pedophila based on some criteria. They were reductios. He is firmly against pedophilia as he is against homosexuality.
2) The statement that I made was part of a discussion not on the morality of anything, but rather the subjectivity of the definition of harm. Q presented a very nice cultural example of this. As far as my presenting evidence of something that does not exist, you tell me how to do that. As far as I understand it those that say there is evidence for something that must present evidence, otherwise it defaults to nothing. And in this case it would have to be in another thread.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Shaz, posted 01-12-2005 8:38 PM Shaz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 186 of 259 (176478)
01-13-2005 7:51 AM


Rrhain's blinking posts
Since you knew that those that spoke against him were concentrating on the issue of consent, one wonders why you were so disingenuous as to posit that something else was being considered.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. All the point of my criticism was that they cannot simply say their system has correct labels and his incorrect labels, in order to advance their argument.
Tal obviously uses a moral system which is not based on the same criteria (consent is not part of it). To say it does not generate the same moral labels as one which is based on consent is a point of fact, but not an argument for why his is more wrong (in an absolute sense). You like to pretend you understand logic, so you ought to at least understand that simply logical problem.
quote:
I was only arguing that any moral position regarding minors and sex, would have the same absolute basis as a moral position regarding gay sex.
  —me
To which you reply...
Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you? Are you seriously saying that consent is correlated with a person's sex? Are you seriously saying that consent is not correlated with a person's age?
Do you not understand that I am discussing moral systems from a subjectivist vantage point? The above points out that from a subjectivist/relativist position the two different moral systems do not have any more absolute basis in reality (they are not true in any absolute sense). I guess this is the time for you to decide if there are absolute moral truths or not.
The fact that one might use consent and another might not, does not make any one more truthful, just different. Note, as a subjectivist my argument cuts both ways and would shield schraf and berb from any arguments Tal might make along the same lines.
As it stands I do not believe any one of you are actually using "consent" in order to determine harm or wrong or legality. Whether it varies with age or sex or some other criteria I have not stated nor even tried to imply. That might make an interesting topic.
But Paul was pulling all this shit out of his ass. Paul directly contradicts Jesus in many places. Why should we trust his opinion about anything?... And, of course, this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that what Paul was talking about was not what we mean when we say "homosexuality."
These are valid forms of argument against his position which is what I was saying to schraf. The problem is that he can simply say he is accepting the common understanding of those passages and then there is nothing you or I can say other than to note that he doesn't seem to care about investigating the source of his moral system for historical accuracy.
By your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable to start with a loving, committed couple and then say that it is equivalent to a rapist/victim relationship. After all, they both involve sex so therefore the two acts are equivalent. Why are you so obsessed over comparing consensual relationships with nonconsensual ones? Are you trying to tell us something?
I have not presented any logic which can be used to create a moral system within this thread. The topic is whether as a subjectivist, I can criticize other moral systems, and how. I participated in this thread before Tal brought up a pedophilic example, and was arguing the same stuff now as I was then.
The fact that you believe I have taken a moral position in this thread, or was even trying to, is your projection. Look in the mirror bud, I didn't try to compare any action to any other action, much less obsessively bring it up.
quote:
Protection of children from predation is a completely separate subject from whether a romantic kiss, or sex with a minor is morally wrong.
  —me
The above is a statement that issues of legal protection are separate from issues of morality. It was meant to suggest that not everything that is wrong must necessarily mean it is illegal, nor that anything that is illegal must necessarily be a moral wrong. That is all I was saying.
To which you reply...
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that preventing the sexual molestation of a child is not connected to protection of children from predation?
It appears you blinked too soon and missed the point of my comment. I have no idea how you pulled your stated position out of the words I wrote.
quote:
And I will point out again, that just being on a different mental and physical level does not make interacting with someone abusive.
  —me
Here I am saying that interactions between two people of different mental or physical levels does not necessitate that the interaction will be abusive. This does not mean that abuse is not possible, nor that in that circumstance abuse cannot be aided by the difference in levels. It is just a point of fact that different levels does not inherently mean abuse (ie that someone is taking advantage of someone else).
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? It is not abuse to take advantage of people due to their mental and/or physical deficiencies? Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?
You are right, I did not say whatever you thought I said. Once again you seem to have blinked to soon. You cannot draw your conclusion from my statement.
(*ahem*) Don't we get to take the kid's word for it? They pretty much say that they didn't want it to happen and were harmed by the experience (notice, I simply said "harmed" and not "completely destroyed and incapable of living a fulfilled existence.")
This is going to draw us way off topic and the admin's have decided kids can't play together on that topic in a separate thread.
I will only note that your "they" and "pretty much" and "harmed" are not exactly objective statements backed up by any evidence. We both know from the articles in the other thread that even in a western culture like GB "they" didn't always say that it wasn't wanted (only homosexual relations contained a majority stigma like that), or that they were harmed by the experience (a max of 5% above normal population in one specific category).
As has been pointed out by Q, other cultures do not have that stigma at all. Unless you are going to say those silly blacks just don't know they are wrong and feeling bad?
This is in comparison to the history of examination of gay people where the only people the psychologists knew about where those who were seeking counseling. That is, until Dr. Evelyn Hooker thought that perhaps they should look at the gay people who aren't in mental hospitals. It was amazing how normal they seemed. It seems obvious now, but at the time it never really occurred to the psychologists and psychiatrists that they had a biased sample. If you only look at people who have neuroses to begin with, you tend to conclude that they have neuroses.
Interesting point, although in addition to seeking counseling it was also people imprisoned or considered victimized and so forced into government custody. Now extend it into the real world beyond just homosexuals. Other cultures have already been pointed out. Even clinical examples (biased studies) show less harm from sexual contact than from homosexuality, and greater harm from homosexual child sexual contact than heterosexual child sexual activity. I am of course not discussing the cases of overt or violent rape or coercion in any case (child or adult).
And again I am not using this to argue for a moral position, just use of harm, or in this case the state of evidence for harm, that can go into moral calculations. There are of course nonsexual issues which lead to physical and psychological harm. These could be looked at as well. In all cases this must be carefully screened and kept in mind that harm may be socially defined, and socially reinforced.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?
No, you continue to not discuss what I actually say, and instead quote mine in order to build a strawman you can burn down. Burn away.
That said, I am trying to tell you something something (and all the other personalities which go into your "us"). Stop replying to my posts, or take more than a few moments to read and respond. You rarely seem to understand anything I say.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2005 12:47 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 187 of 259 (176485)
01-13-2005 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by berberry
01-13-2005 1:22 AM


You had every opportunity to admonish him not to stray from your precious concept of this thread started by someone else entirely.
All he did was post one statement. Schraf used a double prong approach to addressing his statement. One was logically sound (though had a weakness) the other was not logically sound. Yours was completely not logically sound.
You will note that I did not discuss being off topic in my initial replies, and support for a portion of Schraf's attack. Getting off topic is your demand that he "prove his assertion". His statement was part of an ongoing attack from schraf, extending from his reliance on the Bible and she began probing on specific labels. He did not simply assert anything, and in the case of pedophilia example was counterprobing Schraf's position.
HELL NO SHE DID NOT!!! TAL BROUGHT IT UP!!!
Schraf brought homosexuality up, not Tal. Tal brought up a pedophilic example to counterprobe her position. If you run back up the links to see the context of what was going on between Schraf and tal you will understand what was happening.
By requiring you to provide a link to your evidence? The solution is simple: if you are ever in a debate with me and wish to cite a study, be damned sure you have a link handy or drop it.
No, by acting like a royal prick. I don't like disengenuousness and I don't like shrill whiners. I also don't like it when people act as if they don't believe something exists yet when offered general directions on how to find it, they throw hissy fits. You may note that I did this exact same thing with Tal in the thread I created for him and his Iraq War conspiracy theory.
I was not "citing" a study, I was mentioning that a study had been cited somewhere else at EvC. You could easily find it if you exerted more energy into looking for it than writing whiny and innuendo laden posts to me. I even said I'd find it for you and you still jumped on my back.
Here is a link to the first citation by a poster named Jon. I am not going to hold your hand and give you links to each entry in the following debate, nor his additional citations. I recommend you read through the posts, the articles and the links within the articles to other studies.
If you understand what they say, you are going to be as surprised (if not more) than I was. Now personally I can rip those papers up quite a bit and you will see some of that within my posts. However that is the state of data on the subject. If you find more studies and want to open a thread (or try to) on evidence for harm be my guest.
If you want to debate morality on sexuality based on evidence and specific criteria, open a thread. If you want to debate legal reasons for regulating or outlawing something (as opposed to simply finding it immoral), open a thread... or try to.
In this thread I am stepping on absolute moralists, and explaining what approaches subjective moral theorists can use to criticize other moral theories beyond judging them using the assumption that their subjective morality is the absolute one (as bizarre as that seems).
Then why in hell have you wasted a half dozen pages taking me to task for requesting that an assertion be backed up?
Projection man, projection. Note that my initial reply to you had nothing to do with being off topic and wholly to do with saying your method of attack was inappropriate logically. You began later to mention your need for him to back up his assertion, at which point I pointed out that he didn't need to in context with this thread.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by berberry, posted 01-13-2005 1:22 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by berberry, posted 01-13-2005 3:05 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 195 by berberry, posted 01-14-2005 3:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 188 of 259 (176499)
01-13-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by berberry
01-13-2005 2:18 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Yes, I do define sexual activity between an adult and a child of 11 or 12 as rape.
That is fine for you, but it is subjective. I am not saying you are wrong, just no more right than anyone else with a different set of definitions and criteria.
Most children of that age cannot give fully informed consent. That's where the psychological harm is rooted: they are taken advantage of by someone old enough to know better.
Upon examining your position more carefully, you will discover that this is not your actual position (moral system). Not only is there no plausible mechanism for harm to magically spring from an activity where "fully informed consent" is lacking, if indeed you ever find an objective definition for what that means, you are unlikely to apply it anywhere else in life.
Note your last sentence in particular, you are simply affirming the conclusion. Your entire argument here is circular with the assumption you are right. "Know better" than what? The answer is obvious, do something which should not be done (or causes harm).
This is not to say that you cannot have or do not have a moral system which can judge A right and B wrong. I am simply critiquing what you glibly throw out as your position. It is recent propaganda soundbytes for popular sexual morality.
Don't be ethnocentric and really examine your system. Where did you get the concept of "consent" or "fully informed consent", and where did it come from historically? What evidence do you have linking lack of consent to harm, and how do you end up applying it to all situations.
There is a reason why I am talking to you and not to Tal. I think Tal is a troll who is unlikely to understand or care about improving his position (logical position or other). I think there is a chance for you, though it appears you need to flush out all the emotions you have regarding sex (your preconceptions) in order to get into the logical gears of your argument.
I realize there are some types of adult-child sexual activity where the damage is more difficult to pin down. An example might be the Mary Laternau (sp?) case. The boy who was involved with her is now a man and seems to be a perfectly well-adjusted adult. Of course, that's only by appearance, we can't know for sure.
This is a perfect example of where you can start working on what really drives your system. I would point out that your "we can't know for sure" is not good. That can be used against homosexuals as well. After all we are talking about adults at this point.
Even if there was no harm (objectively), might there not be other reasons to consider her actions "wrong" morally? I think you might find that there is. What could they be?
It is not that she could not know if she would cause harm. You cannot know how any of your actions may turn out, and many great actions came from people taking risks, including things which were unpopular socially and may have caused harm.
Another interesting point to consider is that maybe you are correct that she was wrong (according to your system), but she was correct that she right according to hers (as well as the boy being correct that he was right). In the end more harm was done by the pressure from others on them, than what they were doing for themselves. The morality is irrelevant to where the harm lay.
Certainly LaTournou is mirrored and amplified when looking at other cultures now, and especially back through time (where sex was not intrinsically bad or needing qualification to be good as it does today).
You may still want to say that you find their actions wrong personally, while admitting that you understand that to those other people they are right and in being considered right might have different outcomes for such actions.
I am a subjectivist arguing for subjectivism and an ability to critique other theories without resort to absolutism. If you do not see that I am actually upholding your right to say something is wrong as equally as I am saying they have a right to say they are right, then you are refusing to see the whole picture.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by berberry, posted 01-13-2005 2:18 AM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 259 (176587)
01-13-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Silent H
01-13-2005 8:25 AM


holmes writes me:
quote:
Here is a link to the first citation by a poster named Jon.
That's it? That's a study about nonconsensual sex. It has nothing to do with consensual homosexual activity among adults.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 8:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 6:23 PM berberry has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 190 of 259 (176678)
01-13-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by berberry
01-13-2005 3:05 PM


That's it? That's a study about nonconsensual sex. It has nothing to do with consensual homosexual activity among adults.
I said that was the first citation, that there were more within the thread, and you should read through each one. You could also follow the refs to additional material.
If you are claiming that you actually read the citations within that thread, rather than just the titles and synopses, and you saw no discussion of mental health among homosexuals outside of purely nonconsensual sex, then there is nothing more to say.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by berberry, posted 01-13-2005 3:05 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Shaz, posted 01-14-2005 12:56 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 192 by Shaz, posted 01-14-2005 1:14 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 259 (176851)
01-14-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Silent H
01-13-2005 6:23 PM


Evidence of Harm
My apologies to anyone, if this information offends. I have tried to carefully screen the information I am offering here for potential offensive material.
Holmes and Tal:
At the outset let me say that I find it totally remiss of you both, to make statements and then appear to be using all manner of subterfuge to wriggle away. Holmes your comment leads one to speculate that your assertion is ‘beyond dispute’, and that there is ‘no empirical evidence that sexual activity is harmful to anyone’. I wonder if you base this on the Rind et al study, which is the only one I am aware of which proposes the view you put forward.
The Rind et al study, has certainly been a furiously disputed, within the medical, welfare, and legal industries. It has also been retracted from leading medical journals, and openly denounced by many paediatricians, and social welfare agencies. However, NAMBLA is still touting it as the legitimate citation to their practices.
quote:
The House voted 355-0 to denounce the study in the Psychological Bulletin, one of the APA's 37 journals
Congress Resolution
Statements by the APA, and other media reports against the Rind study
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/rebuttal.htm#JAMA
quote:
Leadership Council's Examination of the Meta-analysis"...As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings. Our analysis found that the study by Rind et al. was seriously flawed. In fact, we found the paper was a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data and misrepresented findings that led to faulty conclusions. Some of these problems are outlined below." Leadership councilhttp://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/Rind/rind.html#LC%20Examination%20of%20MA
Regardless though of where your comment stemmed from, according to you Holmes there is no evidence. Your blanket statement is ludicrous, no matter which line of argument you take to support it, some children are harmed by sexual activity. Therefore even with limited resources due to the nature of the topic and confidentially, I offer this information to show harm resulting from sexual activity/sexual abuse. (Please don’t quibble about the term ‘abuse’, it is a generally accepted term used to describe sexual activity with minors by adults, and you know it Holmes.)
quote:
Assertions made:
Holmes post 74 writes:
However, and this is also beyond dispute, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that sexual activity (in general) is harmful to anyone at any age even when engaged in by anyone else of any other age.
Tal post 128 writes:
I tell you that you have no evidence to draw the line and tell me that pedophilia or polygamy is wrong
quote:
Definitions:
  • Harm
    1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
    2. Wrong; evil.
    Harm&r=67 Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
    1 : physical or mental damage
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
    Forbidden
    403 Forbidden
  • Wrong
    1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause
    b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another;
    2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
  • United Nations rights of the child: particularly principle 8 & 9 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/k1drc.htm
    Subsequently given the definition of harm being, injury and/or damage (including wrong in that definition), then clearly one needs to look at the incidence of injury in relation to sexual abuse. (To go into details of specific injuries would be insensitive, but the titles of injuries that have been sustained by minors during sexual activities are: STD’s (including HIV), death, trauma lower genitourinary, amongst others. Therefore to show that there have indeed been injuries (harm) caused to children by sexual activity I offer the following as evidence.
    quote:
    Fatalities:
    Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For 2002, an estimated 1,400 children died due to abuse or neglect. Physical abuse and sexual abuse also were major contributors to fatalities.
    Chart available which shows fatalities, in relation to sexual abuse to be less than 1% which is less than 14 children, however to register it has to be more than 1.
    http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/...ts/fatalitydlinks.cfm#dlinktwo
    quote:
    STD's
    "Gutman and associates identified sexual abuse as a certain or possible source of infection in 10 (10.4%) of 96 HIV-infected, 2- to 15-year-old children.62" Another study: "..., 14 (53.8%) had no identified risk factor for HIV infection other than sexual victimization by an adult male."
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/...ull/104/1/S1/178#T4
    STD’s may result in further morbidity... Most STD prevalence rates in prepubertal children tend to be below 4%; in adolescents the prevalence rate is approximately 14%.
    Child Sexual Abuse in Emergency Medicine: Practice Essentials, Background, Pathophysiology
    quote:
    Physical injury
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California
    A prospective 10-year study was conducted of 94 children who had anogenital trauma Of the 47 injuries to the posterior fourchette, 22 abrasions, hematomas, or tears healed completely; 12 required vascular changes; 2 developed fusions; 10 lacerations required surgery; and 6 scarred and 4 healed with vascular changes
    Healing patterns in anogenital injuries: a longitudinal study of injuries associated with sexual abuse, accidental injuries, or genital surgery in the preadolescent child - PubMed
    quote:
    Cases treated
    U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics
    A substantial number of the child patients, representing 39% of the rape and sexual abuse cases of children under age 12 treated at the ED's in 1994,
    Among patients treated for a violence-related injury, about 29% of the children under age 12 were treated for suspected or confirmed rape or sexual assault, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt
    157 cases were identified for study, We used a standardized classification system and determined that 25 patients (15%) had examination findings in the sexual abuse clinic, Common examination findings included anogenital erythema Vol. 152 No. 7, July 1998 Archives of paediatrics and adolescent medicine.
    quote:
    Correlation, sexual acts/injury/perpetrator
    Inmate interviews in 277 prisons in 45 states, conducted during 1991, revealed:
  • Of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault, two-thirds victimized children;
    For offenders imprisoned for violent crimes against victims younger than 18 (1991):
  • Fifteen percent were convicted of forcible rape;
  • Fifty-seven percent were convicted of other types of sexual assault;
  • Approximately 10 percent had beaten or threatened;
    http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats2.htm#Offenders
    quote:
    Summary
    Now according to the information I have cited, some children do experience injury as a result of sexual activity. This injury has been shown to range from, STD’s, physical damage requiring surgery, permanent scarring, or even fatalities. Given the definition or harm and wrong, then the findings clearly support that harm can be caused by sexual activity. Further to that, I have personally attended cases, including one of an 18 month old child, repeatedly used by a pedophile for sexual activity. The outcome of that was horrific, and the child died. Forensic evidence is indeed available in all cases, but it is only done so on a need to know basis. Dispute this all you want Holmes, the facts still stand. The stats are in and sexual activity between adults and minors has in cases proven to be harmful, and significantly at that.
    My apologies again, if anyone has been offended by this post, and also for the length of it. Shaz

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 190 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 6:23 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by Tal, posted 01-14-2005 4:05 AM Shaz has replied
     Message 199 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 5:04 AM Shaz has replied

      
    Shaz
    Inactive Member


    Message 192 of 259 (176857)
    01-14-2005 1:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 190 by Silent H
    01-13-2005 6:23 PM


    Oh and Holmes, this has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of any culture group or personal preference. It is about the statement that YOU made, and stood by. You dragged sexual activity with minors, into the 'harm' arena.
    Holmes post 146 writes:
    I never said such a thing, unless you mean when I said there is no evidence that sexual activity causes any harm to anyone of any age? That stands.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 190 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 6:23 PM Silent H has not replied

      
    tsig
    Member (Idle past 2908 days)
    Posts: 738
    From: USA
    Joined: 04-09-2004


    Message 193 of 259 (176873)
    01-14-2005 3:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
    01-12-2005 8:53 AM


    Re: Higher Laws
    If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?
    common consent. Since most poeple don't want to get murdered when they form a society they outlaw killing within the society.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 151 by Phat, posted 01-12-2005 8:53 AM Phat has not replied

      
    tsig
    Member (Idle past 2908 days)
    Posts: 738
    From: USA
    Joined: 04-09-2004


    Message 194 of 259 (176875)
    01-14-2005 3:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Tal
    01-10-2005 10:10 AM


    my daughter
    What if I want to kiss your 7 year old daughter?
    There's nothing wrong with that right?
    She's my daughter, if I think it wrong I can enforce it with the law.
    You have also usurped parental responsibility.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Tal, posted 01-10-2005 10:10 AM Tal has not replied

      
    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 195 of 259 (176880)
    01-14-2005 3:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 187 by Silent H
    01-13-2005 8:25 AM


    First let's get the mea culpa out of the way. holmes writes me:
    quote:
    Schraf brought homosexuality up, not Tal.
    I stand corrected. Tal had, in his no doubt on-topic way, praised the brilliance and timeliness of Levitical laws requiring that one cover one's shit. That and subsequent references to the book led to schraf's almost inevitable question.
    So take it up with schraf I suppose. The point is that I didn't drag the thread off-topic.
    Now to this: you say I'm
    quote:
    ...acting like a royal prick.
    Awwww, I'm so sorry to be such a bother. But you see, when you make a silly claim such as
    Homosexuality has been and still is linked statistically to greater psychological/physical/social problems.
    you have made an assertion and should be prepared to back it up. Providing a link to a post which cites a study of nonconsensual sex is not sufficient to back this particular assertion. I don't care to follow the thread and I shouldn't have to; you made the above claim with the clear implication that you were speaking of consensual sex between adults.
    A link to a post will do, but I want the relevant post. And btw, you seem to think I wish to refute the statistics you're talking about. I may want to do no more than qualify them, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and let you imply that homosexuality by its nature causes harm between consenting adults. That's nonsense and I INSIST on the opportunity to respond to it without being required to read through a thread to find your evidence.
    Either document your claim properly or retract it.

    Keep America Safe AND Free!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 187 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2005 8:25 AM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 202 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2005 5:56 AM berberry has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024