Archive for the 'Constructionism' Category
…Daniel Lièvre’s rebuttal of AMC’s March 13 article for Absolute Zero (an anti-pedophile organisation).
The article concerned appears to be an attempt to use cherry-picked and unsupported medical literature to (illegitimately) justify the current trend of intense hatred directed towards minor attracted persons - a group, it appears, taxonomically confused with child sex offenders and generalised […]
The following is a revised argument for Debate Guide. I would appreciate feedback on how it compares to the previous version (sexual character of humanity), and any possible improvements to be made.
We, as humans are highly capable of separating the act of mating from sexuality itself. With our long life cycles and complex […]
Today, participating in another debate on child sexuality, responding for the so-manieth time to the ‘argument’ that children cannot consent to sex because they do not understand it as adults do, I was struck with an insight that, while not strictly new, I had so far not realised the full significance of.
Quoted here is the […]
“The victimologist’s pedophile barrel needs to be upended on the laboratory bench and its contents carefully identified and sorted by impartial examiners. Those items lacking scientific credibility need to be discarded, and new containers found for some others. A few, such as the first of the above described scenarios, can be correctly placed back in […]
Do “children” really have any grounding in nature? By a grounding in nature, I mean a correlate in human genetics. Well, of course they do. “Children” are less developed (or indeed better adapted to their life phase) and that’s why we call them children. But why do we use “child” as a category for ages zero to eighteen? […]