DiscussMormonism.com

beastie wrote:Wade, I have a feeling you are going to ignore these questions, so I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for you to do so.

From the Debaters thread:

The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that these intelligent men who believe this totally erroneous idea have formed this belief as a result of a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence?

Do you concede that, while this belief was formed in a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

beastie wrote:Actually, 40 minutes after I posted this thread, you stated you would NOT answer these questions.

beastie wrote:The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that these intelligent men who believe this totally erroneous idea have formed this belief as a result of a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence?

Do you concede that, while this belief was formed in a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Since your follow-up questions presuppose my answering in the affirmative, they do not apply as asked.

I realize that you are attempting to get me to think and respond in the same binary, absolutist, closed-minded way you do, but my mind doesn't operate that way--and this because I have found it to be somewhat unworkable to adult progression (though quite appropriate for children). You are certainly welcome to continue trying and nagging, but you may just as well bite the bullet and let it go. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Educate yourself then.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

http://www.nambla.org/

I would just as soon not dive into that sewage plant. But since you don't seem adverse, could you find a quote from NAMBLA that explicitly states what Beastie claims of them?

Of course I'm averse, Wade. What makes you think I wouldn't be? NAMBLA is disgusting, and your blithe assertion that I would think otherwise makes me sick to my stomach. Please have the personal integrity to treat people who you do not know with even a token amount of dignity and respect.

It's good to know who the enemy is, don't you agree? For that reason, I have educated myself in this regard. Forewarned is forearmed.

Beastie said, "The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men." That is easy enough to ascertain by the quote I just gave you from Wikipedia.

Also, on their website, under "Who we are", is this quote:

"Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy. Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom. " http://www.nambla.org/whatis.htm

I think you'll find Beastie vindicated in her statement, though vindication for your cruel attitude toward others will be much harder to find.

There is no call for you to get overly dramatic and misthink that I was insinuating anything untoward about you. I reasonably presumed that since you wouldn't suggest to me something that you wouldn't be willing to do yourself, that you would be fine educating yourself as you advised me--though I am averse to doing so myself. That's all.
....

That is wise. I just don't have the stomach for it--which is why I am more than happy to leave such things to good people like you. .....



So now I am "cruel" for asking you if you would do what you advised me to do since I am disinclined? Could you please explain why?

As for Beastie's quote and the ones you supplied, I see some key differences (and thus no "vindication"). Her quote mentions "sex", whereas the quote above mentions "mutual respect" and "affection" and "relationships".

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the propagandistic way in which the NAMBLA statement is worded. We can well guess the underline and intentionally obscured meaning and intent. NAMBLA wishes to blur the lines between what is commonly viewed as right and wrong, so as to ease society towards acceptance (a strategy they may have picked up from gays--which they are). But, the only way they can blur that line is by suggesting things that could, in some ways, commonly be viewed as right. That is why I questioned the accuracy of Beastie's quote (since it steps way over the line even NAMBLA may be willing to openly cross), and why I couldn't concede to the absolutist way in which she phrased it. Even in some of the most objectionable ideas, there tends to be an element of truth (no matter how microscopic) that cannot be denied ro conceded otherwise--at least not to those who don't think in binary and absolutist ways.

Huh. How interesting. It seems, my dear Wade, that NAMBLA utilizes some of the same semantic tactics as the LDS Church. You know, they "omit" stuff in order to "ease society [or investigators!] towards acceptance."

Overly dramatic? That was a dig, Wade. You know it, I know it, and I think even my cat is sophisticated enough to know it. "You don't seem adverse [sic] to reading up on pedophiliacs, so why don't you do it for me, since I am?" Uh-huh. ....

You're hovering like a gadfly at the edge of Beastie's argument, only half-engaging. As they say in the Navy, "Fire or clear, Lieutenant." Why should I do your work for you? I provided you with links, even.
....


No, Wade. You are cruel for insinuating that I would not be averse to reading pedophilia. Whether you realize it or not, that was what you said. You could have phrased that entirely differently.
.....

Wade, to what do you think they are referring? Are you honestly that naïve? Do you think that the "North American Man-Boy Love Association" is referring to taking young boys on Scouting trips? Just what do you think is entailed by an organization which advocates "man-boy love?" Come on, Wade. The stork does not deliver a baby down the chimney, and "affection" does not mean a friendly pat on the head when spoken by an organization which would like to institutionalize underage child sodomy. Are you so bent on disagreeing with Beastie that you're going to hem and haw over the meaning of the word "affection?".....

Wade, right on their website are written diatribes about our criminal justice system, and how unfair it is in not allowing them to have sex -- yes, sex, Wade -- with underage boys:

"No group has been harder hit by the scapegoating trend than man/boy lovers. If ensnared in the system, we -- both men and boys -- are subject to a litany of injustices: forced “therapies,” long prison sentences, impossible terms for parole, lifetime registration and community notification, and for some, indefinite confinement after their sentence has been served."

Wade, do you think that these men are serving "prison sentences", enduring "parole", and must undergo "lifetime registration and community notification" because they want to build soap box race cars with young boys and society just doesn't understand? Their behavior is being criminalized and they are complaining about it -- because it is SEX that they are after, Wade.

Beastie was right. And you can't stand to admit it. So you obfuscate.....

One might conclude that the real reason Wade does not want to concede any of the points about NAMBLA, and so stalls at the weasel window, is due to the fact that the application to Mormon apologia is obvious and immediate.

Does Wade concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

Does Wade concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?

Does Wade concede that these intelligent men who believe this totally erroneous idea have formed this belief as a result of a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence?

Does Wade concede that, while this belief was formed in a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

Or might Wade be explicit about which statement(s) above he does not concede?

beastie wrote:Tal is correct, by the way, it is very painful to witness the contortions Wade feels he must go through in order to maintain his faith and equilibrium. I deliberately chose a belief that sane and decent people would immediately agree is "totally erroneous". Obviously discussing the beliefs of NAMBLA is distasteful and disgusting. But I felt I had to choose such an example to close a weasel window. The weasel window is dissembling behind a discussion on whether or not a particular belief system is, indeed, "Totally" erroneous rather than discussing the actual point.

Wade has demonstrated that he is so addicted to the weasel window that he cannot even bring himself to admit the obvious, that the beliefs of NAMBLA are totally erroneous.

I am not suggesting that Wade actually doesn't believe the NAMBLA beliefs are totally erroneous. I am quite certain he does, in fact, view them as totally erroneous. He just won't admit as much for the purpose of this discussion. Why? Because he knows where that will lead. It will lead to having admit that my point (borrowed from Shermer) is actually correct and accurate. Intelligent people can, and do, develop totally erroneous beliefs. However, they usually develop those beliefs through mechanisms other than their intelligence. The method may be childhood indoctrination, for example. Yet they will still apply their intelligence towards defending these totally erroneous beliefs developed outside the use of their intelligence.

The real reason Wade does not want to concede any of these points, so stalls at the weasel window, is due to the fact that the application to Mormon apologia is obvious and immediate.

I suggest that any belief system that requires such painful distortions and gyrations to maintain is a belief system that is begging to be discarded.

I see that you are once again disengaging from what I have actually said and instead are resorting to self-serving caricatures and putting words into my mouth, and thus intent on carrying on both sides of the conversation. So, what's the point in me participating?