Slippery slopes

[Kendall K. Down]

Great concern has been expressed on this forum over the risk of bullying
homosexuals. We must be kind and understanding because the poor dears
can't help the way they are.

I pointed out that the same arguments could be applied to paedophilia
and was howled down. The two are not the same, I was told. One is
harmful and the other harmless, so how dare I sully the noble name of
homosexual with such vile imputations?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html

The first paragraph of that report says this:

"A transgender university professor in Virginia has been placed on leave
after defending pedophiles as 'Minor Attracted People' and saying they
shouldn't be ostracized because they can't help their natural urges."

Notice how the same arguments that were used to defend homosexuals are
being used to defend paedophiles: they can't help it, give them a less
threatening name (minor attracted people), don't ostracise the poor
dears. Oh, and there's nothing wrong with it so long as you don't
actually do it (where have I heard that before?)

At first the woke university defended the author of the book, but when
there was a public backlash it hastily did a 180 and put him on paid
leave. But next time the public won't be so vehement and the university
and its resident advocates for paeophilia will be less willing to back down.

You watch this space.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

The first step on a 'slippery slope' is to disregard both the ten
commandments and Christ's own teaching, on the matter of adultery.

Of course, the "Poor Dears" can't help it that they're divorced, so we
must excuse them and accept them in our churches. (Especially if they
happen to be royalty.)

So, we either exclude the sinful (and have empty churches) or we
include. (Of course we need to protect children and vulnerable adults,
that's another issue.) But the churches have a choice: Be rigidly strict
(and therefore empty) or be Inclusive. The third choice is to be hypocrites.

Interesting that the Bible DOES mention adultery, but does NOT mention
paedophilia at all! (I certainly do NOT condone the abuse of children,
let's be clear on that.)

That's all I'll say on the subject, since it's all been said before.
I'll stand back now and let Kendall have the Last Word on it since he
always insists on it...

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/11/2021 08:21, Timreason wrote:

> The first step on a 'slippery slope' is to disregard both the ten
> commandments and Christ's own teaching, on the matter of adultery.

I agree, particularly about the Ten Commandments.

> Of course, the "Poor Dears" can't help it that they're divorced, so we
> must excuse them and accept them in our churches. (Especially if they
> happen to be royalty.)

Actually it is only the "innocent party" who can't help it - and that is
assuming that there *is* an innocent party! My experience is that it
takes two to tango and there are almost always faults on both sides.
(The royals to whom you refer appear to be one of the exceptions!)

> So, we either exclude the sinful (and have empty churches) or we
> include.

That is a false dichotomy. We welcome sinners but we condemn sin and we
guide and help sinners to forsake their sins.

> Interesting that the Bible DOES mention adultery, but does NOT mention
> paedophilia at all! (I certainly do NOT condone the abuse of children,
> let's be clear on that.)

The closest is the prohibition on marrying a woman and her daughter.

[John]

On 18/11/2021 20:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> Great concern has been expressed on this forum over the risk of bullying
> homosexuals. We must be kind and understanding because the poor dears
> can't help the way they are.

Can you prove they can help the way they are?

> I pointed out that the same arguments could be applied to paedophilia
> and was howled down. The two are not the same, I was told. One is
> harmful and the other harmless, so how dare I sully the noble name of
> homosexual with such vile imputations?
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html
>
>
> The first paragraph of that report says this:
>
> "A transgender university professor in Virginia has been placed on leave
> after defending pedophiles as 'Minor Attracted People' and saying they
> shouldn't be ostracized because they can't help their natural urges."
>
> Notice how the same arguments that were used to defend homosexuals are
> being used to defend paedophiles: they can't help it, give them a less
> threatening name (minor attracted people), don't ostracise the poor
> dears. Oh, and there's nothing wrong with it so long as you don't
> actually do it (where have I heard that before?)

Well ok, lets be controversial. A person who has sexual feelings
towards a child means that something in their wiring is faulty. So in
that sense no, they can't help it.

If however, they coerce a child into fulfilling their sexual feelings,
then that is wrong, and they should be quite rightly punished for it.
The same goes for viewing child pornography, equally wrong, and it means
they've watched another person abuse a child. (I do note the professor
condoned it, which I disagree with)

However if they keep those feelings to themselves then no harm is done
and no child has been abused. This is the point (rather clumsily in my
opinion) that the Professor is trying to convey.

> At first the woke university defended the author of the book, but when
> there was a public backlash it hastily did a 180 and put him on paid
> leave. But next time the public won't be so vehement and the university
> and its resident advocates for paeophilia will be less willing to back
> down.

I think your fears of paedophilia being accepted as normal are
unfounded, in my opinion.

If anything, the pendulum has swung the other way. A paedophile who acts
on their feelings (and in this case I include post pubescent children)
are ostracised considerably worse than they were even 20-30 years ago.
I'm sure you've seen the baying of blood when a case comes to court.
"String him up by his bollocks" "Cut his dick off" "Hang the b"st"rd"

[Timreason]

On 19/11/2021 10:49, John wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 20:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> Great concern has been expressed on this forum over the risk of
>> bullying homosexuals. We must be kind and understanding because the
>> poor dears can't help the way they are.
>

> Can [Kendall] prove they can help the way they are?
>

Of course he can't!

I also note the uneven application of the 'Love the sinner, hate the
sin' idea. If the 'Remarried' adulterers repent of their sin, fine. But
if we're going to be consistently strict, that does NOT mean they can
continue in their sins with the church's blessing.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/11/2021 12:41, Timreason wrote:

> I also note the uneven application of the 'Love the sinner, hate the
> sin' idea. If the 'Remarried' adulterers repent of their sin, fine. But
> if we're going to be consistently strict, that does NOT mean they can
> continue in their sins with the church's blessing.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, that has the law of God for its basis.
However as Jesus said, that permissive law was strictly "for the
hardness of your hearts", a point that in my opinion is not sufficiently
stressed by churches. That and God's very clear statement, "I hate
divorce"! He allows it, but He hates it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/11/2021 10:49, John wrote:

> Can you prove they can help the way they are?

Perhaps they can't help the way they *are*, but they can control what
they *do*. It's the same with any sin: I can't help the fact that I have
a short temper, but I can control (with God's help) whether I take it
out on the nearest and dearest or keep it bottled up.

> If however, they coerce a child into fulfilling their sexual feelings,
> then that is wrong, and they should be quite rightly punished for it.
> The same goes for viewing child pornography, equally wrong, and it means
> they've watched another person abuse a child. (I do note the professor
> condoned it, which I disagree with)

You are, I think, agreeing with what I said above.

> However if they keep those feelings to themselves then no harm is done
> and no child has been abused.  This is the point (rather clumsily in my
> opinion) that the Professor is trying to convey.

I'm not sure. It seemed to me from reading the story that he only added
those provisos *after* seeing the furore caused by his remarks.

> I think your fears of paedophilia being accepted as normal are
> unfounded, in my opinion.

The same, no doubt, would have been said about homosexuality forty or
fifty years ago.

> If anything, the pendulum has swung the other way. A paedophile who acts
> on their feelings (and in this case I include post pubescent children)
> are ostracised considerably worse than they were even 20-30 years ago.
> I'm sure you've seen the baying of blood when a case comes to court.
> "String him up by his bollocks"  "Cut his dick off"  "Hang the b"st"rd"

You think there was no similar vilification of homosexuals? Try the
Ballad of Reading Gaol.

[Timreason]

On 19/11/2021 19:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 12:41, Timreason wrote:
>
>> I also note the uneven application of the 'Love the sinner, hate the
>> sin' idea. If the 'Remarried' adulterers repent of their sin, fine.
>> But if we're going to be consistently strict, that does NOT mean they
>> can continue in their sins with the church's blessing.
>
> As I have repeatedly pointed out,

And I have repeatedly responded, I don't agree with you. You've said
nothing that I accept as supporting your interpretation.

Tim.

[Mike Davis]

On 19/11/2021 19:12, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 10:49, John wrote:
>
>> Can you prove they can help the way they are?
>
> Perhaps they can't help the way they *are*, but they can control what
> they *do*. It's the same with any sin: I can't help the fact that I have
> a short temper, but I can control (with God's help) whether I take it
> out on the nearest and dearest or keep it bottled up.

I agree entirely.

>> If however, they coerce a child into fulfilling their sexual feelings,
>> then that is wrong, and they should be quite rightly punished for it.
>> The same goes for viewing child pornography, equally wrong, and it
>> means they've watched another person abuse a child. (I do note the
>> professor condoned it, which I disagree with)
>
> You are, I think, agreeing with what I said above.

The problem is, as it always was, that public (and the Law's) pressure
prevents people with illegal 'desires' to admit publicly of their
tendencies, because the law and 'righteous' public opinion will vilify
them. So they repress it and (for some) eventually it breaks out - OR -
they themselves become further disturbed. Help in various forms, such as
counselling, is denied them.

That at least is one reason why I would want to keep the 'secrecy of the
(RC) confessional' preserved. Perhaps accompanied by special training of
the priests involved. (eg. I can't help you - so don't tell me - but Fr
X would hear your confession *providing* you take the advice he gives you.)

>> However if they keep those feelings to themselves then no harm is done
>> and no child has been abused.  This is the point (rather clumsily in
>> my opinion) that the Professor is trying to convey.
>
> I'm not sure. It seemed to me from reading the story that he only added
> those provisos *after* seeing the furore caused by his remarks.
>
>> I think your fears of paedophilia being accepted as normal are
>> unfounded, in my opinion.
>
> The same, no doubt, would have been said about homosexuality forty or
> fifty years ago.

I agree.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/11/2021 14:37, Mike Davis wrote:

> The problem is, as it always was, that public (and the Law's) pressure
> prevents people with illegal 'desires' to admit publicly of their
> tendencies, because the law and 'righteous' public opinion will vilify
> them. So they repress it and (for some) eventually it breaks out - OR -
> they themselves become further disturbed. Help in various forms, such as
> counselling, is denied them.

True, though how much of a problem that is, I am not sure.

> That at least is one reason why I would want to keep the 'secrecy of the
> (RC) confessional' preserved. Perhaps accompanied by special training of
> the priests involved. (eg. I can't help you - so don't tell me - but Fr
> X would hear your confession *providing* you take the advice he gives you.)

The secrecy of the confessional is very valuable; it is also a source of
real abuse. Striking the balance is difficult.

[Madhu]

* Mike Davis <ivsfgfF42srU1 @mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 14:37:03 +0000:

> On 19/11/2021 19:12, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 19/11/2021 10:49, John wrote:
>>> Can you prove they can help the way they are?
>> Perhaps they can't help the way they *are*, but they can control what
>> they *do*. It's the same with any sin: I can't help the fact that I
>> have a short temper, but I can control (with God's help) whether I
>> take it out on the nearest and dearest or keep it bottled up.
> I agree entirely.

I disagree a few reasons. One it contradicts with the position,
articulated here by Ken that sin is "who you are" and not "what you do."
Second, perhaps as a consequence of the first point, frequently in the
case of divine judgment, consequences are paid out for intention and not
actions undertaken.

I can readily identify with the problems with the nasty temper. AFAICT
No one except me suffers any consequences from it, it is always under
check or rendered impotent and has no negative effect on other. But the
consequences or punishment for it are clearly manifest in the day to day
life, like God is visiting the iniquities of the fourth generation
ancestors that I inherited the temper from. wareness of the defect is
manifested from the other consequeces in ones existence - this is
entirely between the individual and God and rationalizing it away is
only turning from the truth

Christian theology does offer the hope of sanctification, but
unless/until the holiness is realised, it remains just an admirable
theory.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/11/2021 05:46, Madhu wrote:

> I disagree a few reasons. One it contradicts with the position,
> articulated here by Ken that sin is "who you are" and not "what you do."
> Second, perhaps as a consequence of the first point, frequently in the
> case of divine judgment, consequences are paid out for intention and not
> actions undertaken.

I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing. I *think* you agree with me
that sin is what you are, not what you do, but then you appear to be
disagreeing with me that we cannot control what we are but we can
control what we do - which seems to me to be the corollary of the "what
you are not what you do".

I agree that God may well punish intention, even if the intention isn't
actually carried out, but I wonder if you mean that same as I mean by
"intention"?

If I decide (intend) to kill X, but on my way to do so, gun in hand, I
am run over by the proverbial steam roller, then I think I could be
justly punished for murder - it was not my fault that I did not carry
out what I intended.

If I am tempted to kill X but resist the temptation, never take any
steps towards killing him, pray for help to overcome the murderous
feelings, that is *not* intention. I do not think God could justly
accuse me of murder or punish me for that sin.

> I can readily identify with the problems with the nasty temper. AFAICT
> No one except me suffers any consequences from it, it is always under
> check or rendered impotent and has no negative effect on other. But the
> consequences or punishment for it are clearly manifest in the day to day
> life, like God is visiting the iniquities of the fourth generation
> ancestors that I inherited the temper from. wareness of the defect is
> manifested from the other consequeces in ones existence - this is
> entirely between the individual and God and rationalizing it away is
> only turning from the truth

Two points: the first is to avoid confusing discipline with punishment.
I recently received a message from a friend who told of a contretemps
with her "plummer" as he was fitting some pipe work under her sink. Had
I been her teacher at school, I might well have ordered her to write
"plumber" 100 times, but that would not be punishment, it would be
discipline to ingrain the correct spelling into her.

In like manner, the disasters which befell ancient Israel during the
period of the judges were not punishment; they were discipline. Even the
Babylonian Exile was discipline (even though there may have been
individuals for whom the siege of Jerusalem and the consequents deaths
were indeed punishment).

The second is the business of "generational guilt" as it is called. I
know that in the second commandment God speaks of "visiting the
iniquities of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate Me", but the key expression is "them that hate Me".

God's attitude towards those who forsake the sins of their fathers is
explicitly set out in Ezekiel 18: "he shall not die for the iniquity of
his father, he shall surely live."

If you continue in the sins of your fathers, then there is a cumulative
guilt, especially if you know that they are sins but nonetheless
continue in them (and the specific sin of the commandment is idolatry).
If you turn to God then He wipes the slate clean - an expression that
probably means more to you than it does to most Western people. Did you
use a slate when you were in primary school?

> Christian theology does offer the hope of sanctification, but
> unless/until the holiness is realised, it remains just an admirable
> theory.

Sanctification is a process - justification may be the work of an
instant, but sanctification is the work of a lifetime. Just as
intentions count towards guilt, so intentions count towards holiness. If
you intend to be holy and are doing all you can in that direction, then
even if you are run over by a steam roller, God credits you with the
intention.

Beware of any idea of perfectionism. Being perfect is the ideal at which
we should all aim; it is not a condition for salvation.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sncrtr$ql5$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 07:19:23 +0000:

> On 21/11/2021 05:46, Madhu wrote:
>> I disagree a few reasons. One it contradicts with the position,
>> articulated here by Ken that sin is "who you are" and not "what you do."
>> Second, perhaps as a consequence of the first point, frequently in the
>> case of divine judgment, consequences are paid out for intention and not
>> actions undertaken.
>
> I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing.

I was disgreeing with Mike because he was agreeing with you! Of course I
agree with both the views but recognize each is set against the other
and they stand in tension with each other and: I'm not sure you can
argue for both on the same line because they are contradictory, and I
believe it isn't any good to pick and choose the situation to apply one
or the other either.

> I *think* you agree with
> me that sin is what you are, not what you do, but then you appear to
> be disagreeing with me that we cannot control what we are but we can
> control what we do - which seems to me to be the corollary of the
> "what you are not what you do".

The specific suggestion was that even if we can control what we do (and
we can), it doesn't make a difference from a certain perspective
(something like "doesn't affect the relationship with God" in a certain
way)

> I agree that God may well punish intention, even if the intention
> isn't actually carried out, but I wonder if you mean that same as I
> mean by "intention"?
>
> If I decide (intend) to kill X, but on my way to do so, gun in hand, I
> am run over by the proverbial steam roller, then I think I could be
> justly punished for murder - it was not my fault that I did not carry
> out what I intended.
>
> If I am tempted to kill X but resist the temptation, never take any
> steps towards killing him, pray for help to overcome the murderous
> feelings, that is *not* intention. I do not think God could justly
> accuse me of murder or punish me for that sin.

until the feelings are actually set aside, it is still a state of
"unclean" and therefore out of bounds as far as (ideal) communion with
God goes.

> Two points: the first is to avoid confusing discipline with
> punishment. I recently received a message from a friend who told of a
> contretemps with her "plummer" as he was fitting some pipe work under
> her sink. Had I been her teacher at school, I might well have ordered
> her to write "plumber" 100 times, but that would not be punishment, it
> would be discipline to ingrain the correct spelling into her.
>
> In like manner, the disasters which befell ancient Israel during the
> period of the judges were not punishment; they were discipline. Even
> the Babylonian Exile was discipline (even though there may have been
> individuals for whom the siege of Jerusalem and the consequents deaths
> were indeed punishment).
> The second is the business of "generational guilt" as it is called. I
> know that in the second commandment God speaks of "visiting the
> iniquities of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation of them
> that hate Me", but the key expression is "them that hate Me".

Yes I understand both these points of yours. Still engaging in the
iniquity is tantamount to profaning the name of God and is accounted as
hating him.

> God's attitude towards those who forsake the sins of their fathers is
> explicitly set out in Ezekiel 18: "he shall not die for the iniquity
> of his father, he shall surely live."
>
> If you continue in the sins of your fathers, then there is a
> cumulative guilt, especially if you know that they are sins but
> nonetheless continue in them (and the specific sin of the commandment
> is idolatry). If you turn to God then He wipes the slate clean - an
> expression that probably means more to you than it does to most
> Western people. Did you use a slate when you were in primary school?

until the 1st grade if my memory is correct

>> Christian theology does offer the hope of sanctification, but
>> unless/until the holiness is realised, it remains just an admirable
>> theory.
>
> Sanctification is a process - justification may be the work of an
> instant, but sanctification is the work of a lifetime. Just as
> intentions count towards guilt, so intentions count towards
> holiness. If you intend to be holy and are doing all you can in that
> direction, then even if you are run over by a steam roller, God
> credits you with the intention.
>
> Beware of any idea of perfectionism. Being perfect is the ideal at
> which we should all aim; it is not a condition for salvation.

Yes, it is a danger and a trap like the other traps. The problem is on
the other side it's all rotten apples and so there is no trajectory of
"tending to perfection" - loosely speaking

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/11/2021 13:36, Madhu wrote:

> I was disgreeing with Mike because he was agreeing with you! Of course I
> agree with both the views but recognize each is set against the other
> and they stand in tension with each other and: I'm not sure you can
> argue for both on the same line because they are contradictory, and I
> believe it isn't any good to pick and choose the situation to apply one
> or the other either.

You'll have to explain why they are contradictory. I see them as two
sides of the one coin.

> The specific suggestion was that even if we can control what we do (and
> we can), it doesn't make a difference from a certain perspective
> (something like "doesn't affect the relationship with God" in a certain
> way)

Hmmmm. The thief on the cross is the prime example: he had no time to
make any changes in his behaviour, yet will be in heaven. Someone else,
for whatever reasons, may live for years and yet, despite his best
efforts, he fails to conquer some sin. He will be in heaven because God
sees the heart and the intention.

> until the feelings are actually set aside, it is still a state of
> "unclean" and therefore out of bounds as far as (ideal) communion with
> God goes.

I wouldn't disagree; I would merely say that God takes us as we are and
gradually transforms us into what we should be. For a young Christian it
is enough that he refrains from killing X. For a mature Christian God no
doubt expects that he won't even *want* to kill X.

> Yes I understand both these points of yours. Still engaging in the
> iniquity is tantamount to profaning the name of God and is accounted as
> hating him.

If you "wallow" in it, enjoy it, look forward to doing it again, you are
no doubt correct. If you "accidentally" slip into sin, loathe yourself
for doing it, repent and determine to reform, that is an entirely
different situation.

> Yes, it is a danger and a trap like the other traps. The problem is on
> the other side it's all rotten apples and so there is no trajectory of
> "tending to perfection" - loosely speaking

Of course there are the twin traps - perfectionism on the one hand,
careless laxness on the other. We are called to walk the centre path -
to strive for perfection in order to please God, but without thinking
that it makes us more acceptable to Him.

[Jason]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 11:16:43 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * Mike Davis <ivsfgfF42srU1 @mid.individual.net> :
> Wrote on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 14:37:03 +0000:
>> On 19/11/2021 19:12, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2021 10:49, John wrote:
>>>> Can you prove they can help the way they are?
>>> Perhaps they can't help the way they *are*, but they can control what
>>> they *do*. It's the same with any sin: I can't help the fact that I
>>> have a short temper, but I can control (with God's help) whether I
>>> take it out on the nearest and dearest or keep it bottled up.
>> I agree entirely.
>
> I disagree a few reasons. One it contradicts with the position,
> articulated here by Ken that sin is "who you are" and not "what you do."
> Second, perhaps as a consequence of the first point, frequently in the
> case of divine judgment, consequences are paid out for intention and not
> actions undertaken.

I'm a bit confused with who's agreeing/disagreeing with whom here :-) I
don't agree with the view that sin is "who you are" for reasons we have
discussed recently. My view I suppose is that a "tendency to sin" is who
we are, but that it is the acts that are sinful, so it is that acts that
God is bothered about. When Jesus says to people "go and sin no more" I
think he has in mind to turn from sinful actions (stealing, committing
adultery and so on). To me, Jesus has in mind "stop doing" and not "stop
being".

[Jason]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 20:29:34 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Great concern has been expressed on this forum over the risk of bullying
> homosexuals. We must be kind and understanding because the poor dears

> can't help the way they aree

>
> I pointed out that the same arguments could be applied to paedophilia
> and was howled down. The two are not the same, I was told. One is
> harmful and the other harmless, so how dare I sully the noble name of
> homosexual with such vile imputations?
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-
placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html

There are a whole bunch of things entwined here.

The more general point is that in an academic setting (e.g. the article
seems to be based on a book which in turn has come from a PhD thesis) I
think in general any topic should be up for discussion, and it should be
acknowledged that there will be a spectrum of views on it. I don't
believe that simply because someone is expressing a point that does not
conform to the 'accepted opinion' on something that they should be
cancelled and/or removed from their jobs. For me, there is much too much
of that sort of behaviour around at the moment, covering a whole swathe
of topics.

And on this specific topic, I would want to read the original article to
see what was being said, rather than the Daily Mail "synopsis" of it, as
I'm not certain that they would not have their own news agenda
influencing their editorial.

It seems for the most part, there's not much I disagree with, for
instance I largely agree even with the original statement:

'In other words, it's not who we're attracted to that's either OK or not
OK. It's our behaviors in responding to that attraction that are either
OK or not OK.'

To me, this fits with standard Christian values: we are all subject to
different trials and temptations, but it is how we respond to those which
is important.

The original statement above is then clarified as: "child sex abuse is
'never, ever OK' but said sexual urges toward minors are not necessarily
immoral, as long as they are not acted upon."

Christianity (to generalise) may view morality differently to that
(depending how you define 'morality' in a Christian sense), but given we
all have something we're not proud of and need to keep under control.

I disagree with some of the recommendations quoted from the book, but I
don't disagree with the right to discuss them, and doubly so in an
academic sense.

A final point, as I've said before, I don't in general believe in
'slippery slope' arguments, i.e. that we shouldn't do 'A' because
inevitably we will end up at 'B' (e.g. 'ban coffee, because every
alcoholic started with coffee, then progressed on to cannabis, and next
thing you know there's a crack house on every street corner').
Boundaries do get tried and pushed (just ask anyone with a toddler),
though it seems to me that more often than not, that rather than a slope
(slippery or otherwise) 'change' is more like a pendulum, first going in
one direction, then another other.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/11/2021 10:52, Jason wrote:

> I'm a bit confused with who's agreeing/disagreeing with whom here :-) I
> don't agree with the view that sin is "who you are" for reasons we have
> discussed recently. My view I suppose is that a "tendency to sin" is who
> we are, but that it is the acts that are sinful, so it is that acts that
> God is bothered about. When Jesus says to people "go and sin no more" I
> think he has in mind to turn from sinful actions (stealing, committing
> adultery and so on). To me, Jesus has in mind "stop doing" and not "stop
> being".

I agree that sinful actions are what draws divine punishment, but I am
surprised that you appear to think that our sinful actions do not stem
from our sinful nature.

Is that because you think that sinful actions just arise out of nowhere,
like bolts of lightning?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/11/2021 11:23, Jason wrote:

> The more general point is that in an academic setting (e.g. the article
> seems to be based on a book which in turn has come from a PhD thesis)

And as soon as it is published as a book, it ceases to be in an academic
setting.

> I
> think in general any topic should be up for discussion, and it should be
> acknowledged that there will be a spectrum of views on it.

In an academic setting I would agree with you (which just proves that I
am not a woke snowflake; they appear to think that only views they
already hold may be discussed.)

> And on this specific topic, I would want to read the original article to
> see what was being said, rather than the Daily Mail "synopsis" of it, as
> I'm not certain that they would not have their own news agenda
> influencing their editorial.

You can always do a search on-line.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sne9bt$4uh$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 20:14:53 +0000:

> On 21/11/2021 13:36, Madhu wrote:
>> I was disgreeing with Mike because he was agreeing with you! Of
>> course I agree with both the views but recognize each is set against
>> the other and they stand in tension with each other and: I'm not sure
>> you can argue for both on the same line because they are
>> contradictory, and I believe it isn't any good to pick and choose the
>> situation to apply one or the other either.
>
> You'll have to explain why they are contradictory. I see them as two
> sides of the one coin.

crudely put the first view is sin is who you are. the second view is sin
is what you do. these are not contradictory views in that normally
sinful acts flow directly from a sinful nature[1]. the contradictions
come into the picture when you consider the consequences of sin - one,
the evil effects of sinful acts, and two, the punishment which is
expected to attend on sin (and is "ordained by god"). The reasons of
considering this is to answer how sin can be satisifed ("and forgiven")

[1] though people without a sinful nature can engage in acts that result
in evil effects

In your post in upthread you adopted the second view and iirc you said
that sin is satisified by restraining oneself from sinful
acts. elsewhere you have explained the former view, with the
understanding that sin is satisfied by the transforming of the sinful
nature. This is the contradiction I perceived.

I understand Jason (and perhaps Mike) prefer the second view over the
first and I respect that view. My own sense of indoctrinated social
justice would prefer that view, but somehow I feel that view profanes
the God, and so am obliged to accept the former view (in light of God's
"bigger" justice)

>> The specific suggestion was that even if we can control what we do (and
>> we can), it doesn't make a difference from a certain perspective
>> (something like "doesn't affect the relationship with God" in a certain
>> way)
>
> Hmmmm. The thief on the cross is the prime example: he had no time to
> make any changes in his behaviour, yet will be in heaven. Someone
> else, for whatever reasons, may live for years and yet, despite his
> best efforts, he fails to conquer some sin. He will be in heaven
> because God sees the heart and the intention.

According to the framework I set up above his nature would have been
transformed.

Of course I'm hindu and we hindus are characterised as having belief in
karma internalized in our thinking. Personally I recognize "karma" is
deficient in practice and is full of commisions omissions and corruption
and cannot deliver justice and I have to look for "divine justice"
elsewhere.

Perhaps it is the karmic mindset speaking but I see the consequences
which are visited *on* sin, to be actually visited on the sinful nature,
not on sinful acts which often are never punished and only have the evil
consequences.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/11/2021 04:17, Madhu wrote:

> In your post in upthread you adopted the second view and iirc you said
> that sin is satisified by restraining oneself from sinful
> acts. elsewhere you have explained the former view, with the
> understanding that sin is satisfied by the transforming of the sinful
> nature. This is the contradiction I perceived.

Ok, I can see your point. However this is the way I reconcile the two:

We *are* sinful and our sinful acts proceed from that sinful nature.
That is why I say that sin is what we are rather than what we do.

That said, we have the choice (with God's help) to give in to our sinful
nature or to fight against it. Whenever we commit a sinful act, we are
rejecting God's control and surrendering to the sinful nature. On the
other hand, when we resist the sinful nature and do good, we are
accepting God's control.

Death is the consequence of the sinful nature, but as we have no choice
in whether we are born with a sinful nature or not, it would be unjust
for God to punish us for the sinful nature - and, in fact, I do not
believe that He does. However when we reject His control and allow our
sinful natures to control - ie. when we commit sinful acts - then we
incur punishment. There may be punishment in this life - though I think
that usually there is discipline rather than punishment - but the
ultimate punishment comes in the afterlife (hell).

Salvation comes when we explicitly and consciously put God in control.
For various reasons we may not actually perform any good actions (we die
immediately afterwards, for example); indeed, we may actually perform
some bad actions, but when God is in control we no longer delight in
those bad actions. Prompted by the Spirit, we regret them, we repent of
them, we call on God for forgiveness and help.

We may take the analogy of recent events in America, where a man with a
long criminal history ran into numerous people in his car and killed
some of them. From the little that is known about him at present, it
seems that he gloried in his violence and anti-social behaviour; he
certainly took no steps to change his life.

On the other hand we can imagine someone whose car suffers a blow-out,
as a result of which he kills and injures people. He did not intend to
do so, he bitterly regrets failing to notice the dangerous tyre, he does
all he can to make ammends for what he has done.

The two actions are the same - killing people with your car - but very
different fates await the two perpetrators.

> According to the framework I set up above his nature would have been
> transformed.

I'm not even sure if there was sufficient time for his nature to be
transformed. However he had set off on the process that would, in time,
result in a transformed nature.

> Perhaps it is the karmic mindset speaking but I see the consequences
> which are visited *on* sin, to be actually visited on the sinful nature,
> not on sinful acts which often are never punished and only have the evil
> consequences.

I do not believe that consequences are punishment for sin. They are the
natural results and only rarely does God intervene to prevent them -
even in the lives of Christians. Punishment is entirely different and
almost always is delayed until the afterlife. Sodom, Annas and Saphira,
are two (three) examples of punishment in this life, though I do not
believe that those sinners have thereby avoided punishment in the life
to come.

If you drive through town too fast you may cause an accident and damage
your car. That is the consequence and follows whatever your motives or
subsequent remorse. However when the police get involved they will fine
you for speeding. That is the punishment - driving too fast does not of
itself involve forfeiting a sum of money! - and it may be waived if you
can show that you were on your way to hospital for a medical emergency,
for example.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <snhrn1$eu7$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 23 Nov 2021 04:46:25 +0000:
[agree & snip ]

> On 23/11/2021 04:17, Madhu wrote:
>> According to the framework I set up above his nature would have been
>> transformed.
>
> I'm not even sure if there was sufficient time for his nature to be
> transformed. However he had set off on the process that would, in
> time, result in a transformed nature.

The case of the thief on the cross is unique. Though there are other
exceptional cases mentioned like Zacchaeus of Jericho Luke 19:2-9 who is
converted in a moment. Mere contact with the charismatic Jesus seems to
be sufficient in some cases.

>> Perhaps it is the karmic mindset speaking but I see the consequences
>> which are visited *on* sin, to be actually visited on the sinful nature,
>> not on sinful acts which often are never punished and only have the evil
>> consequences.
>
> I do not believe that consequences are punishment for sin. They are
> the natural results and only rarely does God intervene to prevent them
> - even in the lives of Christians. Punishment is entirely different
> and almost always is delayed until the afterlife. Sodom, Annas and
> Saphira, are two (three) examples of punishment in this life, though I
> do not believe that those sinners have thereby avoided punishment in
> the life to come.

Some of dispensation of the "desserts" is still put in the hands of the
temporal administrators (both angelic and human govt.) and it is in the
implementation of this that commissions and omissions happen. The
corrupt hierarchy can gets away with it because there is a mandate for
the punishment, nevermind it gets applied inappropriately.

[Jason]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:47:10 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 22/11/2021 11:23, Jason wrote:
>
>> The more general point is that in an academic setting (e.g. the article
>> seems to be based on a book which in turn has come from a PhD thesis)
>
> And as soon as it is published as a book, it ceases to be in an academic
> setting.

That statement is so clearly not true I don't know where to begin. Many
books are only ever seen by academics, and 'popular' books are often
distillations from academic works, phrased so that a wider audience can
(at least to some degree) understand the arguments. It's like when a
newspaper reproduces something that a politician has said in some arcane
committee: it is still a product of that committee (and therefore its
context) even if it then published in the Daily Mirror.

>> I
>> think in general any topic should be up for discussion, and it should
>> be acknowledged that there will be a spectrum of views on it.
>
> In an academic setting I would agree with you (which just proves that I
> am not a woke snowflake; they appear to think that only views they
> already hold may be discussed.)

And by "academic setting" I don't simply mean closeted in an ivory tower
with nothing going in and nothing coming out. If the results of such
work are then published for others to read and understand, I don't think
the authors should be thrown out of their jobs.

I agree about the "woke" thing, in fact this aspect ("agree with me or
you're cancelled, no trial, no forgiveness, no second chance") is the
worst part of it.

>> And on this specific topic, I would want to read the original article
>> to see what was being said, rather than the Daily Mail "synopsis" of
>> it, as I'm not certain that they would not have their own news agenda
>> influencing their editorial.
>
> You can always do a search on-line.

And I probably would if I wanted to know the details. Otherwise, I'm
happy to read between the lines e.g. if I read it in the Guardian I would
know how to interpret it, likewise if it's in the Telegraph.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/11/2021 10:25, Madhu wrote:

> The case of the thief on the cross is unique. Though there are other
> exceptional cases mentioned like Zacchaeus of Jericho Luke 19:2-9 who is
> converted in a moment. Mere contact with the charismatic Jesus seems to
> be sufficient in some cases.

In all cases. Remember, justification (also called conversion) is the
work of a moment; sanctification is the work of a lifetime (and, I
suspect) will carry on into eternity.

> Some of dispensation of the "desserts" is still put in the hands of the
> temporal administrators (both angelic and human govt.) and it is in the
> implementation of this that commissions and omissions happen. The
> corrupt hierarchy can gets away with it because there is a mandate for
> the punishment, nevermind it gets applied inappropriately.

Indeed, which is why God reserves the real punishment for sin into His
own hands. Being put in prison for ten minutes (which seems about the
average "life sentence" for murder here in Britain) will not spare you
from God's punishment in hell fire.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/11/2021 16:08, Jason wrote:

>> And as soon as it is published as a book, it ceases to be in an academic
>> setting.

> That statement is so clearly not true I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps I should have specified "a book for the general public".
Remember Stephen Hawkings and his "A Brief History of Time", in which he
states that his publisher told him that he would lose 10% of sales (or
some such figure) for every equation in the book? As a result he only
put two equations into it.

I imagine that there were rather more equations in his scientific papers.

> And by "academic setting" I don't simply mean closeted in an ivory tower
> with nothing going in and nothing coming out. If the results of such
> work are then published for others to read and understand, I don't think
> the authors should be thrown out of their jobs.

It depends. If the author is attempting to defend the indefensible
(rather than just study it) then I do not think he is to be trusted with
the education of the young.

[Jason]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 21:11:38 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 23/11/2021 16:08, Jason wrote:
>
>>> And as soon as it is published as a book, it ceases to be in an
>>> academic setting.
>
>> That statement is so clearly not true I don't know where to begin.
>
> Perhaps I should have specified "a book for the general public".
> Remember Stephen Hawkings and his "A Brief History of Time", in which he
> states that his publisher told him that he would lose 10% of sales (or
> some such figure) for every equation in the book? As a result he only
> put two equations into it.
>
> I imagine that there were rather more equations in his scientific
> papers.

I suspect the book is still conceptually too difficult for the majority
even of the scientific community! :-)

In any case, perhaps I over-emphasised "academic setting". While I think
it's especially true in such a setting, for me it applies generally, and
people should be free to publish works without fear they will lose the
jobs if the opinion expressed is not 'popular'. That had better be the
case, otherwise it won't be long before the Bible is banned from our
shores for promulgating opinions which don't currently find favour.

>> And by "academic setting" I don't simply mean closeted in an ivory
>> tower with nothing going in and nothing coming out. If the results of
>> such work are then published for others to read and understand, I don't
>> think the authors should be thrown out of their jobs.
>
> It depends. If the author is attempting to defend the indefensible
> (rather than just study it) then I do not think he is to be trusted with
> the education of the young.

Thankfully books have many purposes besides educating the young. Maybe
libraries need to have locked "restricted sections" less our youngsters
are corrupted and led astray by such materials. I wonder what other
works you'd like to see shelved there?? :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/11/2021 16:28, Jason wrote:

> In any case, perhaps I over-emphasised "academic setting". While I think
> it's especially true in such a setting, for me it applies generally, and
> people should be free to publish works without fear they will lose the
> jobs if the opinion expressed is not 'popular'. That had better be the
> case, otherwise it won't be long before the Bible is banned from our
> shores for promulgating opinions which don't currently find favour.

The problem is that this person is advocating something which is not
only unpopular, but which is actually illegal.

> Thankfully books have many purposes besides educating the young.

Maybe, but this particular author is an educator.

> Maybe
> libraries need to have locked "restricted sections" less our youngsters
> are corrupted and led astray by such materials. I wonder what other
> works you'd like to see shelved there?? :-)

He he. Like the Cabinetto Segreto in the Naples Museum.

[Jason]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:04:51 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 24/11/2021 16:28, Jason wrote:
>
>> In any case, perhaps I over-emphasised "academic setting". While I
>> think it's especially true in such a setting, for me it applies
>> generally, and people should be free to publish works without fear they
>> will lose the jobs if the opinion expressed is not 'popular'. That had
>> better be the case, otherwise it won't be long before the Bible is
>> banned from our shores for promulgating opinions which don't currently
>> find favour.
>
> The problem is that this person is advocating something which is not
> only unpopular, but which is actually illegal.

Advocating something illegal? Are they??? If they are, then I would
agree with you that a line has been crossed. No-one should be advocating
such behaviours. However, that didn't seem to be the thrust of the
argument to me.

>> Thankfully books have many purposes besides educating the young.
>
> Maybe, but this particular author is an educator.

Well, a university professor, who published a PhD and a book on the
topic. I don't think there was any mention that any lecture courses were
'advocating' certain behaviours either from the pulpit or down the pub.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/11/2021 16:18, Jason wrote:

> Advocating something illegal? Are they??? If they are, then I would
> agree with you that a line has been crossed. No-one should be advocating
> such behaviours. However, that didn't seem to be the thrust of the
> argument to me.

Urging that we should use a different term for paedophiles in case they
get offended or discriminated against is just the first step on the path
towards legalising them. Remember the PIE?

> Well, a university professor, who published a PhD and a book on the
> topic. I don't think there was any mention that any lecture courses were
> 'advocating' certain behaviours either from the pulpit or down the pub.

Do you really think that the subject of his PhD does not get a mention
in his courses?

[John]

On 25/11/2021 16:18, Jason wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:04:51 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2021 16:28, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, perhaps I over-emphasised "academic setting". While I
>>> think it's especially true in such a setting, for me it applies
>>> generally, and people should be free to publish works without fear they
>>> will lose the jobs if the opinion expressed is not 'popular'. That had
>>> better be the case, otherwise it won't be long before the Bible is
>>> banned from our shores for promulgating opinions which don't currently
>>> find favour.
>>
>> The problem is that this person is advocating something which is not
>> only unpopular, but which is actually illegal.
>
> Advocating something illegal? Are they??? If they are, then I would
> agree with you that a line has been crossed. No-one should be advocating
> such behaviours. However, that didn't seem to be the thrust of the
> argument to me.

Not the thrust of the book, and I very nearly commented myself but the
author does suggest that they should be allowed to view child porn,
which is an allegal activity.

[Jason]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 14:37:03 +0000, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 19/11/2021 19:12, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> The problem is, as it always was, that public (and the Law's) pressure
> prevents people with illegal 'desires' to admit publicly of their
> tendencies, because the law and 'righteous' public opinion will vilify
> them. So they repress it and (for some) eventually it breaks out - OR -
> they themselves become further disturbed. Help in various forms, such as
> counselling, is denied them.
>
> That at least is one reason why I would want to keep the 'secrecy of the
> (RC) confessional' preserved. Perhaps accompanied by special training of
> the priests involved. (eg. I can't help you - so don't tell me - but Fr
> X would hear your confession *providing* you take the advice he gives
> you.)

I agree with that, I think the secrecy of the confessional overall to be
a good thing. I don't think anyone would have a problem of keeping
prayers between themselves and God private, and to my mind, this is just
an extension of that.

>>> However if they keep those feelings to themselves then no harm is done
>>> and no child has been abused.  This is the point (rather clumsily in
>>> my opinion) that the Professor is trying to convey.
>>
>> I'm not sure. It seemed to me from reading the story that he only added
>> those provisos *after* seeing the furore caused by his remarks.

I don't think those provisos contradicted what was said earlier. The
earlier points were aimed at a specific point, but when social media
'twitterings' wanted to take a particular slant on it, I think it was
right to clarify this.

>>> I think your fears of paedophilia being accepted as normal are
>>> unfounded, in my opinion.
>>
>> The same, no doubt, would have been said about homosexuality forty or
>> fifty years ago.
>
> I agree.

I don't agree (though it depends on which of these two statements you are
agreeing with!) I agree with the former, but not the latter. There is a
world of difference to me between 'normalising' what goes on behind
closed doors between consenting adults, and normalising sexual abuse.

[Jason]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:41:30 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 25/11/2021 16:18, Jason wrote:
>
>> Advocating something illegal? Are they??? If they are, then I would
>> agree with you that a line has been crossed. No-one should be
>> advocating such behaviours. However, that didn't seem to be the thrust
>> of the argument to me.
>
> Urging that we should use a different term for paedophiles in case they
> get offended or discriminated against is just the first step on the path
> towards legalising them. Remember the PIE?

I don't remember that (I had to just check what it was), but is that not
an example where things have become more strict and more unacceptable
with the passage of time. Rather than being a first step to legalising
things, have we not moved to make it *more* illegal?

>> Well, a university professor, who published a PhD and a book on the
>> topic. I don't think there was any mention that any lecture courses
>> were 'advocating' certain behaviours either from the pulpit or down the
>> pub.
>
> Do you really think that the subject of his PhD does not get a mention
> in his courses?

It's possible that in a discussion sense, yes; in an 'advocating' sense,
no. (If indeed said professor lectures on this topic, I don't think this
is clear. Many university staff who are more heavily involved in
research do no lecturing at all. And of those who do lecture, it is by
no means certain that the specific topic of their own PhD would be part
of their university syllabus).

[Jason]

I agree with you completely, and don't agree with that conclusion
regarding porn, the production of which is undoubtedly both abusive and
illegal. I'm not certain that they were 'advocating' that behaviour
however, just floating the idea for discussion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/11/2021 12:08, Jason wrote:

>>> The same, no doubt, would have been said about homosexuality forty or
>>> fifty years ago.

> I don't agree (though it depends on which of these two statements you are
> agreeing with!) I agree with the former, but not the latter. There is a
> world of difference to me between 'normalising' what goes on behind
> closed doors between consenting adults, and normalising sexual abuse.

Forty or fifty years ago homosexuality was regarded as "sexual abuse".
That you seem unaware of that fact merely proves the existence of the
slippery slope!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/11/2021 12:19, Jason wrote:

> I don't remember that (I had to just check what it was), but is that not
> an example where things have become more strict and more unacceptable
> with the passage of time. Rather than being a first step to legalising
> things, have we not moved to make it *more* illegal?

And this professor, about whom we are talking, is now trying to reverse
that and start advocating for its legalisation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/11/2021 10:46, John wrote:

> Not the thrust of the book, and I very nearly commented myself but the
> author does suggest that they should be allowed to view child porn,
> which is an allegal activity.

Illegal. But yes, you are correct.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/11/2021 12:12, Jason wrote:

> I agree with you completely, and don't agree with that conclusion
> regarding porn, the production of which is undoubtedly both abusive and
> illegal. I'm not certain that they were 'advocating' that behaviour
> however, just floating the idea for discussion.

Urging - or even just suggesting - that an illegal activity should be
legalised is "advocating". Perhaps not strongly, but advocating nonetheless.

[John]

On 26/11/2021 12:12, Jason wrote:

Unlike Ken, I don't think he was actually calling for child porn to be
made legal, so in that sense I agree.

However, he should have realised that cp involves a real child being
abused, so imo shouldn't have been made as a suggestion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 10:07, John wrote:

> Unlike Ken, I don't think he was actually calling for child porn to be
> made legal, so in that sense I agree.

According to the article he was calling for people to be allowed to view
child porn - a bit difficult to view it if it is illegal and doesn't
exist, don't you think?

> However, he should have realised that cp involves a real child being
> abused, so imo shouldn't have been made as a suggestion.

He cared?

[Jason]

It may have been viewed as 'abuse' *by others* wanting to prohibit their
behaviour, but not (I suggest) by the people taking part. And to
clarify, I don't mean that in a 'not old and wise enough to know better'
kind of way, I mean both parties being equally consenting. I'm sure that
40 or 50 years ago, popular opinion would not be amused by many things
that consenting married heterosexuals indulge in these days too.

[Jason]

I agree with you there, legalising such material simply leads to more
abuse and it should not be considered as a solution. I noted that this
was only one suggestion though, perhaps while all the others were on the
table it is good to have as a discussion point, if only to categorically
rule it out.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/11/2021 16:07, Jason wrote:

> It may have been viewed as 'abuse' *by others* wanting to prohibit their
> behaviour, but not (I suggest) by the people taking part.

A remarkably silly comment seeing as *you* pointed out a couple of days
previously that paedophiles commonly see their victims as "consenting"
or "enjoying". Does that mean that paedophilia is all right in your books?

> And to
> clarify, I don't mean that in a 'not old and wise enough to know better'
> kind of way, I mean both parties being equally consenting.

I am under the impression that the likes of Gary Glitter never raped a
child - that is, did anything by force to the child. The child
consented, lured by money or sweets or something.

Of course we would say that the child is too young to consent and very
likely as the child grew older it regretted what was done, but at the
time there was a reasonable facsimile of consent.

> I'm sure that
> 40 or 50 years ago, popular opinion would not be amused by many things
> that consenting married heterosexuals indulge in these days too.

Very likely - does that mean that you see hopes for paedophilia becoming
acceptable in the way that, say, oral sex has become acceptable?
Otherwise, what is your point?

[Jason]

As discussed previously, I don't agree with this as part of a solution,
as when such material is produced it causes serious and long term harm to
the children involved. However, the original DM article points out that
this idea comes from the author's PhD thesis (a purely academic work) and
not from the book that is also mentioned. I don't see a problem with
thrashing these things through in an academic context as I've already
said, if only to provide a framework to discuss and rebut the ideas. I
don't see the "advocacy to legalisation" that you do. The context (which
as I say I personally disagree with) is as a 'harm reduction technique or
form of therapy', which is not akin to "advocating legalisation". Note
that hospitals may use strong opioid painkillers as a therapy, that is
not the same as "advocating the legalisation of heroin".

In summary, I think in general it's right to be thinking about different
methods to prevent offending and reduce harm to others, even if
(inevitably) some ideas are ruled out early on.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/12/2021 11:30, Jason wrote:

> As discussed previously, I don't agree with this as part of a solution,
> as when such material is produced it causes serious and long term harm to
> the children involved. However, the original DM article points out that
> this idea comes from the author's PhD thesis (a purely academic work) and
> not from the book that is also mentioned. I don't see a problem with
> thrashing these things through in an academic context as I've already
> said, if only to provide a framework to discuss and rebut the ideas.

I don't see that there is anything to discuss. As you point out,
children are harmed by the production of child porn, so *even if* it was
helpful for individual paedophiles, it is not morally justifiable.

[Jason]

There are always things to discuss. There is always a spectrum of things
in life, especially with the advent of modern technology and techniques.
I haven't read (needless to say) the actual PhD thesis in question, so
I've no idea what it *actually* discusses. Suppose (for example) that
such material is artificially produced by AI (so no child is harmed). Is
that morally OK? If not, is it "morally OK enough" so that it is
preferable to a paedophile offending against an actual child?

[Jason]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:36:24 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 29/11/2021 16:07, Jason wrote:
>
>> It may have been viewed as 'abuse' *by others* wanting to prohibit
>> their behaviour, but not (I suggest) by the people taking part.
>
> A remarkably silly comment seeing as *you* pointed out a couple of days
> previously that paedophiles commonly see their victims as "consenting"
> or "enjoying". Does that mean that paedophilia is all right in your
> books?

I think you must be mistaken, I have never suggested anything of the sort.

And you have snipped my comment completely out of context, my words
quoted above were in reference to consenting homosexual activity, not
paedophilia. For complete clarity, I do not think paedophilia is
acceptable in any circumstance (I had thought I was clear on this
already).

>> And to clarify, I don't mean that in a 'not old and wise enough to know
>> better'
>> kind of way, I mean both parties being equally consenting.
>
> I am under the impression that the likes of Gary Glitter never raped a
> child - that is, did anything by force to the child. The child
> consented, lured by money or sweets or something.

The law in (most? all??) countries of the world is that no-one is thought
capable to give consent under a certain age. Therefore they cannot, by
definition, be consenting, even if you discount any moral or ethical
prohibitions.

> Of course we would say that the child is too young to consent and very
> likely as the child grew older it regretted what was done, but at the
> time there was a reasonable facsimile of consent.

No there was no 'facsimile of consent'. The law is clear, and the older
person should be aware of that. Presumably this law on consent is there
to prevent precisely this sort of argument.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/12/2021 17:29, Jason wrote:

> Suppose (for example) that
> such material is artificially produced by AI (so no child is harmed). Is
> that morally OK? If not, is it "morally OK enough" so that it is
> preferable to a paedophile offending against an actual child?

That would remove one moral objection to the "child porn", though I
suspect that a) even with the best CGI in the world, you could still
tell that it wasn't a real child, and b) that it would merely feed the
addiction which, sooner or later, would burst out into action.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/12/2021 17:57, Jason wrote:

>> I am under the impression that the likes of Gary Glitter never raped a
>> child - that is, did anything by force to the child. The child
>> consented, lured by money or sweets or something.

> The law in (most? all??) countries of the world is that no-one is thought
> capable to give consent under a certain age. Therefore they cannot, by
> definition, be consenting, even if you discount any moral or ethical
> prohibitions.

I completely agree with the law. Nevertheless, there is a difference
between holding a screaming child down while you molest him/her, and
"I'll give you this sweetie if you let me ..."

Now the law says - and I agree with it - that the child is not mature
enough to give informed consent. But the paedophile will, in his mind,
see it as "I never harmed a child; it was always by consent".

> No there was no 'facsimile of consent'. The law is clear, and the older
> person should be aware of that. Presumably this law on consent is there
> to prevent precisely this sort of argument.

If you offer the sweetie and the child says "Yes", that is, in my
understanding, a "facscimile of consent". Of course it is not real
consent because the child doesn't fully understand what is going on and
it is against the law and the paedophile should be punished, but in his
mind, he is acting by consent.

[Jason]

I wouldn't disagree with that (other than a general point I mentioned
before that I don't in general like arguments based on slippery slopes,
i.e. what someone opines that XYZ might lead to). The point is, that if
some harm reduction can come of it, topics should not be prima facie out-
of-bounds for discussion.