OK, I looked at the whole article in context. What I see is an article that is exploring the concept of pedophilia but has it mixed up. Having discussed teen sex it then quotes from an academic study which comes to the correct conclusion that George is a child molestor. The author of the article then draws conclusions that: "there is little in this example to be detested about the child molester. Was George a rapist? Did he force Jason into activity? Was he ever inconsiderate, forceful, abusive? Certainly not, and the fact that he had sex with an individual, regardless of age, does not mean that he is a bad person." The conclusion is drawn because the author has interpreted the kind behaviour of George as him being benevolent rather than the acts of a pedophile grooming a child. Manipulating for his own sick perverted means. It sounds to me like someone who has fallen for a classic pedophile excuse. The fact that this is mixed up with the altogether greyer area of teen sex tends to confuse matters. "And beyond that fact lies the truth that Pedophilia is not the equivalent of rape" Well there are certainly arguments to be made that consensual sex between teens who are technically underage is not rape, and is usually treated by courts with leniency. But pedophilia is sex between an adult and a child, not a teen, and pedophilia is rape. My conclusion is that the author of the article has made some very fundamental errors by mixing concepts and misinterpreting grooming for benevolence. Whether this is stupidity or done knowingly to promote pedophilia as somehow not bad, who knows, but the effect is the same, the publication of words that give a skewed logic that pedophiles and potential pedophiles can use to justify their actions.
Yes, this is what I saw on my first quick read of the article. Agreed! By going back to the root URL and reading his other articles, I can only believe he did it knowingly.
Thank you, Annie. This is the difference between you, lmocr and neb. You can make a mistake but once you know that, you will correct it. On the other hand, lmocr and neb will distort the truth willingly and knowingly.
Annie is definitely one of the good ones.... evidently one of an ever-diminishing group at DMOZ rapidly approaching "endangered species" status.
Oh, what a let down. I thought we were going to have a nice friendly, good old-fashioned all out flame war. Sigh...and, I just got my brandie new tin foil hat from sid, now I have no place to wear it.
Sid, keeps on the tin foil hat in order to stop the penetration of facts and truth in to his skull. You don't need it since it seems you don't find the truth as painful as sid imagine it.
Yeah, yeah. And kctipton. And donaldb. And orlady. And all the people at Resourceless Zone. They're all fine people.
And it appears that in DMOZ one is rewarded for this. I understand that congratulations are in order - I hear that lmocr has been promoted.