For fuck's sake. The point was that general warrants are unconstitutional, so why the hell would it be okay to search everyone *without even so much as having a warrant*? It was to demonstrate just how absurd this situation is, not to say that warrants are somehow involved in this situation.
Who said that? You? It wasn't me.
In that case, hopefully no one.
I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.
I'm arguing that the idea that the government has the power to force you to surrender rights if you try to do something (in this case, travel on a plane) that isn't illegal (merely because some people could do something illegal) is absurd. I thought that would've been clear, but if it wasn't clear, I think it should be now.
But I see where this is going. Rather than focusing on my fundamental points, you're just being pedantic and nitpicking at my usage of the English language.
I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.
The implicit part is supposedly your acceptance of being searched, not the idea that you will be searched (which is spelled out explicitly).
You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane.
Dude, you're pedantic as fuck. I don't know if you've ever heard of exaggerations or how normal people use language (which is rarely 100% precise), but you should get acquainted with those things, and fast. Just my opinion.
Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
Or are you saying that because some people are bad, nobody should have rights? I doubt it, but who the fuck knows. Either way, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, violating everyone's rights and privacy merely because some people are Bad Guys is unacceptable.
You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it.
General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.
Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
Oh, screw off. You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.
It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.
I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search
No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous. If you feel the government should have unlimited power, then try to amend the constitution. Otherwise, screw off.
The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to. Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.
The government has no constitutional authority to force people to implicitly surrender their rights in exchange for being able to do something completely innocuous. They might be traitors who claim they do and just ignore the constitution, but that's a different matter.
I'm not sure voluntarily living in a certain city is the government violating your right to privacy.
Using this ridiculous, draconian logic of "You voluntarily decided to do X, so you implicitly surrendered right Y to the government." is just stupid. The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something. Of course, people who want the government to have unlimited power and to be able to violate your liberties whenever they please would disagree.
Even if they did keep us safe, we should reject them; the TSA is 100% unconstitutional and must be eliminated. Truly free and brave people wouldn't allow this to happen, and yet only some people vote and protest based on their principles.
That's like saying, "If we could eliminate crime, there'd be no need for cops to bust into people's houses at random looking for criminals!" No, even if that works, it's completely unjust. Likewise, the people at fault for these draconian solutions are the people implementing the draconian solutions. You can't blame it on "piracy" (copyright infringement) as they didn't implement it. Reject both 'solutions,' as they are immoral.
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action.
Not good enough. Subverting the court system that provides checks and balances is simply a fundamentally flawed and morally wrong idea to me and other freedom-minded individuals.
To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
I don't, so here's an idea: Reject both ideas, because they're both unjust. Defeating false dichotomies is easy.
I assure you, it has nothing to do with me being American. Most Americans either accept or are apathetic to the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, unfettered border searches, unwarranted surveillance in general, the drug war, etc.
So me being pro-freedom has nothing to do with being American.
it causes incalculable harm that often lasts more than a single generation.
That's your belief, probably due to a culture of indoctrination. Why is sex with a child inherently harmful? Do you have real science behind you, unlike the pseudoscience that was being discussed? Why do you feel the need to be part of the 'for the children' crowd? Do you just become emotional whenever children are mentioned?
Also, whether something is "OK" or not is completely subjective.
Are you seriously trying to argue otherwise? Seriously?
Does it surprise you that there are people that question the absolutist statements that you've been taught to believe? Because that's what I'm doing. Personally, I believe there is a lot of harm that can come from raping a child, but the idea that *all* sex with children is inherently rape or harmful is what I am questioning.
It's plainly obvious that they can be used. It's just not a good idea to take the results, come to a conclusion, and then call it science.
That's not strictly true. It all depends on how it's done, and what conclusions they reach.
One study gave people (students, I believe) a questionnaire that essentially asked various questions about rapists and how long they should be put in prison. Some of those people were then showed pornography videos, and given the same questionnaire again. This time, the amount of years that people felt that rapists should be put in prison for went down for quite a few people. The conclusion? Porn causes people to be callous towards women. An arbitrary conclusion using flawed and biased data collection methods from a non-representative portion of the population. Were there other possible explanations? Sure, but they were ignored in favor of the researchers' biases. That was the gist of it, at least.
It's that sort of thing that I'm opposed to. I'm not expecting perfection. I expect that they don't act like complete pseudoscientists. Where is the null hypothesis? Where are the actual standards here?
You've convinced me. You've convinced me so well that I think hitting people in the head with baseball bats, causing concussions, should be legal, because otherwise that would infringe on people's freedoms.
It seems that you have trouble distinguishing between subjectivity of emotion and damage to physical bodies, something that can trivially be detected regardless of what the person says. That's the fundamental difference that you don't seem to comprehend. It's why the result of hitting someone with a baseball bat is actually measurable to some extent, while just asking people questions about how they feel, pretending it's absolute fact or because X happened when you don't even understand the brain all that well, and then calling it science.
If you're going to call it science, then you'd damn well better have a good, scientific understanding of the human brain to the point where you can pinpoint what causes what to happen, and no coming to arbitrary conclusions based on subjective data, either.
If the only illegal acts were those shown to be harmful at the level of rigor found in a good experimental physics article, I don't think anything at all would actually be illegal.
You're an idiot spewing forth straw men.
The opposite of your straw man is that you put forth your unscientific opinions as science and then ban things based on your own prejudices. That's unacceptable, but it's what is happening.
P.S. Yes, interviews can be used in science. ("Interview," here, often means asking a series of quantitative or yes/no questions with scripting wording.)
It's plainly obvious that they can be used. It's just not a good idea to take the results, come to a conclusion, and then call it science.
Also, if you think that particle physics experiments set up a cause and directly measure effect, without numerous intervening assumptions, then you should read more about them. (Did they seriously forget to control for the strength of magnetic field when testing which energy levels resulted in those reactions?!)
Straw man. I did not say that other fields are 100% perfect; just that they're far more scientific.
You do love those straw men and false equivalencies, don't you? If the only way you can try to 'debunk' my arguments is to attack things that I never said, or to pretend as if I'm saying psychology needs to be perfect, then simply don't bother replying. You could just as easily ask, "Wow! Can you scientifically prove we're not in the matrix?" and you'd look just as stupid to me.
Oh, and I would be 100% opposed to the TSA and the NSA's mass surveillance even if they provably kept people safe. That's what it means to care about freedom. The idea that, because having sex with children is often (or sometimes) abused, that it should be banned, is disgusting to me.
Imperfection, and failing to have the same level of rigor as physics
I expect them to have some amount of rigor. I do not expect absolute perfection. The field is so rife with pseudoscience that it really can't be trusted.
The study in question uses twins, focusing on situations where one twin reports that they were abused and the other does not. It then asks these twins separately, in interviews, a variety of questions about things like alcohol use and suicide attempts.
And this is why psychology is mocked. Subjective interviews being promoted as actual science?
True, there are other explanations for the correlation than the mechanism suggested, but this is true of many physics results as well.
So you admit it. Then you don't get to arbitrarily decide it's one or the other. It's far, far more true in psychology; there are rigorous standards in physics that psychology has yet to match, and likely cannot match.
"Subjective" methods like this are used well beyond psychology and other "pseudosciences."
Medicine is pretty bad, too. I did not mean to imply that psychology is the only flawed field.
Do you think we shouldn't give morphine to patients in pain because effectiveness of pain remedies is primarily measured by asking patients "how much pain are you in?"
But don't call it scientific unless you have hard (not inherently subjective) science behind you. You can give them the morphine, but you can't decide to ban something because of your pseudoscience. The two have vastly different effects on society, even if I were to assume they're similar situations.
Second, you assert that because the data isn't perfect, we can't draw any conclusions from it.
Straw man.
People, including legislators, must often make decisions based on imperfect data.
Not just imperfect data, but horribly inaccurate data. They often shouldn't.
My claim that sex with children harms them significantly is justified given available evidence, and banning such sex is prudent as a result.
No, and no. You don't get to use pseudoscience to justify the banning of something Also, banning something merely because it could be harmful is anti-freedom.
Another issue with a lot of these studies is that they only study the people who feel and/or were told they were "abused," rather than ones who feel they had a consensual relationship. Not that that would somehow improve the situation, but at least the results would be less blatantly biased. That's not always what happens, though.
Because absolute morality doesn't exist, just like magical sky daddies don't exist. Your (and their) feelings about such matters is inherently subjective, and the number of people that agree with either side is irrelevant.
However, since, as far as I can tell, these broad claims impress themselves upon me from my core construction as a human being, and since other human beings seem to share many core aspects in common, I have a reasonable expectation of universality.
Instinct, culture, and a number of other factors can work together to make you believe as you do. That does not mean there's some magical source of morality where someone is objectively 'wrong' for believing that a certain thing is moral or immoral.
I'm sorry I don't have a citation for the effects of child abuse in a physics journal
Nor do I expect you to. That's not the point.
Do you have anything even remotely approaching their level of rigor claiming the opposite?
An absence of a good way to study something does not mean that current methods are good; they aren't.
If your studies rely on subjective data, subjective data gathering methods, and the ability to reach arbitrary conclusions based on the data, then they are deeply flawed. There is no reason anyone should take pseudoscience like psychology seriously. A viable alternative need not exist in order for me to state these simple facts, as the quality of the research stands or falls on its own merit, not on whether or not good alternatives exist.
Do you have annecdotes or opinions of therapists claiming the opposite?
I'm not going to get into a pointless citation war where we cite pseudoscientific studies, opinions, or anecdotes back at one another. What would the point be?
If you want opinions and anecdotes, though, the article I linked to has some.
How should we debate whether sex with children harms them, enlightened one?
Again, arbitrarily deciding what someone feels, and basing your entire study off of subjective data gathering methods is not science. It is, however, significantly more prone to bias than other fields (like physics) with actual scientific rigor.
How should we? I don't know, but that's irrelevant. Bad science is bad science. Accepting bad science just because we don't know anything else is ridiculous.
So where are you when people are getting prosecuted (and persecuted) for pictures? Or when a minor consents with an adult.
They're too busy with their 'save the children' kneejerking to think rationally. The standard response is that it's 100% impossible for children to consent, even though that's just some legal nonsense. Another response is that they don't have developed brains and hence might make an error in their judgement, but the latter is true of everyone, including full-grown adults; you make mistakes, and you have to get over them.
Prohibiting pictures is just censorship, and not something that should be tolerated in any truly free society.
Pedophiles directly harm children? Or do you mean that *child molesters* harm children? A pedophile is just someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. That doesn't mean they rape children, and that doesn't mean that everyone who does rape children is necessary a pedophile.
I said why it's not acceptable: because having sex with children harms them. Citation from scientific literature
Oh, no. When they largely get rid of the subjective criteria, subjective and biased data gathering methods, and the act of coming to arbitrary conclusions based on data (which they gathered using ridiculous methods), maybe psychology could be taken seriously as a science. As it is, it doesn't have nearly as much rigor as a field like physics. These things are especially prevalent when it comes to 'controversial' topics like this where lots of people get emotional. Anyone providing citations to psychology studies to 'win' in a debate is just a damn fool.
The only safe generality we can draw are those in which harm has occurred. IE, someone is harmed in rape. Some one is harmed in murder. Racially-motivated murder is bad.
Using your above logic, none of those generalizations can be completely true as long as a single person or group disagrees that harm was done.
This other person is by definition of many nations laws not allowed to consent to sexual intercourse or it is not allowed to consent to sexual intercourse with this person. This is something we deny people to do in order to protect the "weak".
That's just legal nonsense; such sex is not inherently harmful for anyone involved. We decide on a case-by-case basis whether rape occurred when something happens between adults, and we should do the same in every other case.
Our laws are the way they are because people get emotional and irrational whenever children are involved.
Misandry is hatred, too, then. Well, they're both just offensive to some people's sensibilities. Labeling it "hatred" and then pretending it's 100% different really makes no difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Warrants have nothing to do with this.
For fuck's sake. The point was that general warrants are unconstitutional, so why the hell would it be okay to search everyone *without even so much as having a warrant*? It was to demonstrate just how absurd this situation is, not to say that warrants are somehow involved in this situation.
Who said that? You? It wasn't me.
In that case, hopefully no one.
I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.
I'm arguing that the idea that the government has the power to force you to surrender rights if you try to do something (in this case, travel on a plane) that isn't illegal (merely because some people could do something illegal) is absurd. I thought that would've been clear, but if it wasn't clear, I think it should be now.
But I see where this is going. Rather than focusing on my fundamental points, you're just being pedantic and nitpicking at my usage of the English language.
I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.
The implicit part is supposedly your acceptance of being searched, not the idea that you will be searched (which is spelled out explicitly).
You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane.
Dude, you're pedantic as fuck. I don't know if you've ever heard of exaggerations or how normal people use language (which is rarely 100% precise), but you should get acquainted with those things, and fast. Just my opinion.
Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
Or are you saying that because some people are bad, nobody should have rights? I doubt it, but who the fuck knows. Either way, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, violating everyone's rights and privacy merely because some people are Bad Guys is unacceptable.
You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it.
General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.
Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.
Oh, screw off. You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.
It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.
I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search
Man...
No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous. If you feel the government should have unlimited power, then try to amend the constitution. Otherwise, screw off.
The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to. Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.
The government has no constitutional authority to force people to implicitly surrender their rights in exchange for being able to do something completely innocuous. They might be traitors who claim they do and just ignore the constitution, but that's a different matter.
I'm not sure voluntarily living in a certain city is the government violating your right to privacy.
Using this ridiculous, draconian logic of "You voluntarily decided to do X, so you implicitly surrendered right Y to the government." is just stupid. The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something. Of course, people who want the government to have unlimited power and to be able to violate your liberties whenever they please would disagree.
Even if they did keep us safe, we should reject them; the TSA is 100% unconstitutional and must be eliminated. Truly free and brave people wouldn't allow this to happen, and yet only some people vote and protest based on their principles.
Obviously there should be a way to report copyright issues.
By going to court. Oh, you want to subvert the court system and have takedown notices that remove safe harbor if ignored? Fuck off.
I couldn't made you look much more idiotic if I tried.
No, you couldn't, because I'm not the one who looks stupid here.
Yeah Stalin is going to stop shooting Germans at Stalingrad, because Hitler dropped leaflets saying killing is bad
*yawn* Straw man.
That's like saying, "If we could eliminate crime, there'd be no need for cops to bust into people's houses at random looking for criminals!" No, even if that works, it's completely unjust. Likewise, the people at fault for these draconian solutions are the people implementing the draconian solutions. You can't blame it on "piracy" (copyright infringement) as they didn't implement it. Reject both 'solutions,' as they are immoral.
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action.
Not good enough. Subverting the court system that provides checks and balances is simply a fundamentally flawed and morally wrong idea to me and other freedom-minded individuals.
To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
I don't, so here's an idea: Reject both ideas, because they're both unjust. Defeating false dichotomies is easy.
You Americans and your freedom.
I assure you, it has nothing to do with me being American. Most Americans either accept or are apathetic to the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, unfettered border searches, unwarranted surveillance in general, the drug war, etc.
So me being pro-freedom has nothing to do with being American.
it causes incalculable harm that often lasts more than a single generation.
That's your belief, probably due to a culture of indoctrination. Why is sex with a child inherently harmful? Do you have real science behind you, unlike the pseudoscience that was being discussed? Why do you feel the need to be part of the 'for the children' crowd? Do you just become emotional whenever children are mentioned?
Also, whether something is "OK" or not is completely subjective.
Are you seriously trying to argue otherwise? Seriously?
Does it surprise you that there are people that question the absolutist statements that you've been taught to believe? Because that's what I'm doing. Personally, I believe there is a lot of harm that can come from raping a child, but the idea that *all* sex with children is inherently rape or harmful is what I am questioning.
It's plainly obvious that they can be used. It's just not a good idea to take the results, come to a conclusion, and then call it science.
That's not strictly true. It all depends on how it's done, and what conclusions they reach.
One study gave people (students, I believe) a questionnaire that essentially asked various questions about rapists and how long they should be put in prison. Some of those people were then showed pornography videos, and given the same questionnaire again. This time, the amount of years that people felt that rapists should be put in prison for went down for quite a few people. The conclusion? Porn causes people to be callous towards women. An arbitrary conclusion using flawed and biased data collection methods from a non-representative portion of the population. Were there other possible explanations? Sure, but they were ignored in favor of the researchers' biases. That was the gist of it, at least.
It's that sort of thing that I'm opposed to. I'm not expecting perfection. I expect that they don't act like complete pseudoscientists. Where is the null hypothesis? Where are the actual standards here?
You've convinced me. You've convinced me so well that I think hitting people in the head with baseball bats, causing concussions, should be legal, because otherwise that would infringe on people's freedoms.
It seems that you have trouble distinguishing between subjectivity of emotion and damage to physical bodies, something that can trivially be detected regardless of what the person says. That's the fundamental difference that you don't seem to comprehend. It's why the result of hitting someone with a baseball bat is actually measurable to some extent, while just asking people questions about how they feel, pretending it's absolute fact or because X happened when you don't even understand the brain all that well, and then calling it science.
If you're going to call it science, then you'd damn well better have a good, scientific understanding of the human brain to the point where you can pinpoint what causes what to happen, and no coming to arbitrary conclusions based on subjective data, either.
If the only illegal acts were those shown to be harmful at the level of rigor found in a good experimental physics article, I don't think anything at all would actually be illegal.
You're an idiot spewing forth straw men.
The opposite of your straw man is that you put forth your unscientific opinions as science and then ban things based on your own prejudices. That's unacceptable, but it's what is happening.
P.S. Yes, interviews can be used in science. ("Interview," here, often means asking a series of quantitative or yes/no questions with scripting wording.)
It's plainly obvious that they can be used. It's just not a good idea to take the results, come to a conclusion, and then call it science.
Also, if you think that particle physics experiments set up a cause and directly measure effect, without numerous intervening assumptions, then you should read more about them. (Did they seriously forget to control for the strength of magnetic field when testing which energy levels resulted in those reactions?!)
Straw man. I did not say that other fields are 100% perfect; just that they're far more scientific.
You do love those straw men and false equivalencies, don't you? If the only way you can try to 'debunk' my arguments is to attack things that I never said, or to pretend as if I'm saying psychology needs to be perfect, then simply don't bother replying. You could just as easily ask, "Wow! Can you scientifically prove we're not in the matrix?" and you'd look just as stupid to me.
Oh, and I would be 100% opposed to the TSA and the NSA's mass surveillance even if they provably kept people safe. That's what it means to care about freedom. The idea that, because having sex with children is often (or sometimes) abused, that it should be banned, is disgusting to me.
+1 CP inflicts damage with each download.
It's pretty much like like voodoo, and exactly as real.
Imperfection, and failing to have the same level of rigor as physics
I expect them to have some amount of rigor. I do not expect absolute perfection. The field is so rife with pseudoscience that it really can't be trusted.
The study in question uses twins, focusing on situations where one twin reports that they were abused and the other does not. It then asks these twins separately, in interviews, a variety of questions about things like alcohol use and suicide attempts.
And this is why psychology is mocked. Subjective interviews being promoted as actual science?
True, there are other explanations for the correlation than the mechanism suggested, but this is true of many physics results as well.
So you admit it. Then you don't get to arbitrarily decide it's one or the other. It's far, far more true in psychology; there are rigorous standards in physics that psychology has yet to match, and likely cannot match.
"Subjective" methods like this are used well beyond psychology and other "pseudosciences."
Medicine is pretty bad, too. I did not mean to imply that psychology is the only flawed field.
Do you think we shouldn't give morphine to patients in pain because effectiveness of pain remedies is primarily measured by asking patients "how much pain are you in?"
But don't call it scientific unless you have hard (not inherently subjective) science behind you. You can give them the morphine, but you can't decide to ban something because of your pseudoscience. The two have vastly different effects on society, even if I were to assume they're similar situations.
Second, you assert that because the data isn't perfect, we can't draw any conclusions from it.
Straw man.
People, including legislators, must often make decisions based on imperfect data.
Not just imperfect data, but horribly inaccurate data. They often shouldn't.
My claim that sex with children harms them significantly is justified given available evidence, and banning such sex is prudent as a result.
No, and no. You don't get to use pseudoscience to justify the banning of something Also, banning something merely because it could be harmful is anti-freedom.
Another issue with a lot of these studies is that they only study the people who feel and/or were told they were "abused," rather than ones who feel they had a consensual relationship. Not that that would somehow improve the situation, but at least the results would be less blatantly biased. That's not always what happens, though.
Why is it subjective?
Because absolute morality doesn't exist, just like magical sky daddies don't exist. Your (and their) feelings about such matters is inherently subjective, and the number of people that agree with either side is irrelevant.
However, since, as far as I can tell, these broad claims impress themselves upon me from my core construction as a human being, and since other human beings seem to share many core aspects in common, I have a reasonable expectation of universality.
Instinct, culture, and a number of other factors can work together to make you believe as you do. That does not mean there's some magical source of morality where someone is objectively 'wrong' for believing that a certain thing is moral or immoral.
I'm sorry I don't have a citation for the effects of child abuse in a physics journal
Nor do I expect you to. That's not the point.
Do you have anything even remotely approaching their level of rigor claiming the opposite?
An absence of a good way to study something does not mean that current methods are good; they aren't.
If your studies rely on subjective data, subjective data gathering methods, and the ability to reach arbitrary conclusions based on the data, then they are deeply flawed. There is no reason anyone should take pseudoscience like psychology seriously. A viable alternative need not exist in order for me to state these simple facts, as the quality of the research stands or falls on its own merit, not on whether or not good alternatives exist.
Do you have annecdotes or opinions of therapists claiming the opposite?
I'm not going to get into a pointless citation war where we cite pseudoscientific studies, opinions, or anecdotes back at one another. What would the point be?
If you want opinions and anecdotes, though, the article I linked to has some.
How should we debate whether sex with children harms them, enlightened one?
Again, arbitrarily deciding what someone feels, and basing your entire study off of subjective data gathering methods is not science. It is, however, significantly more prone to bias than other fields (like physics) with actual scientific rigor.
How should we? I don't know, but that's irrelevant. Bad science is bad science. Accepting bad science just because we don't know anything else is ridiculous.
So where are you when people are getting prosecuted (and persecuted) for pictures? Or when a minor consents with an adult.
They're too busy with their 'save the children' kneejerking to think rationally. The standard response is that it's 100% impossible for children to consent, even though that's just some legal nonsense. Another response is that they don't have developed brains and hence might make an error in their judgement, but the latter is true of everyone, including full-grown adults; you make mistakes, and you have to get over them.
Prohibiting pictures is just censorship, and not something that should be tolerated in any truly free society.
Pedophiles directly harm children? Or do you mean that *child molesters* harm children? A pedophile is just someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. That doesn't mean they rape children, and that doesn't mean that everyone who does rape children is necessary a pedophile.
I said why it's not acceptable: because having sex with children harms them. Citation from scientific literature
Oh, no. When they largely get rid of the subjective criteria, subjective and biased data gathering methods, and the act of coming to arbitrary conclusions based on data (which they gathered using ridiculous methods), maybe psychology could be taken seriously as a science. As it is, it doesn't have nearly as much rigor as a field like physics. These things are especially prevalent when it comes to 'controversial' topics like this where lots of people get emotional. Anyone providing citations to psychology studies to 'win' in a debate is just a damn fool.
The only safe generality we can draw are those in which harm has occurred. IE, someone is harmed in rape. Some one is harmed in murder. Racially-motivated murder is bad.
Using your above logic, none of those generalizations can be completely true as long as a single person or group disagrees that harm was done.
Therefore, expressing the belief that homosexuality is wrong is itself wrong.
That's subjective.
I'm not trying to censor anyone, or claim any authority. My argument is about what people should do.
Also subjective.
This other person is by definition of many nations laws not allowed to consent to sexual intercourse or it is not allowed to consent to sexual intercourse with this person. This is something we deny people to do in order to protect the "weak".
That's just legal nonsense; such sex is not inherently harmful for anyone involved. We decide on a case-by-case basis whether rape occurred when something happens between adults, and we should do the same in every other case.
Our laws are the way they are because people get emotional and irrational whenever children are involved.
Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred.
Misandry is hatred, too, then. Well, they're both just offensive to some people's sensibilities. Labeling it "hatred" and then pretending it's 100% different really makes no difference.