From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:38:26 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

This will be my last post on this thread. It started about
about 3 weeks ago and has had almost daily messages. I myself
count 43, and that's just of my own origin.

I would like to deal with the last post from Mr. Chapin,
and then I think I will have said about all that can 
usefully be said on the matter. 

 (Tom Chapin) writes:

 Would you care to specify the age, and give reasons why it is
 "conscionable" to condone sexual relations above that age, yet
 not below it?  Would you care to define "sexual relations"

As Mr. Soyack succintly points out in a subsequent post:

     Actually Tom, you are the one arguing that the laws we have
     are wrong, so the burden of specifying age, and agruing why
     they are wrong is one you.  You say that the laws should be
     changed, so I feel perfectly justified in asking what you have
     to gain by such a change in the laws.  Other than some
     bluster, and some huffing and puffing I have seen nothing to
     address either of these points.  I have also never seen you
     directly answer anyone's question.
 
The reader of this thread will undoubtedly note that Mr. Chapin
replies to Mr. Soyack's post -- but, quelle surprise! does not
address directly Mr. Soyack's point, instead directing a spurious
and egregious ad hominem attack against Mr. Soyack's alleged
past behavior.

Of course in his post Mr. Chapin complains that people are
treating him unfairly.  This is unsurprising given Mr. Chapin's
propensity to view any question into his behavior as 
emotional abuse. 

Mr. Chapin undoubtedly feels (perhaps correctly) that as
long as he keeps talking, he will eventually prevail even if
he isn't actually engaging in the debate.

It is for this reason I "leave". Mr. Chapin's gift for 
evasion of the topic at hand is admirable for its persistence
even if lacking in success.  At least other people who hold
Mr. Chapin's opinion have argued for their opinon using
generally accepted rules of discourse.

Mr. Chapin refuses to answer direct questions and is
careful to either omit or deflect truly relevant queries
into his logic.  Mr. Chapin then has the gall to question
the ethics of those who disagree with him.

Again and again, Mr. Chapin is asked a direct question
and he does not answer it, instead supplying some
tangential story, or warning the questioner to be 
careful of what they ask for, or he gives a speech
on abuse. Mr. Chapin is adept at evasion and distortion.

I will end with an example (although there are many
and perhaps better ones in this thread) from the post
I am replying to:

I had said:

  it is *you* not I who is making the case for society condoning
  adult-child sex. The burden of making the case is yours. 
 
Mr. Chapin replies:

 Since I have never "condoned" (nor has anyone else as far as I have
 been able to read) anything, I see no burden of making a case which
 you falsely created.
 
Mr. Chapin has earlier condoned (i.e., overlooked) any harm
that a 5 year old may have suffered from fellating his brother:

      When I was sixteen or seventeen, a friend related that a few nights
      previously his brother, age 5 or so, came into his bed and performed
      fellatio on him.  He pretended to be asleep and did nothing.
      ... 
      Just where was the harm located, and who harmed who?

The following quote is taken out of context, but is (IMO)
illustrative of Mr. Chapins attitude towards discourse
on this thread:

     It doesn't matter what [someone] said.
     What matters is how you respond.

Mr. Chapin can rest assured I will not bother him any
longer with my views on the subject.

Dano