Lying with Naked Children: Protected by Religious Freedom?
Wayne Bent, leader of a small religious group, is insisting that his practice laying naked with young girls is not sexual but rather a religious practice which should be protected. I'm not sure many people believe him, which is why he's being prosecuted. Frankly, I don't really believe his argument either.
The 67-year-old Bent, known to his followers in The Lord Our Righteousness Church as Michael Travesser, was arrested May 6, almost two weeks after state police and social workers removed three teen-agers from the compound known as Strong City.
According to the affidavit for the arrest warrant for Bent, on three separate occasions - July 31, 2006, Aug. 2, 2006, and April 13, 2007 - he allegedly inappropriately touched girls when each "lay naked" with him. The girls at the time were ages 16, 17 and 12, according to the affidavit. The two oldest girls are sisters, according to a writing by Bent on his group's website, in which he admitted to lying with girls July 31 and Aug. 2 while each was naked and putting "my hand on her heart." ...
In telling the judge that Bent's actions with the girls within the "religious community" had only religious purposes, she also noted that she believes one of the alleged victims will testify that there was "no sexual touching" in the contact with Bent. Montoya argued that Bent's religious freedom should not be compromised by charging him with crimes.
Bent has denied any criminal action, instead claiming the girls came to him without any prompting from him and that each claimed to be directed by God to lie naked with him. According to Bent's writing on the group's website before it was taken down, "this was not about sex, but about healing."
Source: Small Town Papers
There is always a risk, of course, of the state trying to shut down religious practices that are simply unusual and outside the expected practices of dominant religious traditions, but I don't think that's a legitimate concern here. The state also always has a responsibility to protect children from abuse and exploitation, even in religious contexts.
Wayne Bent has religious liberties that must be protected, but not to the extent that children are abused or exploited in any fashion. Even if he has convinced himself that his behavior is innocent, the state isn't obligated to simply adopt his perspective and proceed as if that were the most accurate view of the situation. It's simply not appropriate for an adult man to lie naked with very young children and religion is no excuse for tying to do so anyway.
Comments
Technically, if these could be labelled anything, they would be ephebophilic, not paedophilic acts. The former term refers to sexual attraction of, and sexual acts committed by, adults toward and on, respectively, adolescents, the latter to sexual attraction of, and sexual acts committed by, adults or adolescents towards and on, respectively, prepubescent children.
However, unless the men in question were genuinely attracted to adolescents, I do not believe it is proper to label them as anything other than sexual acts committed by adult men on adolescent girls. Would you call a rape or indecent assault committed against a person by someone else of the same gender a homosexual act, even though the perpetrator was most likely not a homosexual?
I’m with born-again. Yes, this guy’s religious practices are off the weird-$hit-o-meter, but it seems like these girls, two-thirds of them anyway, are capable of understanding sexual situations, unlike children, which have no comprehension of sexual situations whatsoever. I’d like to see this guy punished, but not under paedophilia (although the 12 year old does raise an eyebrow).
Austin is absolutely right. I am a religious believer and I entirely agree that this situation (if reported accurately) is both immoral and illegal and should not be protected under the auspices of the freedom of expression clause of the first amendment to the constitution.
My apologies for not reading this carefully enough. Initially, I thought that there were multiple perpetrators, but it seems that there is just one. Replace ‘men’ with ‘man’ and ‘adult men’ with ‘an adult man’.
David J,
My point was twofold. Firstly, that, if these acts should be labelled as anything, they should be classed as ephebophilic, rather than paedophilic acts. Secondly, strictly speaking, these acts should not be labelled as anything other than sexual acts committed by an adult man on adolescent girls. The man in question is not, so far as is known, genuinely sexually attracted to adolescents. Similarly, a sexual assault or rape committed against one person by another of the same gender should not be labelled a homosexual act because the perpetrator may very well not actually be gay.
That said, I agree with you that it is not as though the guy committed the acts on prepubescent children who have no comprehension of sexual situations whatsoever. With the exception of the 12-year-old, these were practically grown adults, legally speaking (at least they would be considered such here in the U.K) and most likely did have an understanding of sex situations.
Should the man be punished? Perhaps. There are certainly those who would view sexual acts committed by a grown adult on young people of that age as exploitative and potentially psychologically damaging. However, as I said above, it is not as though the acts in question were committed on children who had no understanding of sexual situations at all. In short, I’d have to say that I view this as a grey area. (I’d like to point out that, on this side of the Atlantic sex acts committed by adults on adolescents over the age of consent, which stands at 16, is not, in and of itself, illegal, at least not as far as I know).
born-again, I totally read where you’re coming from and agree with it.
In the US, I believe “consenting adult” depends upon the state, not the central government (not sure); where I grew up I think the age was 18 (in which case, more than half my high school was committing illegal sex acts! Ha!). They usually label a person that is not a child but still not a full-fledged adult as a “minor” where I’m from. I think (at least) two of the three girls in this situation could be classified as “minors.”
And furthermore, to be fair, even a 12-year-old has some understanding of sex. Obviously, it’s not the same understanding as the older girls, but just think about when sex education and “birds and the bees” conversations happen in this conservative America. For most of human history, people were married by 12 or 13 and often had children at that age. Loretta Lynn was married at age 13 and had her first child at 14. I’m not trying to justify sexual behavior between an adult and a minor, but I am trying to point out the ignorance and naivete involved when such behavior is demonized outright in knee-jerk reactions, even by people with moderate or liberal views. Minors should never be exploited—people should never be exploited unwittingly—but the issue is not black-and-white (and what is or is not exploitation is tricky), and thankfully there are already people here who are aware of that.
And let’s not forget that Muhammad took his most favored wife when she was only ten years old.
I don’t think it really matters if the girls had an understanding of sex. The guy was in a position of authority and used it to get underage girls to lie naked with him. If it were really something with a religious nature he could have found women his own age to lie naked with. The girls being underage hints that the condition/attractiveness of the naked body was important to him, this makes me believe it was about sex.
DeGeorgetown,
I think it does matter whether the girls had an understanding of sex. After all, lack of comprehension of sex situations is part of the reason why sexual acts committed by adults on prepubescent children is considered immoral and also why sexual acts committed on a severely intellectually disabled or heavily brain-damaged person are illegal (at least in the U.K.). If a person has no comprehension of sexual situations, then he/she is not a position to consent to sexual activity. It is exploitative to engage in sexual activity with someone who is not in a position to consent to it.
This is not to say that there are no other factors here. For example, as Fei points out, even a 12-year-old is likely to have some understanding of sexual situations, though obviously not as much comprehension as a young person 4 or 5 years older. However, a young person of that age is probably not psychologically in a position to consent to sexual activity with an adult. At that age, he/she is likely to still defer invariably to adults as authority figures, at the expense of being able to decide whether or not an adult has sexual contact with him/her. As I said above, to commit sexual acts on a person who is not in a position to consent to them is to exploit them.
I maintain that sexual intimacy between an adult and a 16-/17-year-old is a grey area. Some would view it as exploitative, but I wouldn’t put it in the same league as sexual acts committed by an adult on a 12-year-old, and definitely not in the same league as such acts committed on a prepubescent by an adult.
An understanding of sex doesn’t matter at all in this situation. There’s a reason why it’s illegal for prison guards to have sex with inmates. It’s because the guard is an authority figure and therefore in a position to exploit. It doesn’t matter if they both have an understanding of sex. The situation with the preacher and his followers is the same. Maybe worse because it’s easier for a preacher to convince his followers that what they’re doing is ok in their gods eyes.
title=There’s a reason why it’s illegal for prison guards to have sex with inmates. It’s because the guard is an authority figure and therefore in a position to exploit.>
Aah, so your main point was that what the guy did with the girls was wrong because he was in a position of authority and therefore in a position to exploit. I’m with you on that one.
However, I was talking about adults engaging in sexual activity with 16-/17-year-olds in general. While it may be immoral, for example, for a school teacher or college tutor to engage in sexual activity with a student, even if they are over the age of consent, since the latter is in a position of authority over the former and able to exploit, sexual activity in general between adults and 16-/17-year-olds is, in my opinion, a grey area.
It can be a grey area when you’re talking about a 23 year old have sex with their 17 year old bf/gf. I don’t think it is a grey area in this case though. Mainly because the guy was in a position of authority and there was a 12 year old involved.
And of course…to answer the old (Shakespearian?) question:
“What’s in a name?”
Well…with a name like Wayne Bent…ummm…
What!…You decide? Or…”Who knew?”
Albeit…It’s all in the imagery!
[cue soundtrack of two older tunes: "Imagination"; and "Imagine"]
OK…after briefly participating in that little, revealing, mental exercise…I’m guessing…
We’ll ALL be under arrest from the thought police!
Now…cue the (napping) comment staff drummer:
“Badum-bum-CRASH!”]
Yeah…I know…
“What about a name like…ChuckA?”
cue cowbell?
After reading all this, I want to know why I am not hearing any condemnation of NAMBLA?
Are y’all a bunch of NAMBLA lovers?
I am betting on it.
Look at this: “Would you call a rape or indecent assault committed against a person by someone else of the same gender a homosexual act, even though the perpetrator was most likely not a homosexual?”
Hey born-again, tell me that a same sex act is not homosexual.
Now answer this. Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?
I am waiting…….
born-again mental midget said:
….even if they are over the age of consent, since the latter is in a position of authority over the former and able to exploit, sexual activity in general between adults and 16-/17-year-olds is, in my opinion, a grey area.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAaaaa!
You just keep hitting the jackpot Mr. born-again!
“….a grey area.”
You have got to be kidding me. You atheists can rationalize anything.
YOU love NAMBLA don’t you?
atheists are generally pedophiles…..recently i debated 1000’s of them on you-tube. all rushing to the defense of a pedophile named Dendrophelian. a self proclaimed pedophile. every atheist on youtube rushed to his aid. using the exact same and identical argument they use to justify homosexuality……calling it an “orientation”, just another reason to deport all atheists. or at least make them register as offenders and be monitored by police authority. atheists are dangerous on sooooo many levels.
sigh – the trolls are yelping again, please do not feed them ! They’ll shout themselves to death and shrivel up
Mr Cline,
As I have asked you once, why on earth do you let these nutcases post anything on this site?
born-again says: “Mr Cline, As I have asked you once, why on earth do you let these nutcases post anything on this site?”
JACK REPLIES: Spoken like a true liberal atheist.
Why is it that liberals are always clammering about free speech, but if they are in power they do everything they can to suppress it?
I have a question for you born-again. Why is it that when you can’t give an intelligent answer the person asking the question is a nutcase?
You’re just angry and feeling the fear when I pointed out your rationalization.
I am betting that you are a member of NAMBLA aren’t you?
Oh man am I another nutcase!!!
hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
dreadful scab whines:
“sigh – the trolls are yelping again, please do not feed them ! They’ll shout themselves to death and shrivel up”
You hope so don’t you? You are afraid of the answer to that question aren’t you?
Now answer this. “Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
That bothers you doesn’t it? Otherwise you would have stayed in the woodwork instead of coming out and howling as though you were stabbed.
I am betting that you are a member of NAMBLA aren’t you?
No, I am not a member of NAMBLA. Aside from anything else, I am probably too young to be a member (I’m still an adolescent).
Now answer this. “Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
False dilemma fallacy. You are assuming that, just because I am saying that a rape or sexual assault committed against one person by another of the same gender is not a homosexual act, that I must be saying that it is a heterosexual act. That is not a logically warranted assumption. What I am actually saying is that the act might not actually be motivated by a sexual interest in or attraction toward the person at all, since the perpetrator might not actually be homosexual (homosexuality is defined by orientation rather than behaviour). Instead, it might be driven by another motive, such as simply a desire to dominate the victim. Incidentally, there are two alternative hypotheses floating around in the field of psychology as to the motives of rape. One is lust. The other is a desire on the part of the perpetrator to dominate the victim. Now, I am far from being a professional psychologist, but what is there to suggest that these two motives are mutually exclusive, or that every rapist is driven by one or the other? There could be those who are driven by lust, those by a desire to exert power over their victims and still others by both. Furthermore, there could be another motive (e.g. revenge).
sigh – the trolls are yelping again, please do not feed them ! They’ll shout themselves to death and shrivel up
Dreadful scathe, I hope that, for the good of humanity, that they do ’shout themselves to death and shrivel up’!
JACK: Now answer this. “Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
BURPED AGAIN: False dilemma fallacy.
JACK: No, no, no, I knew you wouldn’t just answer the question. The answer is NO. Simple as that. No fallacy at all.
BURPED AGAIN: You are assuming that, just because I am saying that a rape or sexual assault committed against one person by another of the same gender is not a homosexual act, that I must be saying that it is a heterosexual act.
JACK: No, I’m not saying that at all. I am showing how ridiculous your statement is. A same sex attack is homosexual. Don’t be trying to rationalize it as anything else.
BURPED AGAIN: What I am actually saying is that the act might not actually be motivated by a sexual interest in or attraction toward the person at all, since the perpetrator might not actually be homosexual (homosexuality is defined by orientation rather than behaviour).
JACK: You’re getting all mixed up here BURPED AGAIN. Homosexual is homosexual is homosexual. You must be a closet homo.
BURPED AGAIN: Furthermore, there could be another motive (e.g. revenge).
JACK: Oh really, some guy having forced sex with some other guy is revenge not homosexuality? Please don’t answer that. You’ll have to go on and on and on with more rationalizing.
BURPED AGAIN: False dilemma fallacy.
JACK: No, no, no, I knew you wouldn’t just answer the question. The answer is NO. Simple as that. No fallacy at all.
Definition of false dilemma fallacy: arbitrarily assuming that there are only two alternative answers to a question when it is not logically warranted and there may in fact be other answers. This fallacy manifests itself when person A assumes that, because person B is arguing against answer X or because A thinks answer X is invalidated, answer Y is true or is being argued in favour of by person B. This presupposes that A thinks that there are only two alternative answers to the question, when this is not logically warranted.
For example, you were assuming that, just because I was arguing against the notion that a sexual attack committed against one person by another of the same gender necessarily qualified as a homosexual act, I was saying that it must qualify as a heterosexual act. I am saying no such thing. Your assumption was not a logically warranted one. Thus have you committed the false dilemma fallacy.
No, I’m not saying that at all.
Well, then, why did you ask me if I thought a sexual attack on someone by another person of the same gender qualified as a heterosexual act?
A same sex attack is homosexual.
Not necessarily.
You must be a closet homo.
No, I am not a homosexual. So what if I was?! If you have a issue with homosexuals or with them expressing their sexuality and pursuing meaningful, mutually loving sexual relationships, that’s your problem, not theirs, you homophobic bigot!
Oh really, some guy having forced sex with some other guy is revenge not homosexuality?
No, it is not homosexuality. This is because the perpetrator is not necessarily motivated by a sexual interest in or attraction toward the victim, and homosexuality is defined by sexual attraction toward those of the same gender, not the sexual acts that result from that.
BURPED AGAIN: You are assuming that….blah, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum.
Hey burped, the answer is NO.
Hey burped, the answer is NO.
The answer to what, exactly? Hmmm?
born-again atheist says:
Hey burped, the answer is NO.
“The answer to what, exactly? Hmmm?”
Burped, aren’t you paying attention? Go back and read.
Burped, aren’t you paying attention? Go back and read.
If you are talking about the question you posed about whether one man forcibly engaging another in sex qualifies as homosexuality or is a form of revenge act, then I shall respond to that by saying that you committed two logical fallacies in the process of asking one question, which is quite an achievement. One fallacy you have engaged in is one you have committed before, namely the false dilemma fallacy. As I explained in a previous post, this is where person A assumes that there are only answers X and Y to a question when this not logically warranted. Here, you posit a question, namely whether ’some guy having forced sex with some other guy is revenge (or) homosexuality?’, assuming that there are only two answers to the question. These are 1) that such an act is a form of revenge, and 2) that it is a homosexual act. You hence assume that, just because I am saying that such an act should not automatically be called a homosexual act, I must be suggesting that the perpetrator must be driven by desire for vengeance for some bad deed that victim did against him/her. The first assumption is not logically warranted and, hence, neither is the second.
The other fallacy you have committed is the straw man fallacy, which is where person A misrepresents person B’s position on a subject and hence, in the process of attempting to critique person B’s position, merely ends up critiquing B’s position as A miconstrues it, rather than the actual position advanced by B. B’s actual position is hence left untouched.
Here, you misrepresented me as saying that, because a rape committed by one person against another of the same gender is not necessarily a homosexual act, it must be driven by a desire for revenge for some unpleasant deed(s) done against the perpetrator by the victim. I said no such thing. What I was actually saying was that it was inappropriate to automatically label such an act as homosexual, since the pertrator may not actually have been motivated by lust for the victim. I mentioned revenge as one of possible alternative and potentially compatible motives, not as the sole motivating factor behind every sexual assault and rape.
There is too much fuss being made about “underage sex”. If a young girl gets the need to lie naked with a guy that is ok with me but this nonsense of,”God told me to do it” is totally stupid. The papers are full of female teachers nailing young guys and I wish that I was one of those guys…there is no reason to lock up that teacher, and if an “underage” female has a crush on her male OR female teacher and, ooh I can’t even say it, has whatever with that person what is the big deal??
If a female is one day short of 17 this is all kinds of rape and sexual who-knows what,but if she is 17 and one minute then it is ok to do the mufkie puffkie. People, all of us have needs, desires, wants and who knows what else, and, if anyone NEEDS to lie naked with someone who is old enough to be their grandparent why must anyone even care.
I do believe that our scarce police resources would be put to better use taking the robbers and house breakers off of the streets rather than peek into someones bedroom window.
Here in New York City one of the biggest crimes that the police are ALWAYS on the lookout for are people driving without a seat belt and that makes them too busy to peek into windows….at least the robbers don’t need to worry!!
I think that THE DRUNK is not only drunk, I think he is high on drugs and crazy also.
BURPER SAID: “What I was actually saying was that it was inappropriate to automatically label such an act as homosexual, since the pertrator may not actually have been motivated by lust for the victim.”
Burpered, you can certainly get wrapped around the axel trying to put words in my mouth and imagine fallacies that I did not commit.
Now, I asked you a simple frickin’ question.
“Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
As I told you before the simple answer is NO. A same sex attack is a homosexual attack whether for revenge or whatever.
A normal man does not seek revenge by sodomizing the person whom he is angry with. Only a homosexual would do a homosexual assault.
Got it now Mr. Genius?
I suggest you quit sodomizing people you hate. That way you won’t get all wrapped around the rationalization axel when someone asks you, “Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
You can just say, “NO.”
“Is an a attack on a same sex person a heterosexual act?”
As I told you before the simple answer is NO. A same sex attack is a homosexual attack whether for revenge or whatever.
Once again, you commit the false dilemma fallacy. You are obviously lacking in logical reasoning skills because otherwise you would not be so blind to the fallacies you commit as to protest when someone identifies them and then, in the next breath, commit the very same fallacies that were identified by the other person.
For the third – and hopefully the last – time of explaining, the false dilemma fallacy is where person A assumes that there are only answers X and Y to a question when this is not logically warranted. This is clearly manifest when person A assumes that, just because person B is arguing against answer X or person A views answer X as being false, answer Y must automatically be the answer being argued in favour of by person B or the true answer to the question, respectively.
Again, you insist that, just because an indecent assault or rape committed by one person against another of the same gender is not a heterosexual act, it must be a homosexual one. This is not a logically warranted assumption. (At this point, I shall correct myself by admitting that I should have said previously that you were merely saying that, rather than suggesting that you were assuming I must be saying that such an act is a heterosexual act. How hypocritical of me! Here I am, trying to teach you about reasoning skills and logical fallacies when I myself engage in the straw man fallacy!).
A same sex attack is a homosexual attack whether for revenge or whatever.
Not necessarily. It is unfitting to automatically label it as a homosexual act because the perpetrator may not be driven by lust for the victim and may not be homosexual.
A normal man does not seek revenge by sodomizing the person whom he is angry with. Only a homosexual would do a homosexual assault.
Substantiate those two assertions. First, though, define what you mean by ‘normal’.
I suggest you quit sodomizing people you hate.
What? I’m a virgin. I’ve never even sexually penetrated anyone in my entire life (though I sure damned want to
), much less sodomised them!
Here, you have committed the non-sequitur fallacy, non-sequitur being Latin for ‘does not follow’. This where the conclusion of an argument does not follow logically from the premise(s). This fallacy has many variations, including the false dilemma fallacy and the fallacy of composition (where the arguer assumes that what is or is perceived by the arguer to be true of the aspects of a concept must be true of the whole concept, when this is not a logically warranted conclusion to draw). Both of these are situations involving a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premises (in other words, non-sequitur situations).
Here, though, we have the non-sequitur fallacy in its pure and simple form. You assume that, just because I mentioned that a rapist might be driven by a desire for vengeance against the victim for something he/she might have done to upset the victim, I must have forcibly sodomised someone because I hated them. This is not a logically warranted assumption.
I must request, Mr Savage, that you actually read and consider what I have written on the subject of logical fallacies instead of just skating straight over it. I am far from an expert on the topic (or, for that matter, critical thinking in general), but I hope that, at the very least, what I write about reasoning skills provides some food for thought.
There are a number of sites with advice for dealing with internet trolls, including:
http://www.urban75.org/info/bullying.html
Which explains,
“Serial bullies harbour a lot of internal aggression which they direct at others.
This may include projection, false criticism and patronising sarcasm whilst contributing nothing of any value.”
and advises,
“When people use bullying behaviours they project their own weaknesses, failings and shortcomings on to others. In other words, they are telling you about themselves by fabricating an accusation based on something they themselves have done wrong.
Whenever you receive a flame mail or hate mail, train yourself to instinctively ask the question, ‘What is this person revealing about themselves this time?’”
John K, Why are you here to confess your trolling activities. Look we don’t need to have you revealing your inner struggles to us.
Oh go ahead, we can help you with this problem you’re having with projecting your weaknesses, failings and shortcomings on to others.
Don’t be shy now, but if you start this bullying business you know that Austin has the delete key and isn’t afraid to censor.
What can I say? I can’t help myself. It’s a compulsion with me. I pick up the keyboard and out pops the troll.
Psychology Today Online has a long article about troll/bullies which includes a discussion of the damage trolls do to themselves,
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=19950901-000020&page=1
“When young, says [University of Michigan psychologist Leonard] Eron, [bullies] have intelligence levels equal to those of their normal peers. But by age 19, aggressive behavior gets in the way of developing intellectual skills. At age 30, they and their spouses were interviewed. ‘There is significantly more abusive behavior,’ says Eron, who’s girding for another round of assessment. ‘They don’t achieve socially, economically, or professionally. They never learned prosocial behavior, and that interferes with every activity.’ Their work histories are erratic, at best—the behaviors that make them troublesome among peers make them disruptive among co-workers. The longer the haul, the more the bully suffers.”
Jack Savage,
have you honestly got nothing better to do than fill sites with your verbal garbage? You clearly have no interest in actually reading what people have to say or even trying to justify what you say, so I can’t help but wonder, why are you here? The only logical explanation is that wasting the time of people with lives worth living is the only way you can entertain yourself. That make you feel sad Jack Savage? Or does it just make you angry and want to spew out some more nonsense?
John K says:
“What can I say? I can’t help myself. It’s a compulsion with me. I pick up the keyboard and out pops the troll.”
Well give it up then John. Your research seems to be coming up with nonsense. Don’t worry too much about it. You have obviously found someone who has done a guilt trip on you. Homosexuals do it all the time to their enemies. They love to accuse those who attempt to correct them of being homosexual themselves. It’s an old trick to try and confuse so you shouldn’t be too concerned.
No charge for the counseling. Have a nice day John.
ANON SAID: “The only logical explanation is that wasting the time of people with lives worth living is the only way you can entertain yourself.”
You obviously aren’t one of those.
But I AM entertained. Is that a problem for you?
Jack Savage,
have you honestly got nothing better to do than fill sites with your verbal garbage? You clearly have no interest in actually reading what people have to say or even trying to justify what you say, so I can’t help but wonder, why are you here? The only logical explanation is that wasting the time of people with lives worth living is the only way you can entertain yourself. That make you feel sad Jack Savage? Or does it just make you angry and want to spew out some more nonsense?
Well said, K.anonymous, my honourable cyber-acquaintance! Very well said indeed!
Here’s your reply Burped. It keeps disappearing.
“Here I am, trying to teach you about reasoning skills and blah, blah, blah….”
Give it up burped-again. I understand the fallacies and logical reasoning. You have only demonstrated that you have heard of the logical fallacies not that you actually understand them. Someone’s disagreeing with you does not mean that some logical fallacy was committed.
You have just about fryed your keyboard trying to avoid admitting that I have written the simple truth. No non-sequiturs, no false delimmas, just the simple truth. So knock off all your nonsense. OK?
#1. A samesex attack is not a heterosexual act. OK?
#2. It is a homosexual attack. No other choices are available. OK?
#3. Normal is normal so don’t ask me any stupid questions about what is “normal?”
OK?
#4. Normal people don’t do sexual attacks on anyone for revenge. OK?
#5. A samesex sexual attack is a HOMOSEXUAL attack. OK?
If you think differently than this you need help. Please don’t respond. I don’t want to hear anymore of your fallacy rationalizations.
OK?
#1. A samesex attack is not a heterosexual act. OK?
#2. It is a homosexual attack. No other choices are available. OK?
It is not a logically warranted assumption that ‘no other choices are available’. You have hence committed the false dilemma fallacy.
#3. Normal is normal so don’t ask me any stupid questions about what is “normal?”
OK?
Questions about what you mean by ‘normal’ as applied objectively to humans as a whole are not stupid. How do you expect me to treat the concept as meaningful if you don’t define it? Simply saying ‘normal is normal’ is question begging.
#4. Normal people don’t do sexual attacks on anyone for revenge. OK?
How do you expect me to treat that as a meaningful remark without defining what ‘normal’ is in this context?
If you think differently than this you need help.
Actually, Mr Savage, to me and probably both the majority of those visiting this site and of those commenting here, it really is you who needs help. It is also you who doesn’t understand logical fallacies and you who is the troll. You might think that what you spew on this site is impressive, and in a sense you are correct. However, it is not impressive because it states facts that no one else had previously thought of or had an inkling of an idea were true. Rather, it is impressive of the ridiculously outlandish and unsubstantiated assertions you come out with, the variety of logical fallacies you commit and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, and your ability to fill considerable amounts of space with it all. The end result is ream after ream of virtually unmitigated garbage with a heap of logical fallacies, and the same ones committed repeatedly to boot. That’s what is impressive.
Unless you quit trash-spewing and come out with something substantive, I shall hereafter follow the advice of John K. and the psychologists and ignore all future posts from you. It is evident, on the basis of personal experience, that neither of us has gained or is likely to gain anything substantive from this discussion, not to mention the fact that it is totally off-topic.(The article in question was about a morally questionable incident involving a 67-year-old man and three adolescent girls, not about whether an indecent assault or rape committed by one person against another of the same gender qualifies as a homosexual act). Off-topic discussions are, strictly speaking, prohibited here. We’re both fortunate that Mr Cline has not deleted our posts.