Boards > Lifestyle > NEWS: Archbishop Fan of Pedophile Writer

skeptik

New Orleans, LA

February 2004

APR 20, 2005 10:40 PM

skeptik said:
We make similar judgments in ignoring the results of Nazi medical research, or the Tuskegee Syphilis study - even though the results might be beneficial.
Not because the people who did it were bad, but because it is impossible to separate the results from the motivations.

Woah, wait a second. I don't follow the logic here. Although I'm not really familiar with the Tuskegee study (I did a pretty rudimentary Google search on it just now, but I don't know what use the study could be today) but I would disagree that absolutely anything should be ignored when it comes to medical research. I'm certainly not trying to justify unethical or immoral conduct, I'm simply saying that what's done is done, and we can't undo it. If there is research which can help people today, I do think it should be examined. Period. There are tons of studies which are totally immoral that are used in medicine, so I don't see how you can possibly draw a line about what is simply too wrong to even examine to see if the results could be beneficial.

I feel less strongly but similarly about books. I like Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I would recommend people read them. By doing so, I am certainly not recommending an abnormal interest in photographing little girls. I don't see why I would get up in arms about a guy being a fan of an author's who lived a morally bankrupt life.

Actually, the judgements I was referring to are the result of actual, long-drawn debates in medical ethics. In virtually all of the civilized world, both the Tuskegee study and Nazi experiments are ethically forbidden as source material, specifically because of these implications. At the end of WWII, for instance, there were intense ethical debates over whether to use the research performed on concentration camp inmates.
Those in favor said, essentially, "at least this way their sacrifice was not totally meaningless." This argument was ultimately rejected, and the unanimous view of medical ethicists since is that these results are "tainted fruit." No reputable researcher will even touch the stuff.

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 20, 2005 11:45 PM

skeptik said:
Actually, the judgements I was referring to are the result of actual, long-drawn debates in medical ethics. In virtually all of the civilized world, both the Tuskegee study and Nazi experiments are ethically forbidden as source material, specifically because of these implications. At the end of WWII, for instance, there were intense ethical debates over whether to use the research performed on concentration camp inmates.
Those in favor said, essentially, "at least this way their sacrifice was not totally meaningless." This argument was ultimately rejected, and the unanimous view of medical ethicists since is that these results are "tainted fruit." No reputable researcher will even touch the stuff.

I figured that probably was the case from what you said, but I still disagree with the ideology. I suspect these works are severely tainted studies, and therefore borderline useless, but I still think that every measure should be taken to help sick people, and that means factoring in the results of studies that are repulsive and wrong.

Although I'm sort of changing my mind as I think this through, because the problem with that whole idea is that you're going to get somebody who decides that they're going to do something "for the greater good." I suppose knowing that the results of their tests would still be taken as seriously as any others could not unreasonably be considered encouragment of such tests. If their results are going to be thrown out by the scientific community, there's no reason to do them at all.

Woo hoo! Watch me flip-flop!

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:00 AM

Alisa said:

TedKoppel said:

I feel less strongly but similarly about books. I like Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I would recommend people read them. By doing so, I am certainly not recommending an abnormal interest in photographing little girls. I don't see why I would get up in arms about a guy being a fan of an author's who lived a morally bankrupt life.

maybe i'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say but: "livng a morally bankrupt life" is a little light, isn't it? we're not talking about someone who was a drinker or an adulterer or just broke the commandments or something. we're talking about pure evil (and no i don't think that's a harsh term) and once you commit such a crime against nature you've damned your soul no matter what religion you believe in. you can't just overlook that just because you thought someone was good at their job.

Yeah, I seem to be saying things I regret a lot tonight. "Morally bankrupt" is quite light, you're right. I got sort of sidetracked and didn't really take the fact that he used those books to lure people into his home into account at all, which makes his books a means for pedophilia, which pretty well taints them. It's not really comparable to Lewis Carroll at all, who was mentioned earlier in this thread. And I can't say I don't have a problem with Victor Salva making movies. He raped (molested is such a nice word under these circumstances, so let's not use it) and videotaped a twelve-year-old boy who was in one of his early movies and has since gone on to make Powder and Jeepers Creepers. I have a lot of problems with the fact that he's still employed, with another movie coming out in 2006.

So yeah, I'm flip-flopping here too. Sue me, I change my mind when arguments are convincing.

skeptik

New Orleans, LA

February 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:09 AM

TedKoppel said:

skeptik said:
Actually, the judgements I was referring to are the result of actual, long-drawn debates in medical ethics. In virtually all of the civilized world, both the Tuskegee study and Nazi experiments are ethically forbidden as source material, specifically because of these implications. At the end of WWII, for instance, there were intense ethical debates over whether to use the research performed on concentration camp inmates.
Those in favor said, essentially, "at least this way their sacrifice was not totally meaningless." This argument was ultimately rejected, and the unanimous view of medical ethicists since is that these results are "tainted fruit." No reputable researcher will even touch the stuff.

I figured that probably was the case from what you said, but I still disagree with the ideology. I suspect these works are severely tainted studies, and therefore borderline useless, but I still think that every measure should be taken to help sick people, and that means factoring in the results of studies that are repulsive and wrong.

Although I'm sort of changing my mind as I think this through, because the problem with that whole idea is that you're going to get somebody who decides that they're going to do something "for the greater good." I suppose knowing that the results of their tests would still be taken as seriously as any others could not unreasonably be considered encouragment of such tests. If their results are going to be thrown out by the scientific community, there's no reason to do them at all.

Woo hoo! Watch me flip-flop!

If you're interested in reading further on medical ethics issues, a good start is here: Wikipedia - the Nuremberg Code. Check that out, then follow any links that interest you. This doesn't specifically mention the post-war debate about what to do with the existing data, but does illustrate the reasoning quite well (the Code was a result of the debate, not the other way around). As I said though, it's just a good start - there's a lot more material out there if you have the interest to learn about it.

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:15 AM

Thanks, that's pretty interesting.

dickie

Providence, RI

June 2004

APR 21, 2005 09:45 PM

Fancier said:

Alisa said:

TedKoppel said:

I feel less strongly but similarly about books. I like Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I would recommend people read them. By doing so, I am certainly not recommending an abnormal interest in photographing little girls. I don't see why I would get up in arms about a guy being a fan of an author's who lived a morally bankrupt life.

maybe i'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say but: "livng a morally bankrupt life" is a little light, isn't it? we're not talking about someone who was a drinker or an adulterer or just broke the commandments or something. we're talking about pure evil (and no i don't think that's a harsh term) and once you commit such a crime against nature you've damned your soul no matter what religion you believe in. you can't just overlook that just because you thought someone was good at their job.

more people should be up in arms about "little" subjects like this because then our relaxed and flippant attitudes and laws about child abuse might actually change. a child molester's works should not be endorsed by anyone; let alone someone who represents a religion. i mean... doesn't it creep you out even a little to know that he used those books and his talents at weaving tales to lure children into his world so that he could rob them of their dignity and innocence? and not only abusing their trust in him but all people for a long time to come? he was a pedo when he wrote those books so his whole intent was to use that to reach children so that he could use them for his own sick and depraved sexual release. let's not sugarcoat this or tiptoe around the real issue because pedophiles surely don't. why would you endorse those works once you know that? i mean there are thousands of writers of children's fiction that don't want to F their young readers. and whose intent is to educate and entertain them not hurt them.

Yeah it's pretty much agreed that the molester is a scumbag... but he's got a bishop on his side, and that's the part that confuses me.

He's got a bishop on his work's side. That's different.

Fancier

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 22, 2005 12:56 AM

dickie said:

Fancier said:

Alisa said:

TedKoppel said:

I feel less strongly but similarly about books. I like Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I would recommend people read them. By doing so, I am certainly not recommending an abnormal interest in photographing little girls. I don't see why I would get up in arms about a guy being a fan of an author's who lived a morally bankrupt life.

maybe i'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say but: "livng a morally bankrupt life" is a little light, isn't it? we're not talking about someone who was a drinker or an adulterer or just broke the commandments or something. we're talking about pure evil (and no i don't think that's a harsh term) and once you commit such a crime against nature you've damned your soul no matter what religion you believe in. you can't just overlook that just because you thought someone was good at their job.

more people should be up in arms about "little" subjects like this because then our relaxed and flippant attitudes and laws about child abuse might actually change. a child molester's works should not be endorsed by anyone; let alone someone who represents a religion. i mean... doesn't it creep you out even a little to know that he used those books and his talents at weaving tales to lure children into his world so that he could rob them of their dignity and innocence? and not only abusing their trust in him but all people for a long time to come? he was a pedo when he wrote those books so his whole intent was to use that to reach children so that he could use them for his own sick and depraved sexual release. let's not sugarcoat this or tiptoe around the real issue because pedophiles surely don't. why would you endorse those works once you know that? i mean there are thousands of writers of children's fiction that don't want to F their young readers. and whose intent is to educate and entertain them not hurt them.

Yeah it's pretty much agreed that the molester is a scumbag... but he's got a bishop on his side, and that's the part that confuses me.

He's got a bishop on his work's side. That's different.

And....?!

sadisticmika

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 22, 2005 08:44 AM

By the logic of this thread, the Archibishop of Canturbury MUST like kiddie porn. There simply is no other answer.

EdmundOG

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 22, 2005 09:02 AM

sadisticmika said:
By the logic of this thread, the Archibishop of Canturbury MUST like kiddie porn. There simply is no other answer.

No we're just saying that if a pedophile writes children's books, his work shouldn't be celebrated. It's like complimenting the candy he has in his van.

greenchartreuse

United Kingdom

September 2004

APR 22, 2005 03:46 PM

Haven't read the books so can't really comment on them.

BUT... 15 minutes ago on my way home from the pub, I passed the Archbishop of Canterbury leaving a tapas bar in Canterbury (where I live). Terrible terrible restaurant so I guess it shows he does have bad taste?

Brinstar

Chicago, IL

September 2002

APR 22, 2005 03:53 PM

EdmundOG said:

sadisticmika said:
By the logic of this thread, the Archibishop of Canturbury MUST like kiddie porn. There simply is no other answer.

No we're just saying that if a pedophile writes children's books, his work shouldn't be celebrated. It's like complimenting the candy he has in his van.

If it is sour skittles I will compliment it.

Fancier

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 24, 2005 03:37 PM

Brinstar said:

EdmundOG said:

sadisticmika said:
By the logic of this thread, the Archibishop of Canturbury MUST like kiddie porn. There simply is no other answer.

No we're just saying that if a pedophile writes children's books, his work shouldn't be celebrated. It's like complimenting the candy he has in his van.

If it is sour skittles I will compliment it.

Sour skittles make my right eye twitch. And I love it.

SadPanda

San Francisco, CA

April 2005

APR 24, 2005 04:21 PM

I don't think the beef is necessarily about this author being a pedophile, which is kinda not good anyway, but about a pedophile being defended by a very high-ranking man of the cloth. That's double unplus good.

Fancier

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 24, 2005 04:37 PM

SadPanda said:
I don't think the beef is necessarily about this author being a pedophile, which is kinda not good anyway, but about a pedophile being defended by a very high-ranking man of the cloth. That's double unplus good.

Indeed.

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN

June 2003

APR 24, 2005 09:04 PM

AceTracer said:

Sexdwarf said:
what the fuck, since when can a person not be two things, like, molestor/ children's author, or a ninja/fisherman.

Now you got me pondering how a ninja catches fish; damn you.

That's easy, he focuses his Ki and kills the fish with his mind, then runs across the water scooping them up with elite ninja grace.

That said, just because the guy who wrote the books was a pedophile doesn't neccesarily render the books themselves tainted.

EdmundOG

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 24, 2005 09:27 PM

Frank said:

AceTracer said:

Sexdwarf said:
what the fuck, since when can a person not be two things, like, molestor/ children's author, or a ninja/fisherman.

Now you got me pondering how a ninja catches fish; damn you.

That's easy, he focuses his Ki and kills the fish with his mind, then runs across the water scooping them up with elite ninja grace.

That said, just because the guy who wrote the books was a pedophile doesn't neccesarily render the books themselves tainted.

Even though they're children's books? I really don't see how people can't have at least a little problem with this.

Fancier

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 25, 2005 05:18 PM

Frank said:

AceTracer said:

Sexdwarf said:
what the fuck, since when can a person not be two things, like, molestor/ children's author, or a ninja/fisherman.

Now you got me pondering how a ninja catches fish; damn you.

That's easy, he focuses his Ki and kills the fish with his mind, then runs across the water scooping them up with elite ninja grace.

That said, just because the guy who wrote the books was a pedophile doesn't neccesarily render the books themselves tainted.

Not was, IS a pedophile. It's icky. Mucho.

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

APR 26, 2005 09:03 AM

EdmundOGEven though they're children's books? I really don't see how people can't have at least a little problem with this.

It's not like he whiped it out and rubbed his cock on each book before it shipped. There isn't some magical thread connecting him to those books, corrupting the children who touch them by proxy.
Now, if someone were to suggest that the writing itself was of a type that might cause those reading it to be more likely to be molested (for instance, by encouraging unsafe behaviors), then there might be a reason to not recommend the books, but then, you wouldn't want to recommend those book no matter who they were written by.

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

APR 26, 2005 09:04 AM

SadPanda said:
I don't think the beef is necessarily about this author being a pedophile, which is kinda not good anyway, but about a pedophile being defended by a very high-ranking man of the cloth. That's double unplus good.

I wasn't aware he defended anyone. I though he just said the books were good.

Luis

Preston, ID

February 2004

APR 26, 2005 09:12 AM

crispy said:
Well, at least they were girls ...

sick fuck.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 26, 2005 11:47 AM

EdmundOG said:

sadisticmika said:
By the logic of this thread, the Archibishop of Canturbury MUST like kiddie porn. There simply is no other answer.

No we're just saying that if a pedophile writes children's books, his work shouldn't be celebrated. It's like complimenting the candy he has in his van.

Celine and Ezra Pound were at worst Nazis (at best they were fascists). Knut Hamsun was a Nazi.

Does this mean that their work shouldn't be celebrated?

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

New Orleans, LA

February 2004

APR 20, 2005 10:40 PM

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 20, 2005 11:45 PM

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:00 AM

New Orleans, LA

February 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:09 AM

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

APR 21, 2005 12:15 AM

Providence, RI

June 2004

APR 21, 2005 09:45 PM

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 22, 2005 12:56 AM

sadisticmika

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 22, 2005 08:44 AM

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 22, 2005 09:02 AM

United Kingdom

September 2004

APR 22, 2005 03:46 PM

Brinstar

Chicago, IL

September 2002

APR 22, 2005 03:53 PM

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 24, 2005 03:37 PM

San Francisco, CA

April 2005

APR 24, 2005 04:21 PM

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 24, 2005 04:37 PM

Saint Paul, MN

June 2003

APR 24, 2005 09:04 PM

I'm lost

July 2004

APR 24, 2005 09:27 PM

Liechtenstein

December 2003

APR 25, 2005 05:18 PM

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

APR 26, 2005 09:03 AM

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

APR 26, 2005 09:04 AM

Preston, ID

February 2004

APR 26, 2005 09:12 AM

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 26, 2005 11:47 AM