Date: February 05, 2024
01) LINK
“Retrieving data. Wait a few seconds and try to cut or copy again.”
I condemn the countless war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed by the government of Israel.
I demand all U.S. funding and support of Israel be permanently ended, immediately.
===
Date: February 05, 2024
01) LINK
“Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave react to President Biden’s alleged comments on Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. #Biden #Israel”
…So..What does that Make You, Mo Lyin’?!!
===
Date: February 05, 2024
01) LINK
“Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden insisting there is no wider war in the Middle East as he bombs three countries in one day.”
===
|
||
| …. |
Date: February 05, 2024
“The game just released and its already on sale. They’re leaking a cheap tribute they rushed into the post-credits as well. Whatever it takes to try to salvage an utter disaster that is called Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League. But guess what? This might be a major turning point in the battle for our favorite franchises. We’ll explain why!” I can’t believe this is supposed to be part of the Arkham series. I figured it was just a non-cannon, stand alone side game. === |
…. |
…..  
|
||
Date: February 06, 2024
01) LINK
“Krystal and Saagar are joined by Amos Barshad to discuss major AIPAC donors uncovered by The Lever’s reporting.”
===
|
||
| …. |
February 05, 2024 Thanks to feinmann!
Please forgive any mispronunciations.
Excerpts from Paidika: Book Review by Benjamin Rossen Boys on their Contacts with Men: A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships (Part 2) By Theo Sandfort. (New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987). 175 pages. In the last chapter, Sandfort outlines the evolution of attitudes and the law in the Netherlands. He discusses the liberalizing trend of the ’60’s and ’70’s, during which time there was an increasing tendency to remove moral judgments from the law. Readers interested in the current political debate in the Netherlands will find this an informative chapter. The opinions of many prominent individuals and groups who have lobbied for reform over the last two decades are outlined. The political process and the behavior of the media emerge, in contrast to the considered arguments and scientific evidence contained in Sandfort’s book, as often irrational, opportunistic, and out of step with social and sexual reality. It is a sad reflection to note that the Netherlands is nevertheless, the most advanced country in the world in these matters. Finally, Sandfort concludes that, apart from the violation of moral standards, there appears to be little ground for criminalizing the kinds of relationships found in his sample. The Dutch edition of this book, published a few months ago, received favorable reviews by the popular and professional press in this country. Radio, television, and press interviews with Sandfort drew attention to his work. Sandfort’s previous hook had also been well received in the Netherlands. This was not the case in the English-speaking world, where it was largely ignored or scorned. The only American reviews I know of are vitriolic in their denunciation. One of these, written by David Mrazek, appeared in Contemporary Psychology. Mrazek concludes, “To summarize, I am inclined to describe this book as a major effort by an organized paedophile group to justify its deviant sexual orientation. In my opinion, the scientific integrity of the work is in question …”. Mrazek’ s criticism is, arguably, the most serious accusation one scientist can level against another. The substance of Mrazek ‘s criticisms warrant closer scrutiny. To begin with, Mrazek claims that Sandfort ‘s research was “designed to define the effects of adult homosexual contact on young boys”, then proceeds to criticize the work because “the design of the research is insufficiently rigorous” to answer this question. However, Sandfort did not set out to answer that question. The research was designed to find out what an unrepresentative sample of boys each had to say about his ongoing relationship, and sexual activity with an adult. Mrazek gains nothing and loses credibility by attacking straw dogs. Mrazek criticizes Sandfort’s execution of the research. “… the explicit demand characteristics of the interviews, and the bias of the interviewer are insufficiently addressed”, he writes. It is not clear what Mrazek means by ”explicit demand characteristics”. The self-confrontation method was chosen because it promotes spontaneity, and the scoring method is objective and repeatable. The interviewer had an opportunity to put leading questions during the semi-structured interviews. However, perusal of the transcripts reveals a balanced professional approach by Sandfort. Mrazek attacks Sandfort for his use of language. He writes, “The usual labels of victims and perpetrators are militantly avoided … The reader who believes that young children should be protected from the sexual advances of adults, will find the language with which the researcher describes these relationships, offensive. In these interviews the perpetrator and victim are always referred to as partners and homosexual acts … as making love.” Sandfort ‘s choice of language was determined, in part, by the words of the children. “Where the boys referred to sexual activity with their adult partner as … ‘making love’” he reported it as such. The boys frequently used this phrase as a euphemism for having sex, a euphemism that works the same way in English and Dutch. Secondly, it seems clear that referring to a couple engaged in mutually consenting activity as ‘partners’ makes fewer assumptions than Mrazek’s use of ‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’. Indeed, Sandfort should be commended for avoiding linguistic bias. Mrazek’s own use of language appears to be biased. For example, ‘sexual advances’ makes assumptions which, in the light of Sandfort’s research, do not seem to be justified. It appears that Mrazek overlooked the finding that the boys in this sample acknowledged their role in initiating sexual activity. Furthermore, it is not clear what Mrazek means by “militantly avoided”. How does one militantly avoid using a word? Perhaps this is gratuitous linguistic bias from Mrazek. The personal innuendo directed by Mrazek against Sandfort is offensive. Scientific arguments should be judged on the merits of their logical and factual integrity. Argument by authority, whether for or against, ultimately proves nothing. The methodology, raw data and conclusions are the appropriate objects of scientific criticism. Where these have been set out clearly, as Sandfort has done, there is no valid reason to allude to the supposed sexual orientation of the researcher. Furthermore, science is an enterprise which seeks to discover and describe the way things are, not the way some people think they ought to be. Effective science requires one to set aside private moral views, religious ideologies, reactions to personalities and aesthetic judgments. These principles have generally been acknowledged in scientific circles since the time of Galileo’s recantations. Nevertheless, Mrazek has spent a lot of words obliquely suggesting that Sandfort is a self-justifying paedophile. For example, Mrazek writes, “… one is confronted with the reality that the study sample are all men actively involved in the paedophile movement, who have a strong self-interest in the results of the research. Their beliefs include ‘ … it is important to realize that friendships between adults and children in which sex occurs are mostly good for both partners’ (p. 9) and that ‘paedophiles often make the best educators because of their warm interest in the child’ (p. 9). “Mrazek’s manner of quoting from the book creates the impression that these are opinions expressed by the men in the sample, or perhaps are Sandfort’s words. Reference to the book will show that the first is a excerpt from an NVSH brochure, and the second is a quote from Dr. Edward Brongersma. Who is Mrazek trying to fool? Furthermore, there were no men in the sample, which was comprised of boys between the ages of 10 and 16. The men, with whom the boys had relationships, had no influence on the outcome of the study. Mrazek claims that “the work is in part being sponsored by an organized association of paedophiles …”. This is simply not true. The research was undertaken under the auspice of the University of Utrecht, a distinguished institution which is not beholden to anyone. The NVSH, which contributed towards the research, is not an association of paedophiles. The Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sexuele Hervorming (Dutch Association for Sexual Reform) is a non-profit organization dedicated to sexual reform in all spheres, including the free and unprejudiced dissemination of information. It is, in many ways, analogous to the Family Planning Association, and has existed for over a century, offering services in education, family planning, STD clinics and counselling, as well as sponsoring workgroups for sexual minorities. It is a nation-wide, multi-faceted organization with about 8,500 members. The NVSH has a high profile and good public standing in the Netherlands. Mrazek imputes scientific infidelity to Sandfort without any justification and has offended many people in this country with his prejudicial allegations. Informed readers are likely to question Mrazek’ s scientific integrity.
Previous Parts: Excerpts from Paidika: Benjamin Rossen reviews Theo Sandfort (Part 1)…
=== |
…. |
| Sub-Blog Archive – EQF Library Archive |
||
Date: February 04, 2024
01) LINK
“At a recent campaign event, Donald Trump told followers that he was NATO’s greatest hero and that if elected he would persuade the U.S.’s European allies to beef up their funding for the Ukraine War to match what the U.S. currently spends.
Guest host Russell Dobular is joined by Due Dissidence’s Keaton Weiss and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger to discuss whether Trump is backtracking on his pledge to end the war “in 24 hours.”
===
Date: February 04, 2024
01) LINK
“James Li breaks down the shocking purpose behind Israel’s ‘free’ birthright trips.”
===
Date: February 04, 2024
01) LINK
“This video answers the question: Can I analyze case of Justin Mohn?”
===
Date: February 04, 2024
01) LINK
===
Our Love Frontier 