Elizabeth Kates - Revision history

The Admins at 21:00, 14 March 2009

2009-03-14T21:00:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 14 March 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Kates puts forward a simple argument against the body of [[research]] demonstrating little or no long term harm arising from [[child sexual abuse]], basing it on an assumption that researchers are attempting to legitimise the sex:		Kates puts forward a simple argument against the body of [[research]] demonstrating little or no long term harm arising from [[child sexual abuse]], basing it on an assumption that researchers are attempting to legitimise the sex:

	:''"If we discovered through "research" that a significant majority of college students who had broken bones in childhood suffered no obvious long-term effects from it, would that then make it okay for adults to sock a kid on occasion and break a few ribs?		:''"If we discovered through "research" that a significant majority of college students who had broken bones in childhood suffered no obvious long-term effects from it, would that then make it okay for adults to sock a kid on occasion and break a few ribs?''

	Child abuse does often cause lasting detrimental effects, but that doesn't mean if there aren't (obviously discernable) lasting effects, it wasn't "abuse"!"''[http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/009.htm#effects]		:''Child abuse does often cause lasting detrimental effects, but that doesn't mean if there aren't (obviously discernable) lasting effects, it wasn't "abuse"!"''[http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/009.htm#effects]

	She uses her "Liz Library" website to paint researchers including [[Bruce Rind]], [[Robert Bauserman]], [[Ralph Underwager]] and [[Warren Farrell]] ("Pedophile? Or just the worst kind of two-faced opportunist there is") as advocates of child abuse, often casting doubt upon percieved "agendas". However, Kates rarely attempts to explain how said agendas interfere with the accuracy of research, and completely fails to analyse her own.		She uses her "Liz Library" website to paint researchers including [[Bruce Rind]], [[Robert Bauserman]], [[Ralph Underwager]] and [[Warren Farrell]] ("Pedophile? Or just the worst kind of two-faced opportunist there is") as advocates of child abuse, often casting doubt upon percieved "agendas". However, Kates rarely attempts to explain how said agendas interfere with the accuracy of research, and completely fails to analyse her own.

The Admins at 20:59, 14 March 2009

2009-03-14T20:59:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 14 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Elizabeth J. Kates''' is a practising Florida Attorney at Law and [[Feminism\|feminist]] who uses her website to misrepresent and attack [[child abuse]] researchers. Although Kates also holds anti-joint-custody and pro-fatherless views, her opposition to [[psychiatry]] distinguishes her from otherwise like-minded feminists.		[[Image:Kates.jpg\|frame\|Kates]]'''Elizabeth J. Kates''' is a practising Florida Attorney at Law and [[Feminism\|feminist]] who uses her website to misrepresent and attack [[child abuse]] researchers. Although Kates also holds anti-joint-custody and pro-fatherless views, her opposition to [[psychiatry]] distinguishes her from otherwise like-minded feminists.

	==Arguments==		==Arguments==

The Admins: New page: '''Elizabeth J. Kates''' is a practising Florida Attorney at Law and feminist who uses her website to misrepresent and attack child abuse researchers. Although Kates also ...

2009-03-14T20:58:52Z

New page: '''Elizabeth J. Kates''' is a practising Florida Attorney at Law and feminist who uses her website to misrepresent and attack child abuse researchers. Although Kates also ...

New page

'''Elizabeth J. Kates''' is a practising Florida Attorney at Law and [[Feminism|feminist]] who uses her website to misrepresent and attack [[child abuse]] researchers. Although Kates also holds anti-joint-custody and pro-fatherless views, her opposition to [[psychiatry]] distinguishes her from otherwise like-minded feminists.

==Arguments==

Kates puts forward a simple argument against the body of [[research]] demonstrating little or no long term harm arising from [[child sexual abuse]], basing it on an assumption that researchers are attempting to legitimise the sex:

:''"If we discovered through "research" that a significant majority of college students who had broken bones in childhood suffered no obvious long-term effects from it, would that then make it okay for adults to sock a kid on occasion and break a few ribs?

Child abuse does often cause lasting detrimental effects, but that doesn't mean if there aren't (obviously discernable) lasting effects, it wasn't "abuse"!"''[http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/009.htm#effects]

She uses her "Liz Library" website to paint researchers including [[Bruce Rind]], [[Robert Bauserman]], [[Ralph Underwager]] and [[Warren Farrell]] ("Pedophile? Or just the worst kind of two-faced opportunist there is") as advocates of child abuse, often casting doubt upon percieved "agendas". However, Kates rarely attempts to explain how said agendas interfere with the accuracy of research, and completely fails to analyse her own.

==External links==

*[http://www.florida-attorneys-at-law.com/ Practise website]
*[http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-body.html#Child%20Abuse Child abuse writings]

[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Child Advocacy]][[Category:Victims' Rights]][[Category:Cyber Activism]][[Category:People]][[Category:People: American]][[Category:People: Ranting AntiPeds]][[Category:People: Unsympathetic Activists]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]]