Something I hope Jews are willing to condemn

The most telling aspect of your anti-semetic slander is that you never actually state your accusation.

• This is a stupid fucking lie.  MIchael Castleman is one of the most prolific American writers on the subject of sex and sexuality in our lifetime.  His opiinions regarding pedophilia and unerage sex could not be better documented or more crystal clear and Castleman does not endorse sex with infants.
  
• Please provide 3 specific examples of Castleman endorsing sex with infants or apologize for bearing false witness in a public venue laying on with  the most scandalous of accusations  agasint a stranger without research or care for the harm you inflict.
  
• Please confirm you are aware that article writers almost never write magazine headlines.  That is the job of the magazine editor.  If your only, sole, weak-ass, pathetic, shitty piece of evidence is that some Psychology Today editor used the phrase "lovers of all ages" in the same sense as "gamers of all ages" or "sports fans of all ages."  then you need to apologize for your incredibly superficial and worthless reasoning.   Those phrases do not imply that infants love games or sports, they simply imply that there are multiple stages of develpment about which we may generalize.   
  
• So you can either perceive what a foolish mistake in basic magazine comprehension you have committed, or realize this means that you must prove that all Psychology Today editors are Jewish  and pro-pedophilia before attacking Judaism generally for failing to renounce all the editors at Psychology Today.  Right?
  

• Since Castleman did not write the headline, it does not serve as an example of Castleman endorsing sex with infants.
  
• Your unique interpretation of "for all ages" as necessarily suggestive of infants in spite typical English language usage is both bizarre and disposiitive for your nutty opinion.
  

• OK for you but it different for me.  I usually withhold drawing a conclusion about human behavior before a pattern is established.  3 examples is the absolute minimum necessary for establishing a pattern.  That's why a 5 paragraph essay uses 3 examples to validate a thesis. I guessed that Michael Jackson was a pedophile when I learned that he spoke to McCaulley Culkin on the phone every day but I withheld drawing a conclusion until his accusers came forward. If you form judgements about people based on a single turn of phrase in a magazine headline, you must be frequently surprised by other people's behavior
  

I thought Castlemann wrote that headline.  I still think article writers write their own headlines.

• Well , that's just faith-based foolishness since the truth of the matter is easily googled
  
• "Most readers don't realize that those who write stories, the reporters, seldom write their own headlines. They may suggest headlines, but more often space needs or other considerations force an editor to fashion something different. What's more, headlines are too often inaccurate, or biased."
  
• Writing headlines - North Dakota State University
  
• I submit that you are one of those readers who did not realize that the reporters, seldom write their own headlines.
  

The editor (if they agree with it) believes that horrible opinions as well and the editor is probably a gentile.  I will hold Gentiles to the same standard as Jews.

• Why?  What does anybody's religion have  anything to with Castleman's good health recommendation?
  

They could have said, "adults of all ages".

• But then you exclude teenagers.  And i think it important to tell teenagers particularly that actual pussy penetration doesn't need to be focus of very satisfying sex and excluding intercourse from sex is the absolutely the easiest way to  prevent unwanted pregnancies.  I am glad that Castleman addresses teenager as well and particularly.  I think you are a twit for characterizing this wisdom as pedophilia or grooming or somehow addressed to pre-teens.  Don't you value fewer unwanted pregnancies?  Are you really willing to sabatoge good sex advice to teenagers for a chance to hurl one dim-witted anti-semetic screed?
  

Over 80% of Jews have no idea who Castleman is; but once they find out about what he said, they should denounce him on this issue (same standard for Gentiles). 

• or what?  they lose your respect?  Am I supposed to believe you always thought well of the Jews before this failure to denounce the silliest possible interpreation of a magazine headline?
  

Correct; him being Jewish had nothing to do with it.

• So what the fuck then with you challenging all of Judaism to denounce the unnamed editor?.  This strongly suggests that your anger towards Judaism precedes your misinterpretation of the headline in question.
  

• Unfortunately, that is Castleman's thesis.  Your admission  that you failed to comprehend Castleman's thesis is particularly damning, in case you are wondering.
  

• But that's precisely what you said.  You didn't make any other arguments other than irrrevantly pointing out Castleman's religion and ignornantly misinterpreting a common turn of phrase as proof  of infant-fucking.
  

I meant the Jews (and Gentiles) that read my post. 

• Well, THAT's a big, fat, fucking lie.  You said Jew over and over again but never said Gentiles.  One problem arguing against bigoty is that the bigot is so willing to distort history, deny the basic shared reality.  Saying only now that you really meant Jews and Gentiles alike is a super-weak cop out.  Let's address the words in the OP and not your page 2 attenuations.
  

I mean, if you post something like, "Rand Paul did bad thing X" and you call on Rand Paul supporters to denounce Rand Paul based on thing X, nobody on this site expects their message to reach every single person that likes Rand Paul; but maybe 5 or so Rand Paul supporters, and hope that they denounce Rand Paul based on what Paul did.  Does this mean you hate Rand Paul supporters (especially if it's something that doesn't get much media coverage)?  Like the big media didn't find this article,, I happened to by pure chance; I wasn't trying to find anything like this article; I just happened too.

• No.  I mean a good debater would demand good evidence to support any claim of Rand Paul harms and no good debater would ao misconsture a scientific journal's headline as to suggest incontrovertable evidence of horrible violations of innocence.
  

• Well, first they must publicly denounce Castleman  or you are a hypocrite and since neither would be brain-damaged enough to denounce a good man at a mere mad man's request, we can't really believe you'd vote for people who just characterized as in collusion with pedophiles.
  

• You just call them pedophiles for no good reason.