Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
CNSNews.com ^ | 6/11/03 | Lawrence Morahan

Posted on 06/11/2003 2:18:54 AM PDT by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-276 last
To: Qwerty
For you, I have four words: "Historical perspective--get some.

"Most people have kids, or at least nieces and nephews. No one likes the idea that an adult would be able to have sex with them. It will NEVER gain popularity."

That's exactly what they said about SSAD.

"Homosexuality was different, because a lot of straight people have homosexual friends or family members who they loved and who seemed just like them."

Except that they like to nail teenage boys in the butt, that is.

Applying a little historical perspective to this, one sees that this business of SSAD sufferers seeming "just like" healthy people is a *very* recent phenomenon, and resulted from a propaganda campaign that outstripped anything the Soviets did in terms of both scope and success.

I can remember when nobody thought that SSAD sufferers were "just like them."

"No one relates to a pedophile in such a way."

Do you really think a SSAD sufferer who likes 15-year-old boys is repelled by one who likes 12-year-old boys?

"The victimization of children will always be the most horrible crime."

Yeah, and tulip bulb futures will never fall. Sex with children has not always been *regarded* as "the most horrible crime" in all places and times, while homosexual behavior *has* been regarded as a horrible crime.

On what is based your confidence that the forces of evil, which have misled a vast swath of our society into believing that homosexual behavior is harmless, cannot mislead that same swath into "tolerance" of sex with children?
251 posted on 06/14/2003 8:54:13 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"this is where you've assumed your conclusion and built additional arguments around it."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadada yadada yadada. I reached that conclusion over decades of observation and studying the problem.

Recasting a person's considered opinions and observations as "assumptions" is as common in certain quarters as it is tiresome, but it is neither valid nor honest.

"Unfortunately, facts do not bear out your conclusion."

Unfortunately, they do.

"but I doubt that you'll be able to demonstrate that this applies universally to all homosexuals."

Now that I know I'm dealing with someone who tries to recast conclusions as "assumptions," I doubt I could "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that water is wet, even by throwing you in the ocean.
252 posted on 06/14/2003 9:05:32 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
50 years ago, as an 18 yr old, I worked for CID, Dept. of the Army, at BAMC, SA,TX. The major in charge of our office thought I was too young and innocent to be taking statements from criminals, so he sent me over to interview with a Psychiatrist to be her secretary. I came back and told him "No, way!. That woman is crazy and scary."

Truly vindicated, at last.

vaudine
253 posted on 06/14/2003 9:13:41 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Alright. Present your proof that every single person with same-gender attraction expereinced molestion or, at the very lest, seduction as a child/teenager.

I could counter with several people whom I've met who weren't molested, but you'll just claim that they are lying about it which I suppose makes your position undefeatable simply because of your incredible arrogance.
254 posted on 06/14/2003 9:18:04 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"...but you'll just claim that they are lying about it which I suppose makes your position undefeatable simply because of your incredible arrogance."

Well, I saw a couple of notes ago that this is where you were headed.

So far we've sunk from recasting observations as "assumptions" to "incredible arrogance"...by which one must assume you mean the incredible arrogance to disagree with you.

I don't care to walk any further down that path.

By the way, if you're the kind of person who can get people to talk to you, under the right circumstances you would be able to get your friends to admit to you that they were in fact molested or seduced.

Bye now.
255 posted on 06/14/2003 10:21:56 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Well, I saw a couple of notes ago that this is where you were headed.

In other words, you saw that I wasn't going to accept your assertions without real-world evidence, so you weren't surprised that when you claimed that homosexuality is always, without exception, caused by childhood sexual trauma I requested that pesky thing called "evidence", and now you've decided that I'm totally unreasonable because I don't accept your unsupported assertions as totally infallable.
256 posted on 06/14/2003 10:33:22 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"In other words, you saw that I wasn't going to accept your assertions without real-world evidence"

No, I saw you were headed toward personal rancor, and toward the infinite "dueling sources" loop that wastes so much time on the Internet.

I think that the most a person should expect from on-line debate is food for thought. Decisions on important matters should not be based solely on such a limited flow of information. It's up to the individual to follow up with research, thought, discussion, and all the other things that go into the formation of a considered opinion.

When someone challenges an opinion of mine *with*an*argument*I*haven't*already*examined*thoroughly, my first reaction is to try and determine whether that argument is valid.

As a result, since I first started participating in online discussions on UNEWS around 1990 or so, I have changed my opinions on abortion, divorce, sexual morality, religion (although other things also went into that one), legalization of drugs, the UN, and maybe some things that don't come to mind right now.

I had had strong opinions on these matters. Nobody "proved" on line that I was wrong, but they advanced assertions that I was morally obligated to deal with off line, to explore until I knew why they were valid or why they were not.

This explains why one of the Twelve Commandments of Flaming (No. 6.) is, "Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying."

Demanding "proof" on line, except perhaps for the very simplest of issues, is not a reasonable thing to do, but is rather an indication that the other fellow is fighting to "win" rather than fighting to find the truth of the matter.

There is a world of difference between asking "Why do you think that?" and demanding that someone "prove that." For one thing, there is no amount of proof that cannot be declared "inadequate," and no source that cannot be pronounced "unreliable."

For another, an interested person discussing in good faith would presume that the other fellow must have *some* reason for thinking as he does, rather than presuming that only "bigotry" or "hatred" could underly such an opinion, and so would be asking the first question rather than demanding the impossible.

A demand for "proof" is prima facie unreasonable, and an indication of bad faith.

"you've decided that I'm totally unreasonable because I don't accept your unsupported assertions as totally infallable."

No, I've decided that you're being unreasonable on this issue for the reasons explained above. And, if one needed more support, your malicious attribution to me of delusions of infallibility would pretty much close the case.

And I just realized that you got me. Tired and busy as I am, I completely forgot that I had decided not to respond further. Oh, well, a slip is not a fall.
257 posted on 06/14/2003 11:22:09 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: dsc
"Except that they like to nail teenage boys in the butt, that is. "

What about heterosexuals who try to nail teenage girls? Also, plenty of adult homosexuals don't try to "nail" teens. I don't, for one.

"Do you really think a SSAD sufferer who likes 15-year-old boys is repelled by one who likes 12-year-old boys? "

Maybe not, but I am repelled and so are most people.

"On what is based your confidence that the forces of evil, which have misled a vast swath of our society into believing that homosexual behavior is harmless"

Homosexual behavior is harmless, by itself. Promiscuity on the other hand...

"cannot mislead that same swath into "tolerance" of sex with children? "

Oooh.. I smell a bet...

258 posted on 06/15/2003 5:37:34 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I'm not sure which 'reply' to respond to, but I'm pretty sure I can't, either. Not because it's full of such stunning logic and incredibly gripping rhetoric, but because it's simply reinforcing what you (and I said before), and that's that you simply can't admit your theocrat leanings.

"Be afraid, Jesus says, be VERY afraid, burning alive isn’t even close. "

"All the citizens didn't heed Lot's warning and, therefor, like you and the rest of the pro-sodomy supporters that cohere may receive the same fate."

If you wish to establish laws based upon Scripture, admit it and come out of the closet already. If you're saying that private action is just that, then how about you admit that these folks have every right to do what they're doing? The APA isn't a government body. It isn't even an association of American psychiatrists. It's a group of left-wing American psychiatrists. What does their behavior have to do with good government?

I remember three parts of the New Testament that you forget, and I'll always consider Jesus' words more important than anything that came before him.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Before you pluck the mote out of your brother's eye, pluck the mote out of your own."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Of course, I also remember a favorite Bloom County quote:

Chairwoman Tippy: "Well, Mr. Dallas, we've heard your smut masquerading as songs, and we've heard how teen prostitution, pregnancy, drug use, cults, runaways, suicide and poor hygiene are sweeping this nation. We thought you might like to share with the committee any particular causes you might see for those latter problems."

Steve Dallas: "I dunno. Maybe the proliferation of narrow, suffocating zealotry masquerading as parenting in this country."
259 posted on 06/15/2003 7:03:02 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Leviticus is a very long chapter. How come only part of it still counts? There's mote in YOUR eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
"What about heterosexuals who try to nail teenage girls?"

Most people find them repellent, however, they are a much smaller segment of the healthy population than SSAD sufferers who engage in those behaviors.

"I don't, for one."

If I had known I was talking to a victim of SSAD, I wouldn't have engaged.

"Also, plenty of adult homosexuals don't try to "nail" teens...but I am repelled and so are most people."

Don't find that credible, sorry.

Bye now.
260 posted on 06/15/2003 8:55:11 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: dsc
"If I had known I was talking to a victim of SSAD, I wouldn't have engaged."

But here you are, continuing. And if you consider me a "victim", why the reluctance to speak with me?

but I am repelled and so are most people. "Don't find that credible, sorry."

You're free to believe whatever ridiculous garbage you like.

261 posted on 06/15/2003 10:27:11 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
"And if you consider me a "victim", why the reluctance to speak with me?"

Oh, not to speak in general, but to attempt a rational discussion of this issue. As to why that:

There’s an anecdote that goes around psychology and psychiatry departments. A new clinical psychologist/psychiatric resident (depending on where you hear it) became fascinated with a case on his ward—a schizophrenic who suffered from the delusion that he was dead. The young doctor decided to have a go at talking him out of it.

“So, you’re dead, are you?”
“Yup. Dedderna doornail.”
“Well, tell me, do dead people bleed?”
“No, dead people don’t bleed.”

Thereupon, the young doctor whips out a needle, stabs the schizophrenic patient in the finger, and shows him the blood. The patient looks at it in puzzlement for a few seconds, then says in wonder, “Well, what do you know? Dead people do bleed.”

That’s why.

"You're free to believe whatever ridiculous garbage you like."

I'm also free to believe the evidence of my senses, no matter how desperately the agenda-driven insist otherwise.
262 posted on 06/15/2003 10:51:03 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: dsc
"I'm also free to believe the evidence of my senses, no matter how desperately the agenda-driven insist otherwise."

The evidence of your senses tells you that lesbians are all interested in molesting children?

263 posted on 06/15/2003 11:06:13 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
"The evidence of your senses tells you that lesbians are all interested in molesting children?"

Well, what do you know? Dead people do bleed.

I'm done here.
264 posted on 06/16/2003 12:11:37 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
Also, plenty of adult homosexuals don't try to "nail" teens. I don't, for one.

I think that dcs has already addressed this. "Obviously" when you make this claim, you are lying as is any homosexual who makes a similar claim. We know this is true because the infallable dcs has made the proclamation, and it is "rude" to demand that he back up his universal libel with evidence.
265 posted on 06/16/2003 10:21:51 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: dsc
"Well, what do you know? Dead people do bleed."

Your statement that all homosexuals are molesters is ridiculous.

266 posted on 06/16/2003 2:19:12 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
And you continue to demonstrate why I wouldn't knowingly try to have a rational discussion on this issue with a SSAD sufferer.

Firstly, although only a male can "nail" anyone under any circumstances, and we are therefore clearly talking about male SSAD sufferers, you introduce the subject of lesbians in a dishonest and puerile attempt to discredit a statement about males.

Clearly, women molest in very small numbers.

Then you try to recast a wisecrack with a lot of truth in it into an extreme absolute that, as it is not subject to "proof" simply in the nature of things, can easily be denied and mocked.

By the standards applied by the malicious and dishonest, we can't even "prove" that all rattlesnakes are venomous without individually examining each snake. After all, they assert, there might be lots of non-venomous rattlers out there, and you don't know until a "scientific study" is performed.

The dishonesty with which SSAD sufferers invariably address this subject bears out St. Peter Damian:

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because: "Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust: It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise . . . It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity . . . It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things . . . This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God . . . She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice. . . she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire . . . this unfortunate man is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened."
267 posted on 06/16/2003 5:43:19 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
And you continue to demonstrate why I wouldn't knowingly try to have a rational discussion on this issue with a SSAD sufferer.

Firstly, although only a male can "nail" anyone under any circumstances, and we are therefore clearly talking about male SSAD sufferers, you introduce the subject of lesbians in a dishonest and puerile attempt to discredit a statement about males.

Clearly, women molest in very small numbers.

Then you try to recast a wisecrack with a lot of truth in it into an extreme absolute that, as it is not subject to "proof" simply in the nature of things, can easily be denied and mocked.

By the standards applied by the malicious and dishonest, we can't even "prove" that all rattlesnakes are venomous without individually examining each snake. After all, they assert, there might be lots of non-venomous rattlers out there, and you don't know until a "scientific study" is performed.

The dishonesty with which SSAD sufferers invariably address this subject bears out St. Peter Damian:

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because: "Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust: It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise . . . It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity . . . It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things . . . This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God . . . She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice. . . she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire . . . this unfortunate man is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened."
268 posted on 06/16/2003 5:44:01 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"and it is "rude" to demand that he back up his universal libel with evidence."

Not "rude," maliciously dishonest. Just like your recasting of your demand for "proof" as a demand to back up with evidence, and your restatement of my answer as a claim that your demand was "rude," rather than unreasonable and dishonest.

I think I already provided some "evidence." Or maybe that was another thread.

Anyway, if you want evidence that SSAD sufferers act on their attraction to the young all out of proportion to their numbers, start with the fact that they commit around a third of all sex offenses involving minors.

The other 98 percent of the population is responsible for the other two thirds.

Let's just round off to one third and two thirds for the sake of discussion.

98-->66
02-->33

See any disproportion there?

And that's without even going into the question of under-reporting.

Now, I have really got to disengage from this tar baby.
269 posted on 06/16/2003 5:53:34 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I think I already provided some "evidence." Or maybe that was another thread.

Wherever it was, I didn't see it. Of course, you claimed earlier that much of your evidence amount to "observation", which would put it in conflict with someone whose "observation" has brought them to a different conclusion. Why should I believe you over them?

start with the fact that they commit around a third of all sex offenses involving minors.

Just out of curiousity, from where did you derive this stat?
270 posted on 06/16/2003 6:03:38 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: dsc; Qwerty
By the standards applied by the malicious and dishonest, we can't even "prove" that all rattlesnakes are venomous without individually examining each snake. After all, they assert, there might be lots of non-venomous rattlers out there, and you don't know until a "scientific study" is performed.

Just like I said, it's "rude" to ask that he provide any real evidence for his universal libel. It should be assumed that all homosexuals, without exception, are child molester wannabes and that any who might not be should be considered a rare exception and only if their existence can be verified. Of course, then it breaks into a religious rant that has no meaning to someone who isn't a Christian.
271 posted on 06/16/2003 6:07:13 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Just like I said, it's "rude" to ask that he provide any real evidence for his universal libel."

Actually, he provided some sort of story about a mental patient and his doctor... it sealed everything up nicely.

;-)

272 posted on 06/16/2003 8:41:07 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
I'm sure the chickenhawks appreciate the cover you give them.
273 posted on 06/16/2003 8:43:13 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
I told you. One step closer.
274 posted on 06/16/2003 8:55:05 PM PDT by gitmo (When this is over I'm gonna need some serious therapy. Lookit my eye twitch. Didya see that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I guess that a discussion like this wouldn't be complete without the coward Kevin Curry to come forth, shout out a proclamation of what everyone else "really" believes and then run off without defending it.
275 posted on 06/16/2003 10:00:40 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-276 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson