It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Predators with Ph.D.s

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by Haxsaw
 


To call gay people perverts is a disgusting homophobic slur. There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia - statements like yours are ignorant and there is no place for them on a forum such as this one.


Well, sometimes there is a direct connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. When a pedophile only likes little boys, is he a heterosexual pervert or a homosexual one? The old highschool friend I had that took 1 look at my prepubescent baby brother and told me to give him a call when he turned 18, while not fully definable as a peophile, was definately a severely perverted homosexual. The only reason he wasn't intent on messing with my baby brother was because he didn't want to go to jail for his lust.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by blocula
[ and what have they ^^^ accomplished? except funneling $$$ into the wrong "unseen" hands and to react after the fact by picking up the torn remains of their little clothes and retreive the broken pieces of their shattered little bodies and minds and what have they prevented? nothing! kids are massacred on a daily basis and hardly ever is a word even spoken in their defense...its always sex,sex,sex,...sex is the "only reason" we are here and does anyone recall the janet jackson breast incident?!...what a joke!...who cares,yet the earth shook back and forth from all the puritan gut reactions...wow!


Still failing to see the point pertaining to the OP here.
just replying to the mental illness issue that was raised above and how the only thing we ever really "react" to is sex...not war < the real evil in our society.
Considering that there's a lot of sexual violence (including pedophilia) in war, you may have a point.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Thats a sticky one for sure.

Should he punished for merly mentioning somthing at an innoproprate time?

If your bother was 2,5, 10, 16 or 17 makes a huge difference.

But the law says if your freind doesnt make any advances before a certain age of consent of your brother, its ok (law).

When you meet some old freinds and their daughter/son who was 3 the last time you saw them, and is now 9 and a pretty gril/hansome boy, is it now innapprooprate to say to the parents, "wow what a pretty daughter/hansome son you have, i bet she/he will be breaking hearts one day" Familys say it all the time out of nothing but freindly effection, its not creepy in the slightest. USA young girls beauty pagents stretch this further into the public domain where its widly accepted also as ok.

Its extremly hard to judge where exactly the lines are drawn, and all the conferences you like will leave some people unhappy.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
This was asserted as being statements directly from this conference:




Key highlights from the conference include these disturbing assertions (more disturbing excerpts available at the end of this article):
•Pedophiles are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.
•"The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational."
•There was concern about "vice-laden diagnostic criteria" and "cultural baggage of wrongfulness."
•"We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child's sexuality."
•"Children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with an adult.
•An adult's desire to have sex with children is "normative."
•Our society should "maximize individual liberty. ... We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty."
•"In Western culture sex is taken too seriously."
•"Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and 'Puritanical']. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They've always been able to have sex at any age."
• "Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization."
•A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.


Are any of these statements wrong, whether or not they were actually said?

Overview from B4U ACT
This does not sound like the quote above, so why the discrepancy?

Speaker Abstracts
Is this any closer to the quotes?

Reference work leaned on for the Symposium
Again, is there a basis for this all?

A note on Aesexual Explorations: Here



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Rekrul
 



this is just disgusting.


Thus, we -must- do something about it. Seeing as -we- find it repulsive.


Homosexuality can be moral because of the two ADULTS with ADULT minds with consent.


Speak for yourself. I find it quite repulsive and immoral as two people of the same sex cannot share the same physiological and biochemical relationship. On a biochemical level - you're short-changing yourself.

Doesn't mean you can't make it work. Women consent to living with men who abuse them all the time.

Just how does one judge an adult mind? Most grown men are children by comparison to my intellect at 14 - though I am quite socially awkward and have yet to fully mature in terms of prioritizing my efforts (I allow myself to get lost in thought far too much). In terms of relationships - I'm still a child that can be easily lured into exchanges with promises of the ideal and appeals to my desire to nurture. It's happened before, and I have yet to handle it in a manner becoming of my own self-image.

It's not candy from the back of a van - but it does the trick with me. The result is a sweeping judgement that all women have zero integrity and will gravitate towards the next 'shiny' thing in their life. In my mind - I know exactly what is going on, and that it is not the case. In my subconscious/heart/whatever - I have severe trust issues.

Sure - two consenting people over the age of 18... neither of whom really mature enough to handle the adult aspect of what they are doing.


children have no desire for sex.


What planet are you from?

Give any child an internet connection - there is one topic -all- of them will have looked up by time they are eight years old. Pretty much guaranteed.

Do they necessarily desire sex? No - but they are curious as all holy hell and will usually follow the "feel good" indicators 'designed' ensure any human being can figure out what to do with their reproductive organs, with or without any instruction.


this is just wrong.


There's a difference between wrong and ill-advised.

Any act of predation is wrong. It doesn't matter what the age groups involved are. Predation is simply self-gratification and describes many relationships that are tolerated in adult society.

Sexual relations with a child are simply ill-advised. It tends to trigger too many instincts that cannot be satisfied at such ages and places a lot on the shoulders of the older individual - often putting them in conflict with parents of said child (presuming they are present).

For example - let's say you have an orphaned young girl unofficially adopted by a young man. Where does one draw the line between the support offered to a child and the support offered in a marital relationship? I would go so far as to say the relationship between such two would be more intimate in nature than that of many spouses, simply because of the exclusive interdependence.

Let's say - for the sake of argument - the two do get sexually involved before the younger is of age, yet continue to share a mutually beneficial relationship well into adulthood.

Clearly - a case of pedophilia; statutory rape in courts.

Was it wrong? Or simply not a good idea for the elder of the two to allow such a familiarity?

Granted - there is a difference between that and someone who is almost exclusively attracted to children (the way some are almost exclusively attracted to people of a certain hair color or the like) - in which case, you are dealing with something psychological. Even if their intent is never to be predatory - the fact that people age is something of a problem unique to such a fetish.

Other people are simply predators and will prey upon people they find to be easy targets. For some, it's idealists like me. For others, it's children. This is a destructive behavior, regardless of who the target is.


Edit: i'm playing on the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are a way of life. these pedos believe that their fetish is the same.


Arguably, someone making the lifestyle choice to limit their sexual partners to children is no different than someone making the lifestyle choice to limit their sexual partners to asians or people of the same sex. The only difference is the somewhat humorous argument that children are not capable of making their own decisions.

And, yet - as people stand here and assert that their children are incapable of making decisions and understanding the consequences; they dole out various forms of punishment to their children based on the argument: "they know better!"

Just saying....



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
The entire profession of psychology would beg to differ. Not factually based? How about doing some research


What ?

Of course the entire concept of mental health is not factually based.

Psychology barely even qualifies as science, unless it has some objective neuroscientific backing, and even then, the subjective definitions of what mental processes are ''healthy'' or ''unhealthy'' are completely unscientific, and fly in the face of the principles of apparent random, directionless evolution.

Worse still, the definition of what constitutes a ''mental illness'' is heavily influenced by external social trends and malleable cultural acceptance or non-acceptance of a particular way of thinking, and is, consequently, as far from a reputable scientific concept as possible.

As I say, the only realistic way to analyse and assign properties of mental ''normality'' and ''abnormality'' is on a statistical basis. But then any belief or preference which was a statistical minority in humans could be accurately classified as a mental illness; eg. homosexuality, atheism, vegetarianism, etc.

That alone shows just how ridiculous it is to take the concept seriously on an intellectual level.

Sexuality is a perfect example. Some men are attracted to women; some men are attracted to men; some men are attracted to boys; some men are attracted to girls; some men are attracted to two or more of the above groups of people. How, exactly, can one form of sexual attraction be a ''mental illness'' while other forms of attraction are considered ''normal'' or ''healthy''. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a logical perspective.

Also, I don't need to do any research, as all I need to do is to don my thinking cap. My argument is irrefutable, and perhaps it's you who needs to give this issue an extra thought or two.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
mental illnesses are created/fabricated by tptb,then those unfortunate enough to fall into their demonized catagory end up supressed by iron fisted forms of control "act the way we tell you to act" or else...and forms of opression "think the way we want you to think" or else...and if you do not, you will be branded as being mentally unstable, an enemy of the people, to be drugged up and locked away in a hospital or prison or just another ignored suicide statistic. and in the end it always ends up being about the same damn thing, the relentless pursuit of $$$. proved by the steady flow of cash filling the pockets and bursting bank accounts of "state employed","government controlled" law makers, politicians, doctors, hospitals, police, psychiatrists, psychologists, prisons, courts, lawyers, prosecuters,dea, ect,ect,ect who reap the financial benefits and the pleasures that they bring as they, posessed by greed, willingly partake in this "modern day witch hunt", this government installed dehumanizing circus.
edit on 4-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I believe mental illness is defined as (potentialy or actually) causing some harm to the sufferer or others. Thus things like pedophilia but also for example, psychopathy are mental illnesses under this definition.


That definition would make just about everything a mental illness.

Burglars would be classed as mentally ill, both because they ''suffer'' from greed, envy and/or desperation, and because they harm the householder through their actions.

Homosexuality would be a ''mental illness'' in societies which do not fully tolerate intimate same-sex relationships, because of the suffering that the stifling of a gay person's desires may cause him or her.

Cigarette smoking is a mental illness, by that definition; eating meat is also a mental illness; unrequited love, as well.

No, sorry, that definition of mental illness is as ridiculous, unscientific and socially expedient as the actual concept of ''mental illness'' itself.


edit on 4-9-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Ok, what should happen is the authorities need to investigate every individual that showed up to this event. Check their computers of course send them to prison for a lifetime of their own medicine. I was almost abducted twice as a kid. I must have had an Angel looking out for me those days because I cringe when I think of the unlucky children who were likely abducted in my place by those individuals that day or the next. Are they alive or burried in underground somewhere. Now that I have small children of my own, I teach stranger danger and do my best to teach them how to protect themselves (part-time Martial Arts Instructor). I teach them and other children that when an adult tries to take them, yell fire if possible (but their mouths may be covered), and to hit and punch the hech out of the strangers throat, then run for their lives...as well as evasion, is extremely important...sorry to ramble but my point is, the main ways for these Pedophiles to get children to comply to their wishes is against their will, intimidation, and manipulation....sex with children should be dealt with harshly and severely. Not a meager 5 year sentence. How did the old world deal with things? Let the Family of the victim(s) have custody of the guilty party. Or and eye for an eye. This is wrong and they know it's wrong. They should be physically branded somehow to mark them, like the nazi schwatzika carved in the forehead in the film "Inglorious Basterds". Oh well, perhaps they will one day have to answer for the evil they've done. Let's see what their punishment will be in Hell....



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

What ?

Of course the entire concept of mental health is not factually based.


Psychology barely even qualifies as science, unless it has some objective neuroscientific backing, and even then, the subjective definitions of what mental processes are ''healthy'' or ''unhealthy'' are completely unscientific, and fly in the face of the principles of apparent random, directionless evolution.


Psychology and its ideas are on the most part based upon statistics, which is indeed scientific. Additionally, it's hard to argue that neuropsychology isn't a science - unless you argue that neuroscience as a whole is unfounded and unscientific. Going by the purist definition of what science should include and what it should not does not make psychology any less a science, it just makes you an arrogant purist.

The definition of what fits in to the healthy or not-so-healthy basket I will agree is subjective and based entirely on cultural norms; for example, in medieval times (and earlier) it was common place to marry girls as young as 13 whereas these days that would be considered morally reprehensible. That being said, I think that there are still certain deviations in the psyche of a person that would ubiquitously be considered as 'wrong' - the desire to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent children, for example.



As I say, the only realistic way to analyse and assign properties of mental ''normality'' and ''abnormality'' is on a statistical basis. But then any belief or preference which was a statistical minority in humans could be accurately classified as a mental illness; eg. homosexuality, atheism, vegetarianism, etc.


Agreed. As I say, psychology is heavily founded on statistical methods. However, just being a minority does not necessarily mean that what ever that minority is will be classified as a mental illness; and why should it? It's analogous to saying that all immigrants have a mental disorder because they are a minority. Last I checked, 'being Mexican' wasn't a disease.



Sexuality is a perfect example. Some men are attracted to women; some men are attracted to men; some men are attracted to boys; some men are attracted to girls; some men are attracted to two or more of the above groups of people. How, exactly, can one form of sexual attraction be a ''mental illness'' while other forms of attraction are considered ''normal'' or ''healthy''. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a logical perspective.


It does make sense, though. The attraction to one or another gender (or both) is inherent within your psyche. The term, 'illness' comes about when it is deemed that your attraction is in some way morally wrong. For a long time (and still to some degree today) homosexuality was deemed a mental illness in need of fixing, for example. The sexual attraction to minors is another example.


Also, I don't need to do any research, as all I need to do is to don my thinking cap. My argument is irrefutable, and perhaps it's you who needs to give this issue an extra thought or two.


You're wrong. Everybody needs to do a little more research. Your argument is flawed and you have no concept of what psychology actually is. Maybe take a course or two and come back to me with an informed opinion.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
This was asserted as being statements directly from this conference:




Key highlights from the conference include these disturbing assertions (more disturbing excerpts available at the end of this article):
•Pedophiles are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.
•"The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational."
•There was concern about "vice-laden diagnostic criteria" and "cultural baggage of wrongfulness."
•"We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child's sexuality."
•"Children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with an adult.
•An adult's desire to have sex with children is "normative."
•Our society should "maximize individual liberty. ... We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty."
•"In Western culture sex is taken too seriously."
•"Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and 'Puritanical']. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They've always been able to have sex at any age."
• "Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization."
•A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.




That reference is quoted from a catholic league organisation (the only reference in the whole article, in fact). It's quite obviously not true as you yourself pointed out that nothing of this nature could be found on the B4U_ACT site. Just another group pushing a bigoted and il-informed agenda, doing more harm than good.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Psychology and its ideas are on the most part based upon statistics, which is indeed scientific.


Nonsense. If psychology was a scientific, mathematically based body of knowledge, then there wouldn't even be a debate whether paedophilia was a ''mental illness'' or not, in the first place.

If it could be scientifically argued, one way or the other, using mathematical and statistical observations which relate to indisputable objective evidence, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As none of this objective evidence exists, the aspect of psychology which deals with the concept of ''mental illness'' is nothing more than pseudo-science.

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that evolution is teleological, which, using logic, means that it can not be reasonably argued that there is a ''healthy'' or ''ill'' mental state.

If you believe that a state of mind constitutes the title of ''mental illness' then you are going to have to explain the mechanism which designates that mindset as ''ill'', otherwise you are just reiterating unscientific and unjustified psycho-babble which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Additionally, it's hard to argue that neuropsychology isn't a science - unless you argue that neuroscience as a whole is unfounded and unscientific. Going by the purist definition of what science should include and what it should not does not make psychology any less a science, it just makes you an arrogant purist.


Neuropsychology is a valid science because it deals with facts which can be analysed, interpreted and accepted, repeatedly, by impartial observers in the same way.

Declaring some belief, preference or way of thinking as a ''mental illness'', without anything other than subjective, socially influenced viewpoints, is totally contradictory to science; ergo, large swathes of psychological research is completely useless, as it is nothing more than some self-affirming philosophy of a ''scientist'' who conducted the experiment. While philosophy and science shouldn't be foes, there needs to be a clear demarcation between one and the other.

Unfortunately, a lot of psychological research doesn't make this distinction, and therefore psychology mostly becomes a pseudo-science.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
sherlock holmes,you know what you are talking about and your words are intelligently stated,i agree.as well that i expressed my own opinion on what i think mental illness actually is,a few posts earlier above.mental illness is defined whatever way the tptb feel like defining it.if someones actions go against the governments agenda,they are declared mentally ill and/or unstable and through fear the vast majority,most everyone else,feels compelled to automatically agree and not make any waves.for if they object to someones reason for being declared mentally ill, they will quickly find themselves set upon the same path,that will eventually lead to them being declared as having the same mental illness.a modern day witch hunt indeed...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
The definition of what fits in to the healthy or not-so-healthy basket I will agree is subjective and based entirely on cultural norms; for example, in medieval times (and earlier) it was common place to marry girls as young as 13 whereas these days that would be considered morally reprehensible.


Precisely. So how can it be reasonably argued that psychological definitions of ''mental illnesses'' actually constitute any valid, objective or factual reality to them ?

How can psychology be deemed a science when observations and analyses are not made impartially, but are made in consideration to the pervasive social norms in which the observations are made ?


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
That being said, I think that there are still certain deviations in the psyche of a person that would ubiquitously be considered as 'wrong' - the desire to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent children, for example.


You make the assertion that paedophilia is somehow inherently ''wrong'', despite not even attempting to explain the mechanisms which would make this sexual preference ''wrong''.

You are pretty much begging the question there.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Agreed. As I say, psychology is heavily founded on statistical methods. However, just being a minority does not necessarily mean that what ever that minority is will be classified as a mental illness; and why should it? It's analogous to saying that all immigrants have a mental disorder because they are a minority. Last I checked, 'being Mexican' wasn't a disease.


Well, psychological appraisals of mental ''normality'' aren't exactly based on statistical methods, now are they ?

They are opinion based, and aided by social bias, but are not really based on science, at all.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
It does make sense, though. The attraction to one or another gender (or both) is inherent within your psyche. The term, 'illness' comes about when it is deemed that your attraction is in some way morally wrong. For a long time (and still to some degree today) homosexuality was deemed a mental illness in need of fixing, for example. The sexual attraction to minors is another example.


It doesn't make sense, because I'm arguing from a logical point of view.

What society deems as acceptable or unacceptable should be completely irrelevant to any definition of ''mental illness''.

The fact that you even admit that sexual preferences can be deemed a ''mental illness' rather blows a whole in your argument that psychology is mostly anything other than pseudo-science.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
You're wrong. Everybody needs to do a little more research.


I'm correct, because, like I've previously pointed out, my argument on this subject is irrefutable.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Your argument is flawed


Again, you are just begging the question.

Stating ( erroneously ) that my ''argument is flawed'' - without putting across any decent rebuttal to it - does not make a valid point !


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
and you have no concept of what psychology actually is.


I clearly do, as I've already shown in our discussions.

In fact, you have already conceded to all my points in relation to the large-scale pseudo-science which is involved in psychology.


Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Maybe take a course or two and come back to me with an informed opinion.


Roughly translated as:

''You've totally pwnt me in this debate, Sherlock, but I'll pretend that you haven't, in a pitiful and flailing attempt to restore some e-pride to myself''



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Sherlock, you are confusing your definitions. Psychology is not about what is and is not a mental illness. You need to separate the two terms for your argument to be valid.

In any case, you may think what you like, I am tired of arguing with your arrogance and baseless assumptions.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
okay,here we go,this link clearly explains what psychology is > en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by Haxsaw
 


To call gay people perverts is a disgusting homophobic slur. There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia - statements like yours are ignorant and there is no place for them on a forum such as this one.


Well, sometimes there is a direct connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. When a pedophile only likes little boys, is he a heterosexual pervert or a homosexual one?



Of course what you say is true. But the thinking that "Some pedophiles are homosexuals therefore all gays are perverts" is wrong, insulting and the type of dark ages thinking we can all do without. There was no need for that sort of ignorance on a supposedly intelligent discussion forum. I susspect it only goes to uncover a deep running homophobia. Well, that is not welcome here.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Children do not consent. I remember trying to scratch a person's eyes out and screaming.

This is just more psychological babble giving the criminal more rights than the victims.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 



Children do not consent.


This is going to vary from incident to incident. I can point to a thousand bad relationships and hundreds of rape cases and conclude: "Women do not consent."


I remember trying to scratch a person's eyes out and screaming.


I'm not quite certain if you are referencing a case of your own, or not, here.

It is truly unfortunate that you had that experience, and no one here is condoning the actions of a person who -forces- or -manipulates- another into sexual acts.

However, for one to have the ability to dissent also gives them the ability to consent, as well. Bear in mind - consent is not given by a lack of demonstrated dissent (IE: "no," "stop," etc).


This is just more psychological babble giving the criminal more rights than the victims.


This is not a very clear view of reality.

There once was a girl who lived next door to me - ten years my junior. She had quite the crush on me when she lived there. She and her brothers would play with my brothers - and that pretty much formed the core of most interaction I had with her.

I had to be excruciatingly careful how I acted around her - if I picked her up (for any reason) - I allowed for no mistakes in hand-placement. I made no allowance for mistakes in wording, how I sat, etc. I 'had' to get up and leave the room if her and I were alone in it.

Why? Because, God forbid, if someone ever levied a molestation charge against me, the jury would not look at "what evidence proves this young man molested this girl?" and instead look at: "did he have the opportunity to?" Worse, yet? She could testify in my defense - wouldn't do me a bit of good.

Now, I cared for this girl. I'm not quite sure where one could place my feelings, but she was smart and cute - and I would likely want to be a part of her life well into the future if we were still in contact. That said - I had (have? - it's not like she disappeared simply because she doesn't live near me anymore) respect for her and her substantially younger frame of mind. I would have stood in defense of her as though I were her father, even.

Yet, if I irked the wrong person, I could be convicted of a crime that was never committed with no evidence. Wouldn't even have to be someone from her family - some member of the church who wanted me off of a committee or what-have-you. You laugh - but that sort of stuff happens.

So - really - I have to say that I don't really like this mob-court mentality we are establishing in this country. There are people out there with a physical attraction to children -because they are children- (just like some people are attracted to blondes, asians, etc almost exclusively), and it would be nice if we could do some research to help them develop a satisfying and socially acceptable relationship. It's difficult to do that when we have mobs of people trying to paint innocent people with the same brush that colors sexual predators of all walks.

Similarly, there are people out there who have no desire to harm a child or force them into any kind of perverse activities (or to indulge a child's curiosity on the subject of sex). I don't volunteer my time with kids and teens much, anymore, because of the way this whole nonsense has gotten. I enjoy teaching kids, and everyone I've ever had dealings with appreciates the example I set and the knowledge I pass on to kids. However, I'm not about to appear in court because some teacher overheard a kid making up stories of passionate exploits to try and impress her friends.

If I'm going to stare down a mob, I'd at least like to be able justifying the indiscriminate slaughter of them by area-of-effect weapons. Thus, the logical issues of choice for me to debate are religion and politics.

If you haven't picked up on it, by now, I enjoy self-diminutive humor. It's something of a balance to my over-stated ego, both done as an attempt to illicit a humored response.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





Burglars would be classed as mentally ill, both because they ''suffer'' from greed, envy and/or desperation, and because they harm the householder through their actions.


You are thinking about Kleptomania, and yes, it is a mental illness.




Homosexuality would be a ''mental illness'' in societies which do not fully tolerate intimate same-sex relationships, because of the suffering that the stifling of a gay person's desires may cause him or her.


No, because it is not the homosexuality that is causing the harm, but intolerant society in this case.




Cigarette smoking is a mental illness, by that definition; eating meat is also a mental illness; unrequited love, as well.


There is also a condition that it has to be abnormal behaviour (statistical minority?)




No, sorry, that definition of mental illness is as ridiculous, unscientific and socially expedient as the actual concept of ''mental illness'' itself.


It is not hard science, and indeed, it is also based on cultural judgments on what constitues harm and what is normal, I can admit that.
edit on 4/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join