just judging by the news. catholic priests, Sandusky, etc. it seems to overwhelmingly male on male.
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
that proves nothing. it seems like they're changing terminology to suit their argument.
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
I didn't read it until just now. But, holy shit, one dude had a sliding scale that lumped everyone in: varying degrees of how much a pedo everyone is (with the extreme ends being either a complete interest in only children or a complete interest in only adults). That...could work, I guess. But the vast majority of the population would fall on the adult end so I am not too sure how such a sliding scale would be useful?
But, I would note that author of that writing is clearly bias in favor of homosexuals. I don't think genuine research can be done in this area without ethics being called into question and rightly so.
pretty much. it's not valid. people try real hard to avoid explaining the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
To answer the question of why catholic priests or someone like Sandusky might target males instead of females, the answer might be as simple as opportunity.
In general, little girls are not left with adult men as often as boys are. I'm not sure the correlation between male adults and male victims exists in the first place, but if it did, a comparison to cases of incest might be telling, as those adult males would hypothetically have more opportunity to take advantage of females.
Anyways, to the broader topic, the DSM is not a book of theories, but of applied groupings of symptoms into treatable groups. It isn't meant to say anything about the conditions themselves, especially in terms of their origins, and this is one of the primary reasons why psychiatry is trying to move toward more biologically defined terminology and classification of disorders, so whatever old versions may or may not have said about homosexuality, it was only doing so in terms of "how to treat", not "this is why someone is homosexual".
Going broader still, the conception people have about human sexuality is based on a variety of things that psychology and neuroscience has jettosened in terms of understanding the motivations and choices people make. For instance, I don't agree with the degree of plasticity DDM describes in his take on sexuality, but more core to the issue, using terms like "choice" and the like in the first place is almost at the level of "pop-psych". My issues with his definitions would be much more about how we are talking about humans acting and choosing rather than about how a scale of sexuality is defined. It actually cuts to some of the more unsettling discoveries in psychology, and ones that are entirely counter intuitive, but when we are talking about the origins of something like sexual preference it is a required level of nuance. People have very little control over the choices and actions they feel they decide to make, and this feeling of ownership over one's choices and actions is a product of very specific neurological systems that give us this sense for reasons that were biologically necessary for our species survival. To talk about how one's experiences shape their sexuality, we really have to drop the dualist concept of consciousness altogether, but then we are having a very different conversation.
Of course, I disagree. I think choice and thinking about choices (past and potential future choices) can affect pretty much everything. That's mostly because it is true in the most literal sense.
Let get more specific because everybody likes to talk in vague terms to avoid arguments while appearing smart:
If you think that going to a steamy gay club will be a poor choice for what direction you want to take your sexuality and could influence your sexuality, you could be right and by choosing not to go to that club, you may not experience that aspect of your sexuality WHICH IS STILL THERE even if you don't make that choice to pursue that aspect of your sexuality. That's an example of "indirect" and could be twisted into "direct", as I was describing, earlier.
That is an extremely crude example, obviously. I feel you marginalize choice and overemphasize the idea of pseudo-consciousness (meaning it is an illusion) and this is definitely not the first time you've done so.
Nobody gives a sh*t anymore. The mods are on a skeleton crew anyway. If a sock wants to come "troll" a low-population forum, with mostly members who won't actually get upset at anything he says (which is the usual point of trolling, yeah?), and in doing so waste his own time, the joke's on him.
I've long wondered whether the worst punishment for socks would be just to ignore them and leave them be on KMC. With us, we're actually interacting and discussing stuff. Not always productively, but at least it's fun or informational. With someone who's deliberately trolling, they aren't interacting meaningfully, so by definition they're wasting their own time more than anyone's. A meta punishment, I realize, but way more cruel long-term imo.
Oh, I agree. But I have a bad history with one particular mod that I do not want to tempt. So I try to avoid trouble. The whole "mens rea": if I engage and shit up a thread with lengthy replies when I clearly knew it was a sock troll, then I come under condemnation when my "last straws" are no longer there.
The Book of Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C.
(Prophesy)
Isaiah 61:1-2 61 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord...."
The Messiah (i.e. Anointed One) Jesus Christ fulfilled the above prophecy 700 years later:
(Fulfillment)
Luke 4:16-22
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”
Bring your bondages, your hang ups, your troubles, your shortcomings, your inadequacies, your addictions, and the things that oppress you to Jesus Christ.
He is the Anointed Savior, anointed to deliver you from the things that hold you captive, including homosexuality, sodomy, pedophilia, incest, lesbianism, bisexuality, and all manner of sexual immorality and sin, no matter how heinous.
Give your heart and life to the One Who loves you and gave His life for you. Ask Jesus Christ to save you from your sins.
Aug 17th, 2013 05:39 PM
