Protect Our Children PLEASE Read

Forum Sponsor
Oh there's the next chapter in your best selling novel!

What a riveting tale! Great thread.. can't wait for the next installment.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 
LePhillou said:
Im also still waiting for an Entry in DSM IV indicating that homosexuality is a mental disorder as all known disorders are pretty much all listed there...
Click to expand...

It was at one point listed in the DSM. But the mainstream psychological community long ago gave up the notion of homosexuality as a mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

(sorry it's Wiki, but it's a pretty good summary)
 
knowledge said:
Biggest flaw in your argument is that the whole thing hinges on rape as an instinct. You're drawing an analogy to 2 things that aren't comparable.

WTF does homosexuality's moral harm to society have anything to do with it being genetic or trained?

But I think my biggest WTF is:

I'm so motha****ing lost right now. I think I'm just gonna tap out lol
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Instinct is a sliding scale. The fact that men rape or relate sex to violence more than women is a gender specific trend. Though females do sometimes do it, often they do it, partnering with males who take the lead. This trend must be rooted in something gender specific....perhaps a male propensity for violence and domination, perhaps it becomes conflagrated with heightened arousal during acts of violence. The answer is not clear, but warrants investigation. Rape however is a very bold action. It is hard to hide rape. It doesn't have that "slow cook" that other disorders do. Once rape is committed a certain point of no return is crossed and it may kick off an escalated slide into the disorder. Read the novel Crime and Punishment to see what I mean.

Paedophilia is a "slow cook" disorder in that it often doesn't start with a full on sexual encounter with a child, but slowly develops as the mind becomes accustomed to it and is able to increase the sophistication of publicly hiding the acts. It's like easing into a hot tub. Again Paedophilia is much more prevalent among men. What does this suggest?

On the surface it could suggest genetic trends. Let's for a moment run with that. Even if it were a genetic predisposition, would it be societally tolerable? No! The level of harm an action causes regardless of motive is what determines it's level of societal acceptability.

That is why I say whether or not homosexuality is genetic or is a choice, it is moot. If the action is harmless, it doesn't matter why you did it. If the action is harmful, again, it doesn't matter why you did it. Culpability matters with respect to punishment, not whether the act is acceptable to society.

So back to the point that I made earlier....the issue of homosexuality is not about choice vs instinct. It is about social harm. You can debate all day about homosexuality being genetic or not, it doesn't matter. That is a smoke screen argument to gain acceptance. Would you allow a paedophile to execute his sexual (genetic) preference if it were determined he was "born that way"? Of course not, but his motive would factor in how you correct or punish his behaviour.
 
Last edited:
caboose483 said:
Oh there's the next chapter in your best selling novel!

What a riveting tale! Great thread.. can't wait for the next installment.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

If you choose not to participate in dialog you lose the right to criticize rhetoric. Lace up and get in the game champ.
 
rmemedic said:
You do realize that there have been studies (talking MRI imaging and the like) on the brains of straight and gay people and there are actual differences right? I would say this makes people born that way.
Not every gay person has this change, and sometimes their sexual orientation develops from things in very early childhood.

Yep correct. I would like to see MRI scans done at birth to prove the "born this way argument" as MRI scans done after post pardon development still leave enormous gaps for societal factors to affect brain development and neuron connections. There was even a recent study carried out advising against excessive reliance on pacifiers for newborn boys as it may adversely affect development of the male brain.

I hate to use a negative example, but you can look at serial killers. Some do suffer from changes in the brain that make them capable of doing what they do, while some are physically "normal" but certain things in their developing years directed them to be that way. It's not just a choice, it's not something that can be turned on and off. It just plain and simple is the way things are.
It is just that simple. We can't go back to electric shock therapy to get them back to "normal" it's been attempted with no results. No amount of preaching in whatever religion will "save" them. Just let them be who they are. I guess you don't understand how to really accept people... Surprising with how you assimilate yourself with such a "peaceful" religion.

I am well aware of electroshock therapy. Someone close to me suffered from late onset depression and ultimately committed suicide. No amount of logic could bring them back from hormonally clouded spirals of negative thought. She was in fact as you put it...."the way things are". I cannot condone suicide not the less, but I do not hold her responsible. She was not born depressed, or rather bi-polar....it was a late development and none the less radically affected the way she perceived reality. It also manifested itself in ways such as hoarding and extreme over confidence at times. Her behaviour was often attempted to be corrected in ways that were forced, as society could not deal with her natural state. Medication, electroshock, loss of power of attorney, forced confinement, etc. The level of harm she posed to society and herself was the sole determining factor in the decision to prevent further incidents, but the motivation behind her actions were what informed the remedial actions to reform her character. If her actions were as a result of free will, she would have been imprisoned a few times over. So once again I stress the human mind is not set in stone at birth because of a few anecdotal MRI scans done several years later at the age of sexual maturity.

The peace issue has been addressed in another thread. I am no apologist. We can discuss it further if you like in a more topical location or manner. The issue of acceptance can also be further explored as it too is relative and a sliding scale. "Tolerance" is NOT acceptance. There are diametrically opposing ideas out there and at times they cannot coexist.

I like the batman/god analogy btw. But I feel more likely I'll see a bat sign in the sky than some bearded guy.

Your understanding is limited by sight? Even Batman enhanced his senses with his cellular sonar matrix (he didn't really...I am not stating a real life fact...Batman doesn't exist...but science does exist and it does augment and enhance our senses to know that which we otherwise could not!).
Click to expand...

Comments in bold above. Good points, I enjoy the dialog.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
Comments in bold above. Good points, I enjoy the dialog.
Click to expand...

On that note, I think I run the risk of repetition, monopolization, digression and so on. If you want to take up any off shoot topics pm me, otherwise I think I'll bow out and leave the final word to some of my worthy debaters. Thanks to all those who kept it intellectual, polite, civil and even a little humourous.

I yield the remainder of my time, the floor is yours ;)
 
LePhillou said:
hehe thats exactly why i mentionned it,

i knew it was in DSM III but had been removed since
Click to expand...

I figured you knew, but I thought maybe that link would be educational for some other posters.

Although I have a sneaky feeling that they have absolutely ZERO interest in informing themselves...
 
Not afraid to admit when I'm clueless... What is this DSM?
To me it means "domestic swine model"... Basically when we use pigs for practice.
 
LePhillou said:
Im also still waiting for an Entry in DSM IV indicating that homosexuality is a mental disorder as all known disorders are pretty much all listed there...
Click to expand...
Wasnt it listed there once and then removed?

awyala said:
Sorry, I tried to keep it short.
Click to expand...
You probably know this but its hard to keep your readers focused if you do not stick to the point.

You do bring up valuable points but it feels like if u drift off into another thought sometimes.

I wont bring this up again


Sent from my phone using my paws
 
RockerGuy said:
Wasnt it listed there once and then removed?


You probably know this but its hard to keep your readers focused if you do not stick to the point.

You do bring up valuable points but it feels like if u drift off into another thought sometimes.

I wont bring this up again


Sent from my phone using my paws
Click to expand...

Fair point. Sometimes I drift because debate is a thinking and growing process. I don't have it rehearsed. Also things are interconnected and can lead to stimulating thought diversions.

I take on board your comments, so its an organic unpolished process. I don't see you so much as my audience as I do participants in discourse.

My comment was off topic to try to stay true to my "yielding of the floor" pledge.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
FR was of course a joke about over committing to one's role as an actor, for it loses the the respect of the Academy Awards. Somehow acting like a full retard loses the viewer. It must ultimately be brought back to a base line, which is of course the message of the medium. With film the medium is entertainment, and no one wants to watch a full on display of the best rendition of a retard.

Hence the joke....that the actor was over committing.

Is this thread over committed? For some yes! This forum is ultimately for the purpose of discussing motorcycles. But then again, a lot of threads are spawned and exhausted with little to no reference to motorcycles.

Is this forum restricted to entertainment alone? Quite possibly. In that case delete the thread, cause as it stands, the opening of the subject was "full retard" in the first place.

But once it has been opened and accepted, why be limited by a deliberate cap on the depth of the discussion? To what end?

So at this stage I say, go FR, because it has already passed the point of motorcycles and entertainment.

Debate and discussing hot topic issues is not for the purpose of winning friends and entertainment, it is for the purpose of growth and resolution. In this sense, one should not be shy to go "FR". But if one is more concerned with appearing acceptable, then by all means, keep one's quips short, superficial and comically snarky.
Click to expand...

Do you realise that you just performed a entymological dissection of the "full retard" meme in an attempt to clarify your previous statement?

Do you think clarification was acheived?
 
LePhillou said:
Posts 202, 207, 208 on the thread :)
Click to expand...

I don't know how that happened, but I missed the later posts. It won't ever happen again

awyala said:
Fair point. Sometimes I drift because debate is a thinking and growing process. I don't have it rehearsed. Also things are interconnected and can lead to stimulating thought diversions.

I take on board your comments, so its an organic unpolished process. I don't see you so much as my audience as I do participants in discourse.

My comment was off topic to try to stay true to my "yielding of the floor" pledge.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, once I had a similar problem while doing persuasive writing. Not my strength

fastar1 said:
Do you realise that you just performed a entymological dissection of the "full retard" meme in an attempt to clarify your previous statement?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the hell that means, but I just LOLz :lmao:
 
fastar1 said:
Do you realise that you just performed a entymological dissection of the "full retard" meme in an attempt to clarify your previous statement?

Do you think clarification was acheived?
Click to expand...

The reference is deeply nested in the first instance as quoted from the dude playing a dude, disguised as another dude, as portrayed by Downey Jr. I enjoyed delving into its layered etymology and revelling in its ambiguity. It was poorly referenced in the first place is my point.

But thanks for noticing. An English teacher instilled a passion for cliche busting...or rather, understanding. This meme is cliche bound already no?
 
There's a hell of a lot of people on here that are full of themselves, and you are their king.
 
fastar1 said:
Do you realise that you just performed a entymological dissection of the "full retard" meme in an attempt to clarify your previous statement?

Do you think clarification was acheived?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any ambiguity about whether or not this thread has gone FR.

So I suppose some clarification was achieved.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 
FullMotoJacket said:
There's a hell of a lot of people on here that are full of themselves, and you are their king.
Click to expand...

How exactly is he full of himself? He's actually taking the time to explain himself and is open for debate. All that he is being met with is half assed snide remarks. The mans got a lot of patience dealing with some people on here who claim to be more enlightened than him, but lack the ability to explain their stance.
 
RandomHero said:
How exactly is he full of himself? He's actually taking the time to explain himself and is open for debate. All that he is being met with is half assed snide remarks. The mans got a lot of patience dealing with some people on here who claim to be more enlightened than him, but lack the ability to explain their stance.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't actually tried to make sense of his "explanations"?

You should have a look at the history of discussions he's had here before sticking up for him. He's received plenty of rational responses to his uniquely discordant views on a variety of subjects, and he always persists in trying to defend even the most absurd incongruences that are pointed out to him. He talks as if he has all the answers and has repeatedly shown that he has no capability to even consider that he may be wrong.

"Full of himself" is a pretty accurate description, and posting walls of text does not make his arrogance any more excusable.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom