February 7, 2012

Pedophilia Is Normal, Because Otherwise It's Abnormal

Operation_Protect_Our_Children_banner.jpg
i ain't going out like that

Allen Frances, M.D. is a Duke psychiatrist.  If you're not particularly interested in psychiatric politics, then the only thing you need to know about him is that after he dies, psychiatry goes full Foucault. 

Hebephilia-- the sexual attraction to post-pubescent children, is currently being proposed for inclusion into the DSM-V as a disorder.  Should it be considered a mental disorder?  (This is different than asking if it should be a crime.)

Allen Frances writes that hebephilia shouldn't be in the DSM because hebephilia is normal.

The basic issue is that sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual. Until recently, the age of consent was age 13 years in most parts of the world (including the United States) and it remains 14 in many places. Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction. For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent.

However, he still thinks it is a crime:

It is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment.

II.

If you're surrounded by carpenters, everything becomes about hammers.

Frances and the debate teams are mostly forensic guys, which means their worry about hebephilia's inclusion in the DSM is that it will be used to involuntarily commit people who have NEVER committed a crime to psychiatric hospitals, forever.   The trick is that if hebephilia is in the DSM, TO THE LAW it earns the status of a scientifically accepted diagnosis even if it isn't.

He's probably right about that.

He's wrong about everything else.



III.

The problem with media is that it tricks you into debating the conclusions while accepting the form of the argument.  So  you get to ask, "is hebephilia a pathological disorder or is it normal?" so that no one asks the question, why do we now, today, want to have this debate?

Pedophilia and hebephilia have always been considered maybe pathological and maybe not; Psychopathia Sexualis makes clear the distinction of the pedophile who has grown weak of moral character (not psychiatric, but criminal) vs. those whose urge towards children is a "pathological perversion" that to him is "quite natural" and is thus "not a criminal, but an irresponsible insane person."  The distinction between criminality and pathology has to this point been decided on a case by case basis:  "To examine not merely the deed, but the mental condition of the perpetrator."

So why formalize it now?  The answer is there in Frances's article, the mistake that is in his article: "sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual."  Dr. Frances thinks he's being historically expansive, boy oh boy did he walk into that one.

If you look closely at your calendar, right after the year you will see, in tiny font, that interest in pubescent girls may be normal; but interest in pubescent boys is always and seriously whacked. 



ali lohan age 14.jpg

She's 14.  Anyone disagree she's... what?  Hot?  Once you "normalize" sexual interest in 14 year old girls, you either normalize the interest in boys or you quietly suggest homosexuality in general is slightly pathological.  You can only pick one, and the rest of us have to live with the consequences.

If hebephilia-- all of it-- is pathology, however, you avoid having to make that dicey distinction.  Phew.  America is safe.

I am not here making a case for what is normal or not; I'm pointing out the very specific societal approval-- encouragement-- that allows me to keep drooling as long as I ALSO say out loud, "son of a gun, Ali Lohan's only 14?  She looks so much older!"  but forbids me from even putting up a picture of a boy and making any comment-- even if I am gay; even if I am a woman.  Go ahead and try it.  And what does it mean that society permits a 14 year old boy to choose to be a girl who is [her]self attracted to males, but in theory lacks the maturity/intellect/right to seduce a grown man?  It means stop asking questions, wiseguy.  We have a society to run.

As evidence for this, Ray Blanchard, the Chair of the Paraphilias Workgroup at the DSM, wrote a 2800 word justification for hebephilia's inclusion in the DSM in which the words "boy" and "girl" appear only once:

In the third place, a distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia on the grounds of reproduction makes no sense when applied to homosexual pedophilia and hebephilia, since neither pubescent nor prepubescent boys can become pregnant. Lastly, there is no evidence that the arrival of menarche abruptly demarcates girls' attractiveness to heterosexual pedophiles vs. hebephiles

How can you have a debate about what is normal and what is pathology in sexual desire and never discuss the gender?  He pulls it off.  The point here is not science; neither is the point involuntary commitment.  The point is to limit the scope of the debate to manageable, politically expedient constructs.  The point is precisely NOT to answer the question. 

In this way, Frances and the DSM workgroup he opposes are actually on the same side, the side of the system: using psychiatry as the battleground for difficult social questions.  This is how the system defends against change.

The correct way to understand this debate is simply not to have it in this way-- not to be pro or against the inclusion in the DSM: to declare that you refuse to allow it any authority in any direction, ever.   "Well, it's in the DSM!"  The DSM has the scientific and moral authority of the Monster Manual, I'm not fooled by its popularity or its binding, and at least that book has the intellectual rigor to base things on a mix of convention and roll of the dice; and I am most certainly not fooled by the antirigorous arguments of the way above their pay grade academics who truly believe they could run the world the way Plato intended them to.  Get thee behind me, Satan.









Comments

You're comparing apples and... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:06 PM | Posted by Observer: | Reply

You're comparing apples and chainsaws.

Sperm is very cheap, and womb space is very expensive; our reproductive strategies and preferences are built around that.

What a male wants from a female: the ability to give birth to a healthy child. The younger the better.

What a female wants from a male: the ability to provide for her child.

Most 14 year old males can't "provide" anything except lots of sperm.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (159 votes cast)
I do remember seeing a numb... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:19 PM | Posted by David: | Reply

I do remember seeing a number of women saying some variant of "damn, Daniel Radcliffe is getting sexy" a few films into the Harry Potter franchise, which I guess would have put him in the 14-15 bracket at the time.

I don't remember seeing any backlash against said comments, but I'll freely admit I wasn't paying close attention.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 46 (52 votes cast)
Scalia was right in Lawrenc... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Scalia was right in Lawrence.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (30 votes cast)
"I'm pointing out the very ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:22 PM | Posted by S: | Reply

"I'm pointing out the very specific societal approval that allows me to keep drooling as long as I say out loud, "son of a gun, Ali Lohan's only 14? She looks so much older!" but forbids me from even putting up a picture of a boy and making any comment-- even if I am gay"

Is that really the case? I mean, most of the gay guys I know are into bears, but the ones that are into twinks (like myself) are willing to lust after post-pubescent 14 year olds. It's not clear to be that the "jailbait!" sensation is all that much higher.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 17 (35 votes cast)
"I am not here making a cas... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:35 PM | Posted by meistergedanken: | Reply

"I am not here making a case for what is normal or not-"

The psychiatrist doth protest too much, methinks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (48 votes cast)
"Once you "normalize" sexua... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 12:38 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Once you "normalize" sexual interest in 14 year old girls, you either normalize it for boys or you quietly suggest homosexuality in general is slightly pathological. You can only pick one"

That's an easy choice: the latter. Too bad the mental health community started painting itself into this corner in the early 70's...

Next stop: bestiality for everyone!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -58 (154 votes cast)
The proof that hebephilia i... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 1:03 PM | Posted by wisegirl: | Reply

The proof that hebephilia is not normal lies in its one sidedness. If hebephilia were a natural state rooted in biology, then it would also hold true that 14 year old girls are, without provacation, attracted to much older men. Until 8th graders replace their Justin Bieber posters with those of George Clooney, I can't see this becoming an acceptable premise.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -75 (195 votes cast)
doesn't make any sense, wis... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 1:17 PM | Posted, in reply to wisegirl's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

doesn't make any sense, wisegirl. It's like saying that an average chump attraction for a 10/10 girl is unnatural because the girl doesn't find him attractive. Also what the hell does "without provocation" means.

Anyway, you made a bad post so it holds that I had to downvote it, sorry

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 49 (125 votes cast)
@wisegirl: It's positively ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 1:18 PM | Posted, in reply to wisegirl's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

@wisegirl: It's positively stereotypical that women are interested in older men, though. Anecdotally, I've certainly seen it incredibly commonly on dating sites which allow people to enter an age range of interest; women tend to be looking for their age and up, while men tend to be looking for their age and down.

Can't really comment on how much that applies to 14 year old girls, because I have minimal experience with their desires. :P

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 25 (51 votes cast)
Third level? There's probab... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 1:26 PM | Posted by JohnJ: | Reply

Third level? There's probably a fourth and fifth and sixth level!

What about incest?

Is it abnormal to look at your 14-year-old kid (or even younger) and say, "Wow, my kid is a real looker who's going to break a lot of hearts!" Many parents say this about their kid(s), regardless of gender. Sometimes they even post pics and comments like that on Facebook for everyone to see! At what point is it considered wrong when it's your own kid? What if your kid is adopted?

But there are also a lot of adult women out there that I would describe as beautiful, but I don't necessarily want to have sex with. Is it just a matter of degrees? I don't think so. Courtney Cox is beautiful, but I wouldn't do her. I'd totally do Jennifer Aniston, though.

Again.

What about those parents who made out with their teenage kids as a high school prank? That would have made a good blog post.

But I tend to believe that not nearly as many things are pathological in the biological sense as society currently allows psychiatry to include. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's biological in origin.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (31 votes cast)
im very confused... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 1:54 PM | Posted by aliz: | Reply

im very confused

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 61 (63 votes cast)
I was actually going to bri... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 2:00 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I was actually going to bring Harry Potter into it too, but someone beat me to it.

Seriously though, consider the public perception of attraction to Daniel Radcliffe. Based on a quick mental survey of parties I attended with many geeks present, writing HP slash-fiction is something women consider themselves able to talk about in mixed company.

Also, when it comes to "putting up a picture and making a comment," you might want to check out LiveJournal sometime. There are all sorts of HP slash fiction icons going around the geeky circles, including one for Potter/Malfoy shipping where they've been shopped so it looks like one is spooning the other, with the words, "Opposites attract" on it. It's basically a signal that says, "I prefer stories where people ship these two kids together in a gay relationship." Probably these icons are less popular by now, because the series is over and many have moved on to other things, but I'm sure you can still find a few.

Another: I guess it's not quite the same because Robert Pattinson became famous as an adult, but remember the Twilight moms? Women in their 40s and 50s with signs, openly lusting after a dude who was 22 when the first movie came out? This was mostly considered a sign of the incredible success of the series, rather than a sign of any pathos in the women.

Those few people I can think of who DID remark on the women did it by way of pointing out that this wouldn't be treated the same way if men did the same thing. So, they weren't so much saying that the women were wrong; they were saying this should be considered as wrong in women as it is in men.

One last thing: remember Debra LaFave? I remember tons of I'm-so-funny responses to the situation that went, "Well she MUST be crazy, because look how hot she is! She could have any man she wants, and she chooses a 14-year-old boy?" and some, "Where was SHE when I was that age?" If you wanted serious discussion on whether the boy was some kind of a victim or not, and what would happen to him, you had to go out and look for it.

So, attraction to teenage boys by women certainly seems like it's accepted, but maybe I'm missing a whole ton of counter-examples somehow. Perhaps I just was not alive, or old enough to be socially aware, when they happened?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 45 (55 votes cast)
"The proof that hebephilia ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 2:05 PM | Posted by K: | Reply

"The proof that hebephilia is not normal lies in its one sidedness. If hebephilia were a natural state rooted in biology, then it would also hold true that 14 year old girls are, without provacation, attracted to much older men. Until 8th graders replace their Justin Bieber posters with those of George Clooney, I can't see this becoming an acceptable premise. "

Rape?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -24 (42 votes cast)
"In this way, Frances and t... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 2:27 PM | Posted by aliz: | Reply

"In this way, Frances and the DSM workgroup he opposes are actually on the same side: using psychiatry as the battleground for difficult social questions."

so the difficult social question is whether or not to bang kids and the search for either a justification?
this post isnt very clear.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (25 votes cast)
Since when is scientific cr... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 2:51 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Since when is scientific criterion used for labeling sexual preference as a pathology? Its ultimately a couple of MDs as mouthpieces for changing societal norms. Sure they'll window-dress with a little evolutionary biology for good measure. But what they say ultimately hinges on whether they read WSJ or NYT.

After all, how does evolutionary biology support homosexual preference?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 29 (45 votes cast)
I literally didn't understa... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 3:27 PM | Posted by BHE: | Reply

I literally didn't understand this sentence:

And what does it mean that society permits a 14 year old boy to choose to be a girl who is [her]self attracted to males, but lacks the maturity/intellect/right to seduce a man? It means put a sock in it, wiseguy.

Is there a typo or am I reading it incorrectly? Could someone explain it to me?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 30 (32 votes cast)
I think he was trying to ma... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 3:56 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I think he was trying to make the point that we live in a society which would support a young teen boy choosing to have a sex change operation under the guise of tolerance for his sexual preference; yet that same boy, once a girl would not be considered mature enough to make decisions about his sexuality according to the rules society has for girls. Or something like that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 40 (44 votes cast)
I think it is good to prote... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 3:56 PM | Posted by Space to Grow.: | Reply

I think it is good to protect people under 18- even from themselves. It is enough that girls get pregnant from boys around their same age. Most rapes and pregnancy are under age 21.
I would like it to be illegal for people under 21 to do any porn. I think they need financial support to go to college/voc school/military. I do not want them to be kept children- just have plenty of room to grow, get an education, not have to live at home, and not need the money.
I would rather no one over 21 get any needs met from anyone under 21. This wont work for military- but that one will stand.
As fer as the dsm inclusion- what's the point? We all know the frontal lobe is not fully developed until age 25. Leave them alone.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -33 (57 votes cast)
"After all, how does evolut... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 4:34 PM | Posted by K: | Reply

"After all, how does evolutionary biology support homosexual preference? "

There is often more homosexuals if it gets crowded and stressful (stress --> differences in hormones in the womb). Maybe that is how less children are born, when they would not survive?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (20 votes cast)
A 14 year-old boy CAN get a... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 5:05 PM | Posted by Cartaxo: | Reply

A 14 year-old boy CAN get a woman pregnant, so the reproduction argument is perfectly valid in both ways.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 21 (23 votes cast)
After all, how does evol... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 5:08 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Medusa: | Reply

After all, how does evolutionary biology support homosexual preference?

One could solve that easily if they really wanted... say, with an answer such as 'population control'. I'm sure someone could come up with alternate answers as well, depending on what their goal is in doing so.

It's easy to come up with answer for everything, evolutionary speaking. Whether it's right or not is another question. This is why so-called 'biological imperatives' are not enough to make a case for anything.

If you want something to be true, it's easy enough to find the 'logic' and 'science' to back it up. See: racism, sexism...

((((Godwin's law))))

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (35 votes cast)
Several commenters brought ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 5:43 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Several commenters brought up grown women having lust in their hearts for Harry Potter/Daniel Radcliffe. What about Zac Efron? I thought he was hot, but never said it out loud.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (16 votes cast)
The thing about Daniel Radc... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 6:01 PM | Posted by Medusa: | Reply

The thing about Daniel Radcliffe is that he actually looks old. Super-heavy brows, prominent jaw, angular bone structure, very wrinkled/non-elastic skin for such a young guy. It's not so much that people find him 'sexy' because he looks young, or like jailbait, it's exactly that he doesn't.

Unlike Zach Efron. His appeal is his youth. Radcliffe's appeal is in his apparent non-youth as it contrasts with his actual youth. I don't think Demi Moore would be going after Radcliffe the way she is rumored to have been going after Efron, at least in an abstract sense. (Anyone want to bet Demi gets referenced in the next installment?)

And lets not forget Radcliffe starred in Equus and is very open about his sexuality. He helps/wants/is open to making himself into a sexual being to some extent, and doesn't try to hide his 'coming of age'.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
The starting point here is ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 7:01 PM | Posted by The Starting Point: | Reply

The starting point here is the difference between "abnormality" and "anomaly". According to Deleuze, "abnormal" is defined in terms of the "normal" and the "norm", while an "anomaly" is an anomaly by itself.

If I catch your drift, you're saying attraction to adolescent girls is abnormal, as evidenced by times/cultures where teenage marriage has been normal, while attraction to adolescent boys is an anomaly, because it's a variant on the "regressed" type of pedophilia.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
It is inevitable tha... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 8:57 PM | Posted by James: | Reply


It is inevitable that in discussing hebephilia, social and psychiatric questions overlap. The reasons are that:

(a) Adults whose sexual interest is persistently and exclusively directed towards 13 or 14 year olds are not only sex offenders but have a psychiatric disorder.
(b) 13 and 14 year olds sometimes have sex with each other, or with people who are slightly older, without either party having a psychiatric disorder.
(c) There cannot be a sudden change, with increasing age of the patient, from "no psychiatric disorder" to "psychiatric disorder". Yet this is precisely what the DSM pretends.

The DSM-5 "consensus" on paraphilias gives the clinician the option to decide that the paraphile patient who otherwise fits the diagnostic criteria has a psychiatric disorder only if it "causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others". This appears to give the clinician the discretion not to diagnose cases on the borderline of age-appropriate relationships, if he/she judges that no harm is being done. Of course, it is not clear how clinicians will use this "consensus" clause. They might ignore it, particularly since it appears not to be printed on each page as part of the diagnostic criteria.

This part of the DSM is presumably written by professionals who routinely deal with sex offenders. That is where their attention is. Their attention is not focussed on how their criteria might impact on "normal" behaviour. Yet the attitudes of psychiatrists and law enforcers certainly impact "normal" people.

Consider the opprobium attached to pedo/hebephilia, the stupidity of the criminal law system, and the common perception that a man is guilty even after being proved innocent. These facts terrify decent, law-abiding people to the extent that even TLP does not feel able to post a picture of a clothed 14 year old boy (think young Justin Bieber or Donny Osmond), although he is comfortable with a picture of a clothed 14 year old girl. There is clearly some personal fear and bias going on here: the trouble is that it is not entirely unjustified.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 39 (41 votes cast)
Once again, you are one of ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 10:12 PM | Posted by Bob: | Reply

Once again, you are one of the precious few in the field willing to address the issue of offloading societal debates as pathology...and on the topic of hebephilia, on top of that!

Keep it up, can't wait for Part 2. Dare I say also can't wait for Part 3?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
It's amazing how, when peop... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2012 10:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It's amazing how, when people try to give counterexamples to an argument, they reinforce the original point. Yes, 40 year old moms did lust after Robert Pattison, but he was in his twenties, he wasn't 14. The argument here is not, "are wide age gaps normal?" but is interest in 14 year olds normal. Zac Efron is 24, he was 18 when he made High School Musical and he was 21 when he made 17 Again. And Harry Potter was never a sexual object, he was more of a fantasy of purity, but regardless he was over 17 for the last 4 movies.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (20 votes cast)
Evolution has programmed... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 1:24 AM | Posted by jimmy james: | Reply

Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.

I'd love to see the science behind that claim; it sounds like bullshit. Or at least "stuff I can't actually prove but sure sounds right to me."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -12 (40 votes cast)
While this is an important ... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 4:24 AM | Posted by Guy Fox: | Reply

While this is an important topic presented well, let's not forget that there may be kids in the room right now. It seems that men are attracted to certain features in women, and many of those are just correlated with youth (e.g. smooth skin, elasticity in hair and cetera, right proportion of body fat, etc. - as for women's tastes, I'm simply not qualified to say). Men are looking for those attributes, not necessarily at the D.O.B., which is more of an afterthought. Just ask Berlusconi. It's a safe bet that it's always been that way, and we adults have always found means to protect kids from ourselves, except in some cases where we fail and know it's wrong, and then we at least ritually lynch the perp. Historically, it's been largely an unspoken social agreement, and the 'unspoken' aspect might be really important. For the kids' sake, it's probably better to tell them "if an adult makes you feel uncomfortable by staring at (ed. NOT 'leering') or touching you or giving you weird attention, leave and tell somebody" than to open a Pandora's box of intergenerational sexuality in a post-modern society. How do you make that discussion age appropriate?

You don't know who's listening, so everybody be careful what you're tossing into this discourse.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (26 votes cast)
Actually, it is not that ea... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:14 AM | Posted, in reply to Medusa's comment, by mroogieboogieman: | Reply

Actually, it is not that easy. Especially if one tries to make an argument that is consistent with the evolutionary theory and the vast literature on the processes of natural and sexual selection. It is fairly obvious that any particular genetic variation that only causes "exclusive same-sex attraction" would be rather quickly eliminated, because the carriers of this "variation" would not be able to pass it on to the next generation, regardless of the potentially positive impact of their sterility on the population at large. Therefore, whatever genetic variation involved in increasing the probability of a homosexual phenotype likely confers some sort of advantage (survival and/or mate attraction) to those who do not become homosexuals. To make it more concrete: Imagine having Gene A and exposure to Environmental Factor I (say being being raised by "a distant father and an overbearing mother") predicts exclusive same sex attraction in adulthood. It is possible that the same Gene A in the absence of exposure to the Environmental Factor I or in the presence of an Environmental Factor II may lead to a personality trait that increases the person's chances for survival or mating (say increased sex drive or aggressiveness or bonding with the offspring, etc...). The twin studies indicate that homosexuality is only partially genetic (the most reliable study on the subject found 35% heritability), which is consistent with the idea that there is no "gay" gene that causes homosexuality.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 14 (20 votes cast)
"Once you "normal... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:39 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply


"Once you "normalize" sexual interest in 14 year old girls, you either normalize it for boys or you quietly suggest homosexuality in general is slightly pathological. You can only pick one"

That's an easy choice: the latter. Too bad the mental health community started painting itself into this corner in the early 70's..."

Next stop: bestiality for everyone!

Too bad psychiatry has not invented an illness category for the likes of you, whose self-righteous comparison of my love for my boyfriend to bestiality is not only misleading and plain stupid, but also hurtful. But know this: if the history of civilization is to be trusted in predicting what is to come, then people like you are bound to take their place next to those who defended slavery, condemned the "unnatural" marriages of black and white couples, and murdered millions of Jews for being "vermin."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (52 votes cast)
And what does i... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 10:30 AM | Posted, in reply to BHE's comment, by daniel: | Reply

And what does it mean that society permits a 14 year old boy to choose to be a girl who is [her]self attracted to males, but lacks the maturity/intellect/right to seduce a man? It means put a sock in it, wiseguy.
It took me a while to parse as well, but I believe Alone means that society has no problem, in prinsciple, with a 14 year old (ie pubescent) boy identifying as homosexual (or even transgendered) and wanting to sleep with a man, but we (ie society) would/could not accept this as normal if/when it actually happens. We're uncomfortable with it. (Hence "put a sock in it").

Whereas if a pubescent girl sleeps with a mature guy, it is seen as wrong, but not pathologically so.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
I agree that a personally h... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 4:36 PM | Posted, in reply to James's comment, by Justin Cascio: | Reply

I agree that a personally held aversion to sexualizing pubescent boys is behind the rationalizations of researchers who accept sexualizing pubescent girls as normal. However, on the question of whether a condition can be a disorder if the behavior that signifies the condition is unchanged, I don't agree with your reasoning. Normal people have different kinds of relationships with people within and outside of their age group. So it doesn't stand to reason that being attracted to 14 year olds is necessarily still normal when the subject is age 47. To me (and I am not an expert) it suggests arrested development to continue that attraction when "normal" people have aged out of crushes on 14 year olds by the time they're 16 or so.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
Evolution has programmed... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 6:18 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.

And yet young girls who get pregnant are far more likely to have a risky pregnancy (pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia) than their slightly older (18 and over) cohorts.

If you're going to make the argument "it's natural" you have to be prepared for the argument in the other direction that it's clearly not because otherwise you wouldn't see such a high complication rate. Just because something is possible doesn't make it natural.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 20 (30 votes cast)
This guy is an idiot.... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 7:32 PM | Posted by Heres_reality: | Reply

This guy is an idiot.

#1) "Humans" are not attracted to pubescent (hebephiliacs). MALES ARE.
The fact that this behavior is ONLY found in males (of either orientation) suggests something about being attracted to pubescents particularly benefits male genetic spread (and may antagonize female genetic spread, thus why it is almost never expressed by females). Hmmm I wonder what that could be?

#2) The obvious utility of male preference for children (barely past puberty) is that the youngest age of sexual maturity is the most likely to be both fertile and a virigin. A 28 year old has had lots of sex and children and may be already pregnant right at the time of your encounter. A 13 year old? Far more likely to be virginal making sex with her more productive, genetically speaking.

As a result of this, we see an agregation of traits where many, if not most males prefer children for sexual partners (13-17) over women in their mid 20s, even though women in their mid 20s are far more fertile and have healthier babies. The reason why is males genetically benefit from virginal (but minimally fertile) partners, even though very young females are not very fertile the odds are so much better that if she does get pregnant it will be your offspring because 13 year olds only have sex when they are bought/sold/traded off by parents/raped.

This also probably explains the disproportionate prevelance of pedophilia in males. Pedophilia is just a hop and a skip away from normal male sexuality (to be attracted to barely pubescent children), and probably represents a sort of "extreme male brain" defect similar to autism. Meaning, normal male brain development went wrong, and woops, now you want to screw on 10 year olds (instead of 14 year olds, like a normal man). The reason we have such common occurances of pedophilia and not gerontophilia, is because pedophilia is a defunctional expression of an otherwise adaptive sexual drive. Gerotophilia on the other hand, is completely unrelated to any sort of normal sexual behavior. Similar to homosexuality (an abnormal expression of normal sexual behavior - preferring the same sex instead of opposite) pedophilia is an abnormal manifestation of otherwise normal male sexual drive and instinct, to go seek out virgins.


The incredible genetic benefit to male genetic spread via mating with virgins also explains why throughout human history in every single culture, female virginity is protected prized and bought and sold like commodity.


This of course is all very much common sense to anyone with a brain, but brains are apparently verboten if you want to be a successful social sciencey bullshitter such as Allen Frances, MD, prominent duke psychiartist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (68 votes cast)
PS before a horde of angry ... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 7:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

PS before a horde of angry 18 year old basement dwellers calls me a man hater: please get a basic life science education first.

At nowhere in no point in time is nature kind or nice or beneficent or egalitarian. You might want to read about the mating habits of other animals before making any kind of judgement about what is or is not "normal and natural" to humanity. IN pretty much all species, sex and reproduction is as not-nice vile and aggressive as an animal hunting and killing prey for food... not surprising as both are expressions of a fight to survive. Many species rape as routine method of reproduction, this idea that a man and a woman find each other and exchange vows and live in holy matrimony and that's the way humans have babies is a myth and fairy tale for adults, as big of a bullshit lie as any other religious myth such as the father/son/holy spirit AMEN.

If it genetically benefits an organism to rape a minimally fertile target barely past childhood, don't be surprised when a preference for 13 year olds exists in many men.

Hey, no one ever said nature was nice...except the social science morons and the religiously brainwashed, but those people are pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 29 (51 votes cast)
The fact that men are infat... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 7:53 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The fact that men are infatuated with childhood/children also explains why much older women dye their hair lighter colors and starve themselves. Thinness implies lack of having completed puberty, and it implies nulligravida status (progesterone packs on body fat; the longer a female is past puberty and the more children she has had typically the more body fat she has: this is why men are infatuated with thinness). Blonde hair also implies youth as hair darkens with age. And of course, cosmetics alter the features to augment (or mimic) youth, such as making the skin smooth and full and fair, making the eyes and lips larger and the cheeks ruddy all signs of youth.

Regarding body weight, it's become a popular myth to say that preference for thin women among men is a reflection of social status, because obesity is associated with poverty and low status in our culture but in opposite cultures there is a preference for obesity. To a point this is true, that status affects body weight preferences, but there is clearly an innate preference of men to seek small waists, which are really only found in thinness.

As females age, have children, the waist expands due to progressive accumulation of body fat from reproductive hormones and pregnancies. This is why a 35 year old woman doesn't have the same figure she did at 21. A female with a high body fat level looks older specifically because our primitive brain associates body fat accumulation with prior pregnancies and age.

Now, women intuitively know all of this is true, that this appearance is ideal, and so they do everything they can to manipulate their appearance to conform to this standard of mimicking a barely pubertal 14 year old. Thus the diet and cosmetics industry. It benefits female reproduction to choose the fittest partner, so women are driven to improve their reproductive value. This is why you have females freaking out about who is hotter among any group of females, but men don't give a fuck who is hotter. Men are not driven to quality, they are driven to quantity, and the only choosiness a man exhibits is that he will first have sex with the most attractive female (typically the youngest) and then only later with the less attractive ones (typically the oldest).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (40 votes cast)
PS, one last point.<p... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:03 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

PS, one last point.

All evidence suggests that pedophilia is a sexual preference, like homosexuality.

The fact this makes us uncomfortable doesn't make it untrue. Most likely pedophilia is, like exclusive homosexuality, an abnormal expression of otherwise functional sexual drive (for men to prefer virgins). It just so happens that something went wrong and the person now prefers children just below the age of puberty. Woops.

Similar to how it is entirely adaptive for females to prefer virility, it's not adaptive anymore if that preference exists in a male organism. Woops. Brain development boo boo!

Whereas homosexuality is morally neutral and benign therefore easy to accept, it is merely unfortunate that in society preferring sex with children is so antisocial and horrific and the person is basically born a monster... sort of like a psychopath who's brain by function has no empathy and no fear responses (and psychopathy is another brain development defect that is overwhelmingly prevalent in males, again for obvious reasons).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (26 votes cast)
It is a common mistake that... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:13 PM | Posted, in reply to Observer's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It is a common mistake that men make (to justify their preference in 14 year olds) to conclude that the youngest females are the most fertile. This is a myth. Peak female fertility is the early 20s... but yet if I were to look up male pornography every title would say "teen slut" or "teen blowjobs" or "teen gangbang" and so fourth. The most commonly used worn in porn is probably teen.

The preference males exhibit toward young teens is not because these are the most fertile years, but these are the years she is most likely to be a virgin.

Who cares if the baby is healthy if it isn't yours? 3 miscarriages and 1 successful birth is worth eternity, than 1 successful healthy pregnancy that was cuckolded.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (30 votes cast)
It is very uncommon for fem... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:17 PM | Posted, in reply to David's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It is very uncommon for females to lust after 14 year old boys.
IT is extremely common for males to lust after 14 year old girls.

Citing examples of the contrary which are obviously extreme exceptions is pointless. That would be like me saying "well neil patrick harris likes men, so obviously men do not prefer hips and ass and boobs!" The fact that sometimes men prefer men does not invalidate the general trend that men prefer women, at least 95% or more of the time. Similarly the fact one or two women thought Daniel Radcliffe was attractive doesn't invalidate the general truth that women seek male partners who are older than they are, and almost never prefer male partners who are in their teens.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (16 votes cast)
Among bronze age Israelites... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:17 PM | Posted, in reply to jimmy james's comment, by Jay: | Reply

Among bronze age Israelites, boys and girls came of age at 13. Modern Jews still have the bar and bat mitzvahs for their kids, but the kid's claims to being mature are understood more as ancient ritual than realistic fact these days.

re: evolutionary biology and homosexuality: Buggery has always been with us, but the modern category of "homosexuals" as people who do not marry and raise children is an invention of the last three generations or so. Prior to that, homosexuals reproduced much like everyone else, if somewhat less enthusiastically. The anecdotal evidence that homosexuality is correlated with traits that women like (attention to grooming, decorating, and all that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy stuff) may also be relevant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Your examples of harry pott... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2012 8:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Your examples of harry potter and twilight involve women fantasizing that they are much younger than they are in reality.

Women prefer partners who are about their age or older; no woman prefers a younger partner. The real fantasy for a twilight mom is not just pattison; the fantasy is that she is as young and beautiful and desirable as stewart. Twilight moms are reliving their youth, and youth is what women covet more than anything, almost as much as men do, just in a different format (women covet youth as identity, men covet youth as sexual conquest).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (28 votes cast)
To those wondering how homo... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 4:01 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

To those wondering how homosexuality fits in:

Homosexuality fits in like mental retardation or cleft palate or any other congenital defect "fits in". It is atypical brain development that is not adaptive.

I don't know why people take this extreme "either or" position: Either homosexuality is real and serves a purpose OR it is a figment of those dirty fag's will do disobey god and they are sick in the head! Why is one defaulted to these two irrational positions? It seems the most likely answer is that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon and represents atypical, maladaptive brain development, sort of like an intersex condition, or being born a conjoined twin... the brain is not fully male or female, the sexuality is incongruent with the physical sex.

There certainly are worse congenital defects to have than homosexuality (the conjoined twin example, yikes) but it doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, it is just a birth defect.

The reason it "still exists" is because well, all sorts of birth defects "still exist". Babies are born all the time with imperfections that hinder their survival and function, some more serious , some mild.

I know this isn't politically correct, but it doesn't make it untrue.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (36 votes cast)
The reason homosexuality is... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 4:11 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The reason homosexuality is so prevalent compared to many other birth defects is because it is quite mild, and does not hinder survival or reproduction that much. Most homosexuals are fertile and can still have children, they merely lack desire/eagerness to have sex (with a fertile partner).
Note there are many heterosexual people with very low sex drives as well, homosexuality is sort of like having the lowest sex drive possible, lol... but traditionally homosexuals would have children due to social pressure to hide homosexuality. I suppose the reason it is prevalent is precisely because male and female social roles, which homosexuals were traditionally defaulted into, meant they would be having sex and children whether or not they ever felt genuine attraction/interest in the first place.

I also suspect that the genes that predispose to developing homosexual orientations are otherwise adaptive in certain circumstances, as mrboogieman stated. For example, congenital adrenal hyperplasia is caused by a nonfunctional cortisol synthesis gene, and results in high levels of androgens prentally; this genetic defect greatly raises the risk of lesbian orientation in females. The function of the genetic trait (altering cortisol synthesis) was hypothesized that a single copy of the gene makes for a hyperresponsive adrenal gland, which grows larger and produces more hormones. THe problem is only when there are two copies present (very rare) and the affected individual is also female (even more rare). Males are not as adversely affected as they are exposed to high androgens prenatally anyway.

I suppose most instances of homosexuality are like this; not a gene causing it per say, but genes that do other things ending up incidentally creating homosexuals under certain circumstances. Which of course would be a simple birth defect, like sickle cell anemia or tay sachs or cystic fibrosis... genes that do other things that are only causing disease incidentally.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (15 votes cast)
The comments are full of th... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 7:39 AM | Posted by Carlier: | Reply

The comments are full of the error TLP talks about in his Decline Effect post, in which people mistake circumstances of their particular culture at their particular moment in history for fundamental and immutable facts of human nature. I see arguments about what is biologically imperative and what is not, which use as their ground for argument RPattz, DanRad, Twihards, slashfic, OKCupid profiles, and on and on. Guys, Twilight was written by Stephenie Meyer; it wasn't inscribed into our genetic code by the wrathful hand of God.

If we're trying to figure out why we might regard sexual interest in post-pubescent girls differently from similarly aged boys,[1] it seems relevant that our society generally regards expressions of sexual interest with greater acceptance when they come from hetero dudes than when they come from gays or women. And insofar as women are attracted to social status, it's relevant that our society accords minors the status of second class citizens. (I haven't checked the ancient Macedonian fansites, but I'd bet drachma to dollars that 16-year-old Alexander the Great was considered a hottie at the time.) And back in the day, Western culture actually thought that sex with boys was p. cool, to the extent that Plato wrote about how great it was in his Symposium. And on and on.

You can argue that all of the above variables have seen the most natural and most normal configuration in our current society, and that they thus can be safely discounted, but that is one hell of an argument to make.
__
[1] Is that what we're trying to do? It's hard for me to tell at this point.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 22 (26 votes cast)
Guys, Twilight was writt... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 8:10 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Guys, Twilight was written by Stephenie Meyer; it wasn't inscribed into our genetic code by the wrathful hand of God.

Are you sure about that?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
our society generally re... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 10:24 AM | Posted, in reply to Carlier's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

our society generally regards expressions of sexual interest with greater acceptance when they come from hetero dudes than when they come from gays or women.

While I mostly agree with your post, it seems to me that most men, including myself, are extremely accepting of expressions of sexual interest from women. Our disproportionately enthusiastic response to such gestures is actually kind of a problem for attractive women.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
"it would also hold true th... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 3:04 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"it would also hold true that 14 year old girls are, without provacation, attracted to much older men."

They are.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (29 votes cast)
"it would also hold true th... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 3:04 PM | Posted by YOHAMI: | Reply

"it would also hold true that 14 year old girls are, without provacation, attracted to much older men."

They are.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (23 votes cast)
Warren Jeffs is that you?</... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to YOHAMI's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Warren Jeffs is that you?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
"Once you "normalize... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 4:34 PM | Posted by Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta: | Reply


"Once you "normalize" sexual interest in 14 year old girls, you either normalize it for boys or you quietly suggest homosexuality in general is slightly pathological. You can only pick one, and the rest of us have to live with the consequences."

There's a pretty long way to go before the idea of sexual interest in 14 year old girls has been normalized. Who among us is ready to come out of the closet and admit, "Yeah I find that 15 or 16 year old school girl / niece / granddaughter of yours hot." If that ever happens we can start worrying about how uncomfortable some old chicken hawk feels admitting that he finds teenage boys hot.

Dirty old men..
America's last oppressed sexual minority...

Even the gays are more tolerated. But they were all born that way (except for the wrinkles and pot bellies.)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (22 votes cast)
"We have a society to run."... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 6:29 PM | Posted by carol: | Reply

"We have a society to run."

It's always been about that. That was the point of everything. It was the smartypants materialists that started picking away at the edifice..now with so much liberalization of mores, the remaining rules and taboos look all the more absurd.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Did someone say that middle... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2012 7:28 PM | Posted by James: | Reply

Did someone say that middle-aged women are never interested in 11-14 year old boys? That this kind of deviancy only occurs in men?

Today's news says otherwise.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
I gotta say, I am flat-out ... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 1:04 AM | Posted by JohnJ: | Reply

I gotta say, I am flat-out amazed at the anti-gay bigotry and nonsense being spouted by some of the commenters. Some of these comments simply have to be fake.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (28 votes cast)
I don't see how it makes me... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 1:42 AM | Posted, in reply to JohnJ's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I don't see how it makes me bigoted to say (admit) that homosexuality is very likely a sort of birth defect.

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

The reason homosexuality is not normal variation is because it inhibits the functionality of the organism. Homosexuality is a condition where an individual has almost no desire to reproduce. That is abnormal mental development as the whole point of any organism existing is to eventually spread genes. Much like being born infertile, being born exclusively homosexual is abnormal development and can be considered a birth defect as homosexuals are, to quote lady gaga, "born this way".

Homosexuality is often found with other defects of biological functioning; again to refer back to my example of female children with CAH, these girls are unable to make normal cortisol. There are a myriad of disorders which can produce disturbances in sexual identity and orientation (via abnormal levels of sex steroids before birth), that affect vital body systems other than reproduction (CAH is the example that springs to mind readily but there are others).

In the real world, which is explained by science, being gay happens when brain development takes a wrong turn before birth due to abnormalities of sex steroids in the womb. Since this is adverse to the thriving of the organism it can be considered a type of birth defect.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (34 votes cast)
Too bad psychiatry has n... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 3:49 AM | Posted by Mr L: | Reply

Too bad psychiatry has not invented an illness category for the likes of you, whose self-righteous comparison of my love for my boyfriend to bestiality is not only misleading and plain stupid, but also hurtful. But know this: if the history of civilization is to be trusted in predicting what is to come, then people like you are bound to take their place next to those who defended slavery, condemned the "unnatural" marriages of black and white couples, and murdered millions of Jews for being "vermin."

It takes tremendous chutzpah to complain about the hurtfulness of the comparison while lumping him in with Hitler. He's a dick, but you come across as a psychopath.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (22 votes cast)
I actually am convinced tha... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 6:07 AM | Posted by Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta: | Reply

I actually am convinced that the disgust that society has for men who get turned on by 15 - 17 boys is less than that for men who are find the young women aged 15 - 17 to be hot despite all taboos.

Society still holds that girls need more protection than boys - see the sentencing discrepancy between adult women who have had consensual relations with minor boys compared to the stiffer punishments for adult men who have had consensual relations with minor girls.

Of course none of this defends breaking the taboo, but it makes the claims by gay rights spokesmen who claim that gay men have ZERO interest WHATSOEVER in young men (minors) and that they are exclusively interested in consensual relations with other adults.

Of course this is a blatant exaggeration aimed to defuse mainstream paranoia about leading the poor young men astray. But why would gay men be any less driven by the hebephilia instinct than their heterosexual brothers and cousins. Why would being gay innoculate certain men from becoming the sad development of turning into the sterotypical dirty old man?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
I've been asking this quest... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 3:28 PM | Posted by jonny : | Reply

I've been asking this question for 20 years. I'm yet to receive an answer - or an attempt at an answer. Can you answer this question?

"Why are there no choirgirls?"

Is it because that when little girls sing, it sounds like demonic screaming, to God?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (17 votes cast)
I've been asking this quest... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 3:28 PM | Posted by jonny : | Reply

I've been asking this question for 20 years. I'm yet to receive an answer - or an attempt at an answer. Can you answer this question?

"Why are there no choirgirls?"

Is it because that when little girls sing, it sounds like demonic screaming, to God?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
"[Too bad psychia... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Mr L's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply


"[Too bad psychiatry has not invented an illness category for the likes of you, whose self-righteous comparison of my love for my boyfriend to bestiality is not only misleading and plain stupid, but also hurtful. But know this: if the history of civilization is to be trusted in predicting what is to come, then people like you are bound to take their place next to those who defended slavery, condemned the "unnatural" marriages of black and white couples, and murdered millions of Jews for being "vermin."]

It takes tremendous chutzpah to complain about the hurtfulness of the comparison while lumping him in with Hitler. He's a dick, but you come across as a psychopath."


It is funny how comparing a gay man's love for his boyfriend to bestiality makes him a dick, but comparing homophobia to racism and antisemitism (the nazi ideology and its implementation was the most extreme and virulent expression of the latter, but it was antisemitism nonetheless) makes someone a psychopath. I would not go as far to argue that it is precisely this claim that is psychopathic but, it is important to remember that words do have consequences. A man who openly demonizes/condemns an entire group (gays, blacks, jews, etc...) shares the responsibility when the day comes and the said group comes under attack. Countless homosexual men have been discriminated against, oppressed, abused, mutilated, tortured, and murdered throughout the history because some people thought, among other things, our love was no different (in fact, perhaps worse) than bestiality. I am pretty sure Julius Streicher's lawyer argued that it would take "tremendous amount of chutzpah" -wait, he probably would not have liked this Semitic term, but I'm sure there's something similar in German- to allege that his client committed any war crimes, but the verdict suggests otherwise!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (22 votes cast)
"I don't see how ... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2012 6:04 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply


"I don't see how it makes me bigoted to say (admit) that homosexuality is very likely a sort of birth defect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_defect ... ..."

What makes you a bigot is not the biology underlying your arguments (although your claim "Homosexuality is often found with other defects of biological functioning-" is simply wrong). It is the value judgments you are making with regards to certain biological processes and their consequences in adulthood. There are no diseases, abnormal behaviors, brain malfunctions, etc... in mother nature. There are only viruses, enzymes, dna molecules, antibodies, so on and so forth. The former labels (disease, disorder, abnormal, defective) are human constructs that obviously depend on the latter, yet, can never be conceptualized without considering the language, culture, ideology, and other forces that affect the society. The moment you use the term "birth defect" to explain why homosexuality occurs, you are indicating that what we are facing is a phenomenon that humanity should strive to eliminate (if concentration camps and/or eugenics are not palatable, perhaps by medications or gene therapies in the future). That is demeaning, devaluing, and hurtful to millions of people and their loved ones. Yes, by definition homosexuality greatly reduces a person's capacity to reproduce, but, it is up to the society to determine whether this particular type of decreased likelihood of having children should be called a defect/disease or simply a variation. Since we are not living in a planet where homo sapiens sapiens is a threatened species, I do not think that there's any need to reclassify homosexuality as a disease/disorder/birth defect so that we can start thinking about finding ways to increase their reproductive capacity via enhancing their interest in heterosexual sex. So, long story short, yes, telling me that my gayness was caused by a "birth defect" as opposed to a "genetic variation" or "atypical brain development" is precisely what makes you a bigot. At the end of the day, this is not about genes, hormones, or brains, this is about whether my relationship with another man deserves the same basic respect as my sister's relationship with her boyfriend. I say it does. If one agrees with this value judgment then there is no need for any "birth defects" to explain why I love him.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (28 votes cast)
what the fuck is a chupa-ch... (Below threshold)

February 12, 2012 10:29 AM | Posted, in reply to Mr L's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

what the fuck is a chupa-chupaz or whatever?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
You see... Everybody are ju... (Below threshold)

February 13, 2012 8:04 AM | Posted by the cunt of your mother: | Reply

You see... Everybody are just saying A LOT OF FUCKING SHIT ABOUT SHIT FUCK YOU ALL. Okay. Now... Could we please start doing research on things before proceeding to insert on the DSM-V? Where does the fuck has society gone. What the fuck are you all. Can you stop thinking you are a bunch of stupid genious?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
Just last night I was looki... (Below threshold)

February 13, 2012 5:13 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Just last night I was looking in chromosome disorders and ended up on wiki looking at ephebophilia. Today I got here looking into rates of doctor suicide. I love how strangely things are connected!
But what I thought was odd on the Wiki page was this - "Researchers state that hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, "which denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age."[2] It is concluded that "few would want to label erotic interest in late — or even mid — adolescents as a psychopathology, so the term hebephilia may have been ignored along with ephebophilia."
Few would want to label erotic interest in mid to late adolescence as a psychopathology?? I actually agree that it isn't but was surprised to see it in a discussion over inclusion in DSM, where it seems like every behavior that doesn't involve being a docile sheep is a mental illness.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
You left something out. Any... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2012 10:18 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You left something out. Any homophilia is a perversion so age isn't the issue.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -7 (19 votes cast)
Don't put your pathology on... (Below threshold)

February 16, 2012 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Heres_reality's comment, by ORLY?: | Reply

Don't put your pathology on all men. Just because you're a fucking pervert doesn't mean every man on the planet is. I sincerely hope you never come in contact with young girls.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
Plenty of highschool age gi... (Below threshold)

February 16, 2012 10:22 PM | Posted by crumbdskull: | Reply

Plenty of highschool age girls are to me, a queer identified but for the most part hetero behaving dude, hot as heck (as in like sexually attractive). Plus I don't really think I'd feel any more or less guilty sleeping with one than I would many of the totally-unprepared-for-adult-decision-making college-age girls that I have in actual fact slept with (and often felt guilty about). I've often expressed this thought in all-male company with little challenge except from like middle-age dads, which o.k. fair enough.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (16 votes cast)
I slept with highschool age... (Below threshold)

February 16, 2012 10:26 PM | Posted by crumbskull: | Reply

I slept with highschool age girls when I was in highschool and it wasn't like because I just didn't have enough access to twenty-somethings or w/e.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
I think <a href="http://www... (Below threshold)

February 17, 2012 2:28 AM | Posted by Psychology Student: | Reply

I think Psychology can help for the confusions and the behavior of everyone around us.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Can't they just include it ... (Below threshold)

April 8, 2012 11:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Can't they just include it as a disorder and be very careful about what their criteria is for that disorder? This does not strike me as being rocket science.

It's not difficult usually to tell in real life who has a criminal problem and who has a psych problem and who is just trying to get off, is it? Just, life in theories is problematic. Well, of course it is.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the brain, the idiot monkey.

Which is one reason why yeah, it should stay in the DSM. People do need to be discouraged from committing sex acts with kids and that's one way to do it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
" then the only thing you n... (Below threshold)

April 8, 2012 1:49 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

" then the only thing you need to know about him is that after he dies, psychiatry goes full Foucault...."

Not a Foucault fan, but are you saying that after he dies nobody bothers with debate one way or another anymore because they're just so over it? So it isn't in the DSM?

Why can't it just be: does psychiatry have a legitimate concern with hebephilia, yes or no? Obviously yes. So leave it in the DSM. Clearly it can be a problematic behavior, someone should be able to bill for it, maybe include it for civil commitments, which hardly ever happen, or if they do happen all the time for stupid reasons, why not write about that? The thing is, also, if someone's sexual attraction for young men or women is becoming readily apparent to the point that is brought up as compelling evidence for civil commitment, isn't it likely the hebephiliac has bigger issues then "just" a sexual attraction to young people of any gender?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
I’m still waiting for some ... (Below threshold)

April 8, 2012 11:58 PM | Posted by buy-mlbjerseys: | Reply

I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks

buy mlb jerseys

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Only serious and unbiased s... (Below threshold)

April 11, 2012 3:33 PM | Posted by GABRIEL: | Reply

Only serious and unbiased scientific research can determine wether pedophilia or hebephilia are "normal". As a man, I can admit that many times I had found teenage girls attractive, but only because they looked older, case of the character Hermione in HP, and vice versa, case of the actress Alicia Silverstone, I don´t remember the name of the movie where she portrays a voluptuous 13 year old attracted to her family´s older tenant. In my early twnties I dated girls as young as 15... I married at 24 to a 17 year old girl. Today, Im 37 and may find teenage girls attractive, only if they look older, say twentish. But then a problem arises here, the problem of intelectual maturuty... I may find a girl phisically attractive, but if she´s not intellectually mature I lose interest. Nowadays Im ok with dating women from 19 and older, but never older than I am, unless they are hot, but the best age range is 22 to 30... younger than that are too naive and immature, older than that are too greedy and bitter. Never had fantasies over males, but I tend to find myself more confortable in the company and friendship of older men than me.

Now for the pre-pubescent cases at hand, I agree that they must be protected... if we don´t let them vote, or drive, they they shouldn´t have sex... intelectual maturity is the measure I supose, and the law makes an important decision in assuming intelectual maturity at 16-18, with no proof in the contrary.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (14 votes cast)
Human brains mature very sl... (Below threshold)

April 11, 2012 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to GABRIEL's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Human brains mature very slowly, last I checked at 25 you're an adult brain-wise based on critical thinking potential. Which is by no means a measure of a person's actual critical thinking skills let alone where they're at emotionally or psychologically.

It sounds like what you are saying is that you're not as attracted to the younger set anymore because of their lack of intellect as if that is some kind of achievement. Maybe it is an achievement for you, but it's significance seems debatable in light of the fact that you're 37 and find it acceptable to date 19 year olds.

I think you need help from a professional for a substantial period of time. Not necessarily for the 19 year olds---although that's a perfectly fine reason--- but for yourself too.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
Amazing how so many of us s... (Below threshold)

April 22, 2012 6:40 PM | Posted by JoeKer: | Reply

Amazing how so many of us seem to completely understand human evolutionary biology- all 2 million years worth- with such certainty. Perhaps some of these urges and behaviours serve a purpose some of us haven't figured out yet, and maybe never will. Also amazing at the number of blanket statements like "women want to..", and "men are..". Boards of Education definitely need to make probability and applied statistics (with emphasis on genetic traits and diversity) mandatory curriculum starting in 3rd grade :D

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
These stories seemed relate... (Below threshold) Comical. The fact that 14-1... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2012 3:57 AM | Posted by S: | Reply

Comical. The fact that 14-15 was a traditional marriage age for girls, but not for boys, fails to factor into this frankly laborious analysis.

Please try again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
I'm a bit confused. <... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2012 3:02 PM | Posted by E: | Reply

I'm a bit confused.

In the evolutionary sense, yes, a woman wants to find the best provider she can for her children. The physical attributes of this man are secondary to his ability to provide/assist/protect.

She simultaneously wants the best possible biological father(s) for her children, though. The father (or the fathers) of the children need not be the same as the man who fulfills the role of the provider.

At the very least, it may behoove her to have her children fathered by more than one man because the best set of alleles to tie one's own with under certain environmental conditions may not be be the best if the environmental conditions change at some point. Better not to put all your eggs in one basket... So an occasional dalliance with a promising teenage boy makes sense for her, even if many of his expected good qualities have been heretofore largely unproven.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
I think arguments about the... (Below threshold)

May 31, 2012 9:45 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

I think arguments about the supposed evolutionary benefits of teenage partners bear little relevance to the question of whether hebephilia should be included as a mental illness.By definition a mental illness is any phsycological condition which impairs normal functioning or causes distress to the individual.I would argue that a person who is only attracted to individuals which they are legally and socially forbidden from interacting with in an intimate fashion is inevitably going to cause distress for that individual.How many people could honestly live out their entire lives without ever having any intimate contact with those they feel attracted to,and not become mentally disturbed as a result?On that basis alone I would say hebephilia fulfills the criteria for a mental illness.Ultimately a true hebophile can never engage in sexual relations at all,nor engage in other non sexual intimacy(hugging,kissing etc)which can often be included under child sex laws.Do you really think such a person could ever be emotionally healthy in life?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
Yeah,ephebophilia is defin... (Below threshold)

June 13, 2012 9:02 AM | Posted by Gregg: | Reply

Yeah,ephebophilia is definately a mental disorder.No two ways about it.If someone avoids relationships because they are not able to get with a teenager,then it means they cannot live a normal life because of the condition.That classifies as mental disorder.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (12 votes cast)
I think ultimately it is e... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2012 9:38 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Daniel: | Reply

I think ultimately it is entirely natural for grown men to engage in sexual relations with adolescents,as has been the case in every known society for the last 40000 years of documented human history.The most successfull and productive societies actively embraced hebephilia.In fact western society owes its existence to those who incorporated hebephilia into their social structure.It is only an extremely recent and so far short lived concept that adolescents are not suited to engage in sexual relations.So ultimately it is completely normal for men to have sex with adolescents.It is indeed natures intent.However it becomes a pathology when an individual has extremely intense attractions to adolescents alone,with no attraction to adults.In this instance the person becomes incapable of engaging in any form of sexual or romantic relations,as doing so would mean commiting a serious offence.I have worked with individuals who were so disturbed by their inability to pursue the objects of their romantic desire,that they committed suicide as a result.I fail to see how such a state of mind could avoid being classified as mental illness?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
Slavery is "natural" too an... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2012 11:18 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Slavery is "natural" too and many societies that embraced slavery flourished. That doesn't make it good for the slaves/adolescents.

If we proved that cannabalism would cause society to flourish would that make it the "Right" thing to do? Who gets chosen for this special privaledge of being sacraficed for the good of society/men's sexual greed?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (17 votes cast)
when I was in my early twen... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2012 3:38 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

when I was in my early twenties I saw no problem at all in dating with girls from 16 years and older, now that I am in the second half of my twenties, I have changed my attitude. I do think it's very weird, and probably not perfectly moral. I'm open to the possibility of neither party (both the girl and the man) not being 100% psychologically healthy.

I do still, however, think it shouldn't be a crime, like in the many european countries where the age of consent is 15.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Why not 14? Why not 12? </p... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2012 10:55 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Why not 14? Why not 12?

10?

No laws at all?

Why would you defend an adult male with the capacity to asses the situation, no risk of becoming pregnant, and greater knowledge of how to take advantage of another over a TEEN who is mentally not capable of risk assesment or the same level of self advocacy to require birth control use and prevent sexual acts they don't want without having their will plowed over?

The men don't need more advocacy, it's the female teens whose lives get fucked by these situations when the sexual abuse fucks them up, they get pregnant (and mind you these assholes don't want to raise the babies) etc etc.

If you are genuinely worried about teens preying on good guys then tell these good guys you're worried about to stop hanging out with teens and letting themselves be seduced. THEY ARE THE ADULTS IN THE SITUATION.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (17 votes cast)
where, exactly, are you get... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2012 11:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

where, exactly, are you getting the idea that slavery is "natural"?

there's nothing in our biology that points to that, not a bit. you need to back up such ridiculous claims with good evidence.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
tim- ha. Back up your claim... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2012 12:28 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

tim- ha. Back up your claim that it's natural for grown men to have sex with adolescents based on "biology". Everything we do is based on biology- if humans do it, it's natural. "natural" as was used above to describe grown men having sex with teen girls simply meant "happened in many societies and was tolerated".

That means nothing about how much it devestatingly harms vulnerable people. And I wonder how may of the people who think it should be just fine were actualy cornered and pressured into sex by adults while they were in their teens.

It's gross that people would product adults in such situations over the teens that actually go through it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
where exactly did i claim t... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2012 2:21 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

where exactly did i claim that...? which comments are you reading? i never said that, and i never would.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
blah, sorry, the comment ab... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2012 2:21 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

blah, sorry, the comment above is from me.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Alright- my point was exact... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2012 2:49 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Alright- my point was exactly that "natural" is completely irrelevant to the question of who it harms and whether the "social good" of tolerating the behavior is worth the suffering it causes to vulnerable people.

I was making a convoluded point that an above statement (not yours) was a non argument in favor of adults having sex with children as a "natural" and "commonly accepted" practice that makes societies flourish.

Blech. Lot's of societal practices have accompanied flourishing societies and that does inherently mean that those specific practices caused the society to flourish, nor does it excuse societal behaviors that are barbaric and cruel and destructive to certain human beings.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
*does NOT inherently mean</... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2012 2:50 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

*does NOT inherently mean

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Well being natural doesn't... (Below threshold)

July 5, 2012 8:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Daniel: | Reply

Well being natural doesn't necessarily make it good in every sense.It is debatable whether hebephilia is productive or not.However it is clear that the potential harms of it are grossly overstated in many instances.Also,if sex is so dangerous for adolescents,why do we turn a blind eye and in many instances encourage adolescents to have sex with each other?Adolescents are ideally positioned to exploit each other and in fact,adolescents are more likely than adults to force sex upon an unwilling partner.Yet we assume teenage sex is innocent experimenting,and automatically assume an adult has coerced a teenager into sex.If we want to uphold the moral ideal that teenagers cant consent to sex,then adolescents should be strictly forbidden from any form of sex,even each other.To allow otherwise is simply discrimination on the grounds of age.We are all raised during our own youth to see other teens as suitable objects of sexual desire,and perfectly acceptable sexual partners.Once we reach some arbitrarily determined age we are expected to suddenly view sex with an adolescent as some hideous crime.I know nothing specific changed in my head when I got to 18.If I could do it yesterday,why the hell is today any different? How can some specific act be a crime for a person of one age,yet not for a person of another age?I can think of no other area of law where a person can be made exempt from a criminal offence just because they belong to some specific age group.
Anyway all that is beside the point.If you are obsessed with teenagers to the exclusion of adults then you have a mental disorder.If you walked into a 35 year olds bedroom to see Justin Beiber and one direction posters all over the walls,You would question his state of mental development,correct?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
David-- you have never been... (Below threshold)

July 5, 2012 9:23 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

David-- you have never been a teen female who had sex with both an adult and a fellow teen.

It's different.

The adult male sex drive, especially combined with the allure of exploiting the young, is very difficult for a novice to endure.

Teen males DO NOT have the same amount of advantage of causing an automatic deference to authority that is easy for an adult to create in a teen.

How did you get a gig advocating for evil? Are you appointed by satan or one of the lesser deomns hire you? Seriously what is wrong with you that you need this explained to you you evil horrifically sadistic and ignorant being?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (12 votes cast)
I'm sorry, I usually remain... (Below threshold)

July 5, 2012 9:26 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm sorry, I usually remain polite even when engaging with people who advocate child abuse. I pressume something is wrong with your brain/soul and perhaps gentle explenations will help. Then again, I am willing to take whatever measures will best protect the inocent from people like you and potential actions that could result from your words and way of thinking.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
I understand that humans ar... (Below threshold)

July 5, 2012 9:46 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I understand that humans are often grappling with complex and unbearable issues/urges/inner conflicts and sometimes fail to do the right thing with horrific amounts of suffering for others and/or the self as the result.

I feel compassionate about that fact AND still believe we must take whatever actions we can to prevent people from losing control of their behavior and oding horrible things that cause terrible suffering.

Included in that is establishing what things cause suffering to begind with. How many female teens that were devirginized by adult males do you know? How have their lives gone? Are you sure they are as in tact and empowered as they claim? Have you talked to to the ones that don't feel they were empowered by it and can see the destruction in their lives that resulted?

You're making claims based on zero evidence. I have read the pathetic amount of literature I could find on it and there not much even in terms of research. I am ok with removing legal repercussions if it were proven that this in fact improved the behavior better than having them in place and made things better for vulnerable teens.

Instead I think all that would happen is that you would see entry into the porn industry happening younger, coercive exploitive techniques to manipulate the young into agreeing with their own exploitation being more openly used, and horrible things that adult males genereally don't give a fuck about when they happening because having orgasms is more important to them the the humans they exploit to make that happen and they lack the capacity to even TRY to understand what the other person might be going through or what it feels like to be a very small person being pounded on by an adult body that you have trusted and everything being overwheling and scary and watching an adult enjoy that very fact.

I am ok with men admitting that the larger portion of men are incapable of human decencies or stoping themselves from unleashing horrific pain on vulnerable people-- but if you want to make that claim we need to take better measures to protect the young from ever being exposed to adult males to begin with. Then we can take about empathy and compassion for the way the male brain works all you want.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
Maybe you could ask heather... (Below threshold)

July 5, 2012 10:00 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Maybe you could ask heather corinna who listens to young girl problems all the time how well the older boyfriend thing seems to actually be working for young girls vs how they say it's working. Most people aren't very good at assessing whether they are being exploited or gaining what they ought to be gaining from a relationship without being treated like dirt and a teen with no experience and low self esteem is a great opportunity for the wolves to feast. Somehow, I doubt you actually care how the experience of being exploited by more knowledgable adults actually affects teens at all. Mostly I imagine you think "Yeah well whatever teens get exploited there was probably something wrong with them and they don't matter."

Which is how sociopaths think.

"Nearly one in five adolescent girls reports having sex with a partner three or more years older. These girls are at increased risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease because they are less likely to use a condom — possibly a result of unequal power dynamics in these relationships. This power imbalance might also increase their risk for violent victimization by older partners. (National Institute of Justice)
Teenage girls with older partners are more likely to become pregnant than those with partners closer in age. (Planned Parenthood, 2004) Further, girls who get pregnant are more likely to have the baby rather than get an abortion if their partners are older (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994). A recent study found that 6.7 percent of women aged 15-17 have partners six or more years older. The pregnancy rate for this group is 3.7 times as high as the rate for those whose partners are no more than two years older (Planned Parenthood, 2004; Darroch et al., 1999). When the age separation of the male is at least six years older, the 15 to 17 year old female is almost three times as likely to be one of those who later became counted as a teen pregnancy (Family Planning Perspectives). Teens who date older partners have a lower likelihood of consistent contraceptive use. For each year a partner is older than the respondent, the likelihood of always using contraception decreases by 11 percent. (Child Trends, 2004)
Younger and foreign-born teens, with lower parent education, with older friendship networks, and attending a school that spans multiple grades, had greater odds of having a first sexual experience with an older partner than with a similar-aged partner. Hispanics and premenarche females had lower odds of having an older sexual partner than of abstaining from sexual intercourse. In contrast... lower parent education, nonintact family structure, less connection to parents, substance use or having peers who used substances, and having older peers were associated with increased odds of having sex with an older partner, compared with not engaging in sexual intercourse. (Risk and protective factors associated with the transition to a first sexual relationship with an older partner, Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(2), 135 - 143)
Ten percent of females and 2% of males has had early sex with an older partner. These females were more likely to acquire an STD as young adults than were those whose riskiest relationship was before age 16 with a similar-aged partner (odds ratio: 2.1) or at age 16 or later with a similar-aged or older partner (2.4 and 2.6, respectively). (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):17–26 )
Data from a 1993-1994 survey of 150 black and Hispanic teenagers were used to examine differences in HIV risk-related behavior between young women who have a first sexual partner three or more years older than themselves and those whose first partner is their age. Compared with teenagers whose first partner had been roughly their age, the 35% of adolescents with an older partner had been younger at first intercourse (13.8 years vs. 14.6) and less likely to use a condom at first intercourse (63% vs. 82%). They also were less likely to report having used a condom at last intercourse (29% vs. 44%), having used condoms consistently over their lifetime (37% vs. 56%) or in the previous six months (44% vs. 66%). (Family Planning Perspectives, 1997, 29(5), 212-214) Nearly one-third of black female teens with older partners are more likely to report low rates of contraceptive use and high rates of pregnancy and childbirth.
Women with older partners were more likely to have reported that they had been forced to have sex at some time in their lives and that they had first intercourse in more casual relationships rather than long-term relationships (e.g., going steady or engaged). The researchers also found that Hispanic women and women who dropped out of school were more likely to have older partners. (Darroch, Landry, & Oslak. (1999). Age differences between sexual partners in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(4), 160-167) Young women who had ever been forced to have sex were twice as likely as those who had not to have a partner who was 3-5 years older"
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/crisis/why_i_deeply_dislike_your_older_boyfriend

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
Sorry,but you are simply w... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 8:20 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

Sorry,but you are simply wrong.I heave read thousands of pages of literature relating to human sexuality,and effects of child/adult sexual interaction.1 person said that teen males do NOT have the same authority to persuade another teen to have sex with them.Wrong.Adolescent males are the highest represented group of child sex offenders,comfortably outnumbering adult offenders.Teenagers frequently use social "leverage" to coerce other teens to engage in sex,even when the other may be less than willing to partake.For example, a teen can threaten another with humiliation amongst peers for refusing sex.An adult doesnt have this avenue of exploitation.Also many teen males have sexual urges which are as strong,and in many cases much stronger than adult men.Also, male aggressiveness peaks between the mid teens and the early twenties.Such urges are more likely to overpower moral safegaurds which the individual may posess.Also teens are less likely to make sensible choices relating to safe sex/birth control.Finally it is a proven fact that sex between "consenting" adolescents has bad mental health outcomes.All these facts lead me to the opinion that adolescent are,at best, less capable than adults in partaking in safe sexual behaviour.So why doesnt anybody give a damn what teenagers do in the bedroom? If their welfare were truly coveted,they would be forbidden from sexual contact with each other.
And just to drive home the point that teens arent all innocent and only capable of harmless sex,I would point out that teenage gang rape has reached epidemic proportions in many places,London for example sake.Teenage sexual behaviour is so poor so as to include forcing young girls to perform hours of oral sex on lineups of boys,and this behaviour is said to be commonplace by police.Girls are also pack raped by one group of teens before being passed to another group for their "turn".This is not rumour either,but sourced direct from police in these areas.
Anyhow,back to how you were all saying that only adults harm children when they have sex.Get real folks!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
Also I would point out that... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 8:51 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

Also I would point out that the previous anonymous assertions are add odds with some well established facts.They state"Young women who had ever been forced to have sex were twice as likely as those who had not to have a partner who was 3-5 years older".This is at odds with the fact that 33% of U.S child rape is committed by adolescents,yet only 25% of the population are adolescent,i.e adolescents rape other adolescents more often than do adults.
They also said "In contrast... lower parent education, nonintact family structure, less connection to parents, substance use or having peers who used substances, and having older peers were associated with increased odds of having sex with an older partner, compared with not engaging in sexual intercourse."They failed to note that this in no way infers a causative link,to which any statistician will attest.Saying this factor corellates with that outcome is highly misleading.It has been shown that,indeed,a poor socio economic background leads one to pursue sex at a younger age,and with potentially older partners.However the sex does not cause the low socio economic conditions,which is what Anonymous wishes to imply.Conventional wisdom leads many to beleive that early onset of sexual activity leads to poor emotional/educational outcomes.Yet correct meta analysis of data show the complete opposite.After one corrects for background data,those who start having sex early show lower rates of delinquency than those who start later.Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are far more likely to be subjected to sexual abuse.As such,many sexually abused individuals would be highly represented amongst convicts and the mentally ill,regardless of whether they ever had sex or not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Also the idea that an adol... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 10:14 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

Also the idea that an adolescent cant consent to sex is bubcus.Consider the situation where two teens agree to sex with each other.In this situation there are two,and only two possibilities.
1 one or both children were raped .
2 both children gave consent.
If a child cannot give consent to sex,then by default two teens having sex MUST be classified as a case of rape.There is no other possible conclusion.Yet adults routinely turn a blind eye to these instances of rape.If one teen falls pregnant its a case of "oh well,boys will be boys".If one gets a STD,"oh well,kids do these things".Yet an adult in the same circimstance with the same outcome is drawn and quartered.Where is the logic?
I,m not even trying to advocate for adult/child sex.I,m simply pointing out the massive double standard and the complete lack of logic behind the current system of laws relating to this matter.In many places is indeed illegal and a serious sex offence for two teens to have sex with each other.Yet how often are they prosecuted.Basically never.No one gives a damn.How would teens like it if I started a witchhunt,and pursued every single case where a teen fell pregnant to their boyfriend,making certain that the case was followed through and concluded with a conviction for child sex offence,with the guy being put on a sex offender registry.I dont give a damn if it was her boyfriend.The law is clear.They can not legally engage in sexual relations.After all,whats good for the goose is good for the gander.Seems nobody gives a damn when teens rape,have orgies transmit 7 STI's all in the one go(teen girls do have the most STI's after all),fall pregnant to their boyfriend etc. etc. etc.As far as society is concerned its all well and good.Just look the other way.But if an adult even lays a finger on a teen,they get burnt at the stake.All I can say is what an absolute croc of an argument some of you are trying to put forth.Its like saying the square peg will fit in the round hole when anyone with an I.Q of 10 or higher can see that it wont,no matter how hard you try to push it through.
you know perhaps I will start referring details of pregnant girls to the police.Maybe young people should have a taste of what it is like to be discriminated against.Perhaps i should notify the police when boys brag about what they did to their girlfriend,and subtly remind them that they are obliged by law to investigate and pursue a conviction for a child sex offence.I guess then we'll all be on a level playing field?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
It's not all well and good ... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 6:55 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It's not all well and good when anyone pushes anyone else into activities that could be horrifically harmful to them.

In male/female relations the female tends to carry the most risk and the males tend to be the shits that push for the stupid sex to begin with. All that said, teen males should be held accountable and DUH adults even more so. Have they become adults, capable of impulse control and being safe in public or not? If not they need to be locked up. If so they need to persecuted when they harm people.

DUH sometimes some nice older guy can really love a teen and care about her and all that but if the law gets involved then I want the law to have the ability to persecute based on age alone because it's almost impossible to prove psychological manipulation and coerced, forceful sex (or rape). Meaning it gives the law the ability to succesfully persecute sexual abuse when that is what's happening. IF the guy really loves this girl so much, why can't he wait three years for her to be legal?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (13 votes cast)
I haven't read this in quit... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 10:17 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

I haven't read this in quite some time, but if memory serves, one of the better interpretations of what Alone wrote is that people who are setting up standards for how to think about things either criminally or psychologically (I forget which) are *homophobic* to the extent that it blinds them to their own sexual 'outsiderness.' (such as not finding the idea of young women with older men to be, at best, an interesting proposition deserving some serious examination). I don't know, not re-reading it, but my assumption would be that we want people who are sexually well-adjusted to determine what is or is not...sexually well adjusted, and my educated guess *educated and informed* guess would be that those healthy people lean more toward accepting their own selves than it would lean towards denying other people's selves, which tends reflect a denial of oneself anyway. In other words, homophobes might not be of the soundest mind, demonstrated by their seeing hebephilia as a problem of only gay men and not a problem of men in general which keeps them safe from making any informed decisions *about themselves* that might presumably be challenging or threatening or difficult.
Hold on,

Interesting how some might speak of young women as capable of making mature decisions about their sexual lives (patently untrue) and yet when they do make decisions, decisions that could be interpreted as demonstrative of some control, they can become so maligned, like Monica Lewinsky. whatever else she did or did not sign up for, I'm sure she didn't sign up for that, nor for remaining single into her mid-30s, probably because no man will accept her as a wife.

I wonder if she compares to Hester Prynne. Any comments?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Actually anonymous just mad... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2012 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Daniel: | Reply

Actually anonymous just made an excellent point,which actually really reinforces my argument.They state "it's almost impossible to prove psychological coercion,or forced rape". So how come teenagers are allowed to have sex when it can not be proven that it was consenting? Did one rape the other?Who knows.But theyre allowed anyway.Why?
Another person asked earlier if I knew anyone who was involved with older people when they were young.The answer is yes.They are all fine and were unharmed by it.I also know a 16 year old girl who has been raped by two different boyfriends that were of similar age to her.She is suicidal and an absolute emotional basket case.The boys will never be brought to account because no one can prove they raped her.Nonetheless these boys are free to decide who they "think" is a suitable partner and whether they "think" the sex is consenting.From this it seems clear to me that protecting children is not what the law is all about.Much more to do with controlling people so they fall into line with what our capitalist masters think will serve their bottom line the most effectively.
And to drive home the point that there is no way on gods earth that a grown man is inherently more sexually predatory than a teenager, PLEASE view the following link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158455/Online-porn-turning-children-sex-attackers-Young-act-depraved-scenes-web-says-Deputy-Childrens-Commissioner.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
OH it's the capitalist *mas... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2012 10:11 AM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

OH it's the capitalist *masters* who are in control! I thought it was the Christians!

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/12/taboos_are_the_ways_christians_1.html#more

P.S. There's a picture of a pretty girl on that link. As a grown man I'm sure you can handle it; I heard she's underage. Do you wish you were 16 now?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
I have been following the c... (Below threshold)

July 8, 2012 2:10 AM | Posted, in reply to Daniel's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I have been following the conversation, which has suddenly become interesting.

So how come teenagers are allowed to have sex when it can not be proven that it was consenting?

Bingo.

Though you may understand the Answer already, as you asked the question I will tender the obvious answer, which is:

Teenagers are allowed to manipulate teenagers into having sex with them for the same reason that you’re allowed to manipulate women into having sex with you until Society deems them to be insane (I’m assuming you are a man older than the line the Law will draw in the sand to denote the magical moment when you suddenly became old enough to have free will). It's a reverse psychology Confidence Trick. Law has never been anything more than a Protection Racket imposed without being solicited on imbeciles who are told to be afraid, very afraid; but thankfully, the Law is here to protect us!

The reason you cannot legally manipulate (rape) a 17.5 year old or an 80 year old or a mentally-handicapped individual is not because they don’t have the capacity for consent; they almost certainly don’t, but that’s not the reason Law has started protecting them (the first laws went out of their way to legislate the other way with Honour Thy Father And Thy Mother - anyone decently sane would be horrified at the illogic represented by the Commandments which effectively served as the first piece of legislation. The brazen evil of that commandment [the other nine are just as brazen and obviously evil] is horrifying. Why honourable parents could ever have reason to tolerate - let alone Want or Need - such a insulting Law to ‘help’ them raise children to be happy is the question I've never heard Toddler Creeps ask. The answer is why you cannot manipulate 17 year old children into imagining they want to sleep with you.

They are the human property of someone else. Wait until they "come of age", and get "free will" before you rape them with your emotional manipulation.

Do Not Covet your neighbour's Wife, or his Children OKAY!? The JEALOUS LORD's first Laws were obsessed with commanding you not to feel that way? Could it possibly be a ‘crafty’ reverse-psychology play to get to consider feeling envy when coveting, by definition, is an utterly insane emotion?

Those who enslaved the human race took “free will” away. There’s only one way to do this successfully. They achieved it. They got humans to think it was in their best interests to exploit disparities for no other reason than “cause we can”. There’s always a pretext, of course; "women are evil, etc." They need men to keep them in line. "Children are stupid, etc." They need their parents to make decisions for them, regarding marriage and how to be traded like property for money and power. "Blacks are evil, poor, etc." They descended from Canaan. Blah blah endless creation of division between humans in order to get everyone exploiting everyone whilst deferring to our evil overlords. But almost no one is innocent.

Of course we're all victims but as far as the Catholic obliteration of "free will" of children is concerned, they have to simultaneously create the illusion of "free will" in their snivelling robotic impulse-driven emotional slaves. So they invented this hilarious idea of mea culpa to 'fairly' attribute the blame for when humans are insane and cannot act in their own best interests. Crimes of passion? Killing those you (ostensibly) love? Seems insane, on some level.

Not in this horrifying world. It's naughty!

"You naughty boy. You knew what you did was a bad thing, that's why you didn't want to get caught! Insanity plea? Nice try but no. Killing your 3 teenage daughters over a demented illusionary emotion loosely referred to as R.E.S.P.E.C.T caused you to lose face in the eyes of the community. What you did was sane and understandable, but naughty naughty. Here's some remedial prison rape so you learn your lesson for next time. Don't get caught."

That's the lesson those who will make you call them "Your Honour" and swear on a vile book of poisonous emotional fiction before they'll even consider your testimony, are trying to teach everyone with Law.

You must swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth; but then if you know your 'rights', you can plead the Fifth? How does that make sense? It all makes sense to me now. Snivelling Toddlers who know they're going to be 'naughty' love these 'rights'. I never had any use for "remaining silent". If and when I ever decide to have a child, I will have a motive that I will proudly hold up for logical scrutiny. You'll be too chicken to ask your mother for her motives for bringing you into the world.

The protagonist in that book they make you swear on is quoted as saying "Judge not, lest ye be judged". That makes perfect sense if you understand the horror of the Golden Rule that lies at the crux of Christianity. It's all a Confidence Trick. Everything, all the insanity, the lies, the deception, the endless preaching at others to do what you have no intention of doing, it's all a 'naughty' player's 'cheat' sheet. Tricks to freeroll suckers (and no sucker like a newborn) into pleasing their masters.

All the insanity of creeps makes a lot more sense once you appreciate that the exploited take ownership of their exploitation; they know it’s not justifiable, that’s why they have “faith” (and smirks) as their prepackaged counter-argument to your horrified logic.

The Abrahamic religions made narcissistic emotional Toddlers out of everyone. You all know so much more than you let on. I’m quite certain most people know a great deal about emotional manipulation, but they all think they’re ahead of the game with their filthy discretion, circumspect, privacy, secrets, confidentiality and horror, horror, horrifying makeup they all use to coverup their private shame. Which is, more or less:

They are leeches who do not want to contribute. They know their position is not logically justifiable. They just want what they want. It's how they FEEL. They will kill you, burn everything they cannot use, murder your children in cold blood and keep all your virgin "women children" for themselves.

Read Numbers chapter 31. That's Christianity. The entire Bible is pure evil but the 'sweet' is a demented Confidence Trick. They have not forsaken all that they hath, have they? So Jesus said they cannot be his disciples. Of course, if you're reading it, it's for you. Not them. It's their Confidence Trick.

That's what they idiotically think, in any case.

It's why they teach their human slaves to PLEASE them instead of teaching children to act in their own best interests and protect themselves from filthy emotional Confidence Tricks like love. It's why they've printed 8 billion copies of the most horrifying emotional toxic literature ever written in history, for their children to read. They all think religion’s corruption of children’s pure minds with their evil parables and blueprint for “How to Feel Like A Sociopath” (also known as The Holy Bible, Qur’an, Torah etc) is in their best interests.

It’s why everyone sneers or cringes instead of being outraged when children get pathetic and tragic and obsessed in ‘their’ sickening puppy-dog love, but children don’t imagine these exploitative emotional poisons do they? Their minds have been infected with these insane ideas. I wonder how that could have happened? Didn't they have parents to protect them from emotional exploitation?

It’s your passion! Society's passion. Everyone's filthy passion. Not mine. I'm sane. It's the creeps' filthy passion which they know they cannot justify so you'll get 'confused' by reading this poorly written but perfectly logical rant and 'confused' by reading Alone's brilliantly written and perfectly logical blog posts and 'confused' by a single sentence of brilliance from John le Carre.

"Love is whatever can still be betrayed.

Every parent is a horrifying sub-beast creature. They raise their children to PLEASE everyone except themselves. They never explain logic. There isn't any logic. There's no ration or reason or sense. They use violence and force and emotional coercion to 'persuade'. They're making slaves. AND THEY KNOW IT. I literally just worked that out today. You're all guilty, everyone who pretends to be 'confused' about the most simple things. Only small children can't see your insanity coming. Because they are sane.

Emotional Toddlers give their poisonous emotional passion to children to exploit them. It happened to them when they were children. It’s “their turn now”.

Laws are written not to deter, but to ensure ‘crimes’ of passion. Those who write laws have to keep all slave-owners pleased. To control everyone they had to parcel out the evil to snivelling imbeciles to give them ownership of their own exploitation. But human DNA is not coded to live in slavery. They had to circumvent this obstacle. There was only one way they could manage it. They had to convince your mother it was a good idea to exploit you. So they had to convince men it was a good idea to exploit women. So they convinced other men it was a good idea to exploit other races. Pretext?

They rejected their JEALOUS LORD (aka you). The Golden Ram the Chosen People fell flat on their face to worship is the clue. They didn’t actually ‘buy’ any of the idiocy Moses was spinning, they simply feared Power and wanted to be partners with Power. So they give away their power and then the snivelling little Toddlers and their big terrifying Brother are - together - going to destroy you! Ha-hah.

Toddlers are imbeciles. The Confidence Trick was played on them. They know this, but they're so vile they "pay it forward" cackling privately at their 'shrewd'. That's how religion does it.

Divide > Conquer > Rule. You peon humans deserve your slavery. The Catholic creeps were brilliant. But you bought into it all; hook, line and sinker. All the exploitation is owned by the exploited. It always has been. The dominoes always fall onto little children, who have no one they can exploit with emotional corruption, but they didn't have any need for slaves; they were just happy playing and having fun. It’s ludicrous that people pretend to be ‘confused’ about coercion and manipulation and pressure and emotional tricks and games of attraction. Sickening.

The reason you can’t rape 17.5 year olds the way you can rape 40 year olds is because those slaves are still the property of their exploiters. They've been sub-let or rented out for the duration of their childhoods. Once they become 'free' (hah), then you can rape them with your trickery and deceptive emotional exploitation and games. Those who exploited everyone had to make this power-sharing agreement with parents otherwise parents would never have manufactured 'willing' slaves for the pyramids that need building, the wars that need fighting, and the whores (who won't make you pay if you understand what "paying with love tonight" really means) to breed more of all three kinds of human property.

Once they’re 18, they magically gain the ability to think for themSelves. Only then do they have the ability to give consent, says the Law. It's not that 17 year olds cannot give consent, the Truth is that no one is sane, everyone is emotionally manipulable and exploitable, we're all emotional basketcases desperate to please everyone we want to exploit and we're hollow and existentially miserable because we live lives of deception and cold-blooded "taking advantage" of anyone who is defenceless (or sane, because sanity can never see the horror of insanity coming). Our parents did not raise us to be happy.

We were raised to be slaves. So unless you manipulate girls into thinking they want to sleep with you...enjoy the alternatives. I tried playing their game, I was so 'good' I horrified myself constantly. Emotional robots, they're all so desperate to please...those who they're looking to exploit. The horror of what I was doing damn near killed me, but I couldn't stop until I realised the rape went both ways.

I’m speaking in gross generalisations, but it’s effectively the horrifying reality. We rape women whilst simultaneously raping ourselves. We all want what we cannot have (pretty girls are no different), so we present ourselves not as we are but as we wish to be perceived (I doubt few did this as optimally as I was capable of, when I'd convince the cutest girls that I was too good for them by emotionally slamming the door in their face at the first hint of attraction or intrigue or simply noticing me for the first time - you should see how the narcissism screams, clothes come flying off, validate ME ME ME). If you don't want to rape them for 'free', you will rape the victims of sexual exploitation (I don’t care how much you pay their pimps) or you will sleep alone.

There is no such thing as “consensual sex”. Not one of us has “free will”. Our parents thought it was a good idea to raise children to please. To please them. Who we go on to spend our lives trying to please isn’t their business, but they will play their vile emotional tricks trying to leverage their hijacking / imposition of 'giving' us unsolicited life for whatever they can milk from imbeciles who all won’t hear a bad word about their mothers! Hah. The First Molesters of Emotional Infants who all remain emotional Toddler Narcissists for life.

The narcissism is evolutionary. It’s the human mind responding to the onslaught of emotional manipulation of mothers who love their children and want to exploit them to their full potential. The narcissism saves the lives of children who become narcissistic. It’s an ironic tragedy that they then go on to exploit their own children but what do you expect?

They feel their bloodline is worth propagating. They’re not interested in adopting an orphaned Child of Humanity, eww. It won’t be their own child, will it. How could they love something that wasn’t theirs, to own?

They didn't 'give' orphaned Children of Humanity the 'gift' of life. How can they emotionally manipulate them, when they can't use that demented Confidence Trick on children they don't own?

I'm sure you'll all be very confused. Too long? Uh huh. I know your dumb Toddler tricks. You all think you've very crafty but the joke, as always, is on the marks who are tricked into thinking they're going to benefit from someone else's con.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
"The Abrahamic religions ma... (Below threshold)

July 8, 2012 9:04 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Ginny: | Reply

"The Abrahamic religions made narcissistic emotional Toddlers out of everyone."

People latch onto ideologies because of *who they are* already. Including religion.

It can make them better or worse though, that is for sure. I don't believe it is inevitable that Chrisstianity is so flawed that a poor outcome is inevitable: there is a school of thought that even the most tricky easily misunderstood parts of the Bible are there to intentionally provoke necessary growth that is aimed at the individual, not at eliciting further support for what is, admittedly, just a written by humans, divinely inspired document. By the way, that last sentence is the official Catholic church opinion. As is the idea (from Vatican 2) that when an individual's conscience calls them away from an official teaching of the church, it is between them and God and they may be quite right and die and go to Heaven The church is not considered infallible. But I digress-just thought that might surprise someone.

I'm a Christian, but I can easily see why they bother people. I don't like a lot of them myself. There is a movement called Apologetics, and it's dated from the Greeks and includes Blaise Pascal and CS Lewis. Today there's a whole bunch of them---I like BJ Oropeza although I don't agree with everything he says. They just try to remedy some of the strange excesses and lack of {regard for?] reason with Christianity; I only mention it because somebody might like it.

and then there's what I really really do like, books like What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills. Awesomest!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
People latch onto ... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 1:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Ginny's comment, by jonny: | Reply

People latch onto ideologies because of *who they are* already. Including religion.

But you're being disingenuous, Ginny. When the children are latched onto by the leaches of religion, *who are they* already?

I'm a terrible writer but if you managed to read my long post, the logical arguments are probably irrefutable.

It's all a Confidence Trick. Everything, all the insanity, the lies, the deception, the endless preaching at others to do what you have no intention of doing, it's all a 'naughty' player's 'cheat' sheet. Tricks to freeroll suckers (and no sucker like a newborn) into pleasing their masters.

Numbers chapter 31. That's Christianity. The entire Bible is pure evil but the 'sweet' is a demented Confidence Trick. They have not forsaken all that they hath, have they? So Jesus said they cannot be his disciples. Of course, if you're reading it, it's for you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
1. children being latched o... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 6:20 AM | Posted by Gin: | Reply

1. children being latched onto by leashes of religion...

Kids are creative. A healthy kid can be exposed to religion and use it in a healthy way.

I seem to recall childhood religion involving angels, Christmas, a pretty nice white ritual called 'Mass', all life forms, nice things- I'm sure it was enriching.

Destructive religions (cults, certain elements of any religion in the wrong context) harm people, sure. Raising kids with no religion or philosophy of life is also considered a form of abuse by many. (Not by religious people; I mean people who are concerned about the welfare of children). Choice is considered such an important element of many religions that children don't even get baptized into the faith until they are deemed old enough to choose for themselves. Choice relates to the choice of faith---no choice, no real faith.

I'm simplifying.

I would have done a lot to have had a decent religious structure to fall back on when I had my first psych break, some kind of framework, preferably more conventional (Judaism would have helped, I think). Oh well. I cobbled something together pretty well. Maybe in some respects better than I otherwise could have, who knows.

2. Irrefutable? Do you really think that after so many many years of debating religion and 'reality' you alone are going to be the one to make The Irrefutable Argument? And that anyone who disagrees is just reading the proof wrong?

3. Numbers 31 is part of the Old Testament. There is a popular school of thought among Christians that the Old Testament is before Christ, and that religion changed fundamentally after Jesus came to Earth, which is pretty logical.I mean, it'd make sense that God sennt Jesus for a reason.

It is an argument that can go pretty deep but a quick way to say it is that the complicated rules of Judaism were basically replaced by Jesus' basic rule: love. It is important to understand, I think, that when we speak of love this way it is not referring to a fake kind of love, an artificial love, contrived, codified, or disembodied. It's embodied by human beings and relationships. Choices....

Can you tell I hate fake Christians who want to control everyone's behavior? I believe pretty strongly in people as individuals who must determine for themselves what it means to love and be loved- no phoney baloney shit that winds up on church t.v. or whatever.

Anyway- that was probably grossly inadequate. I tried.

Um, all of us, due to having been children with parents and siblings and whatnot, have a certain loss of free will because who we interact with as children have a way of 'giving us the damage that will make us such interesting people later on in life,' ha ha. All of us do what we will do with it. I suspect---no great fan of the new Age, but I was raised with a shitload of it--- that what they speak of when they say we choose our familiies and problems, etc is not that this is literally true, but that we (perhaps i should say I) become comfortable and well-adjusted, eventually, not in denial of what we got, but in acceptance. That would be a long process indeed- not what the New Agers would like tpretend it is.

"If you're reading it, it's for you," is absurd oversimplification. A lot of what I read is for other people, not that I require anybody know or appreciate it. Is it me, or is that comment mainly used to slam other people? Do elaborate- I'd love to know.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Not sure what point you wer... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 7:46 AM | Posted, in reply to Ginny's comment, by Daniel: | Reply

Not sure what point you were trying to make there Ginny?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I wasn't making any point, ... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 10:07 AM | Posted by Gin: | Reply

I wasn't making any point, just responding to the post-not super into the idea of making some kind of point- like to just write exploratory stuff. Take what you want, leave the rest

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Kids are creative.... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 1:07 PM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

Kids are creative. A healthy kid can be exposed to religion and use it in a healthy way.

How is a child going to process the most horrifying compilation of emotionally-toxic writing that's ever been published in history, in a healthy way? Name one child that has ever processed the evil of one of the Abrahamic Holy Books of murder, sociopathic rage, fierce jealousy, misogyny, child molestation, genocide, human sacrifice, unprovoked murder, needless vandalism, racism, hacking to death tiny children & defenceless women and the violent abduction of child girls to be used as sex slaves...in a healthy way.

All the above can be found in a single chapter in the Christian Bible. There are 6000 verses of evil like these two:

Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version) 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Children can be exposed to the Bible's emotional poisoning, and manipulate it in a creative way? Nonsense. They just think they're being crafty playing Confidence Tricks on everyone who cannot see their insanity coming. They're shooting themSelves in the face.

Raising kids with no religion or philosophy of life is also considered a form of abuse by many.

Yes, by those who want to infect their sane minds with the emotional pollution that leaves human children imagining emotional pain (but not imagining their exploitation) for the rest of their lives. Religious creeps would consider raising sane children to be a form of abuse. But then they can never make the logical case for why they raise children to please (everyone except the child) in the first place.

The religious exploiters of children molest them with their emotional manipulative Confidence Tricks. If Love, Forgiveness, Charity and Kindness and the rest of the filthy 'sweet' doesn't take, they just default straight into "spare the rod, spoil the child" which in this horrifying world of child-molesting cannibals feeding on their own qualifies as sane / legitimate explaining or teaching techniques in lieu of logic. Punishment instead of explanations. Violence instead of rational reasoning. Wars instead of Peace. Taking advantage instead of finding mutual advantage. Insanity instead of something more Sane than violence uses as a means to persuade and explain to children why it's not in their best interests to act that way.

Do you know why religious creeps use "the rod" (violence / force) instead of a convincing argument (logic / reasoning) to persuade and train children how to behave?

Oh don't be coy. Of course you do. It's not in the child's best interests to be your filthy slave. So Christian Armies are formed. Onward Christian Soldier, with the Cross of Jesus (peace & love?) going on before. Ah. They try Jesus. Then you kill, burn and rape.

First it's all sweet preaching of 'peace' and 'charity':

"Wouldn't you like to forsake all that you have?"

"Fuck off Christian leech."

"Oh well, I will just kill you and burn your homes and molest your sons and keep your virgin women children, gold and all wrought jewels for myself."

1. Confidence Trick of NT: Do as I say, not as I do.

2. Force / Violence of OT if preaching doesn't manage to persuade.

"Respect your elders."

"Fuck off you filthy pedophile. I'll respect you when you make a logical case to explain why you're demanding respect for failing to generate a more legitimate reason to be respected, for longer."

"We've been sparing the rod, you're clearly spoiled."

Cue Christian sociopathic emotional violence and rage. It's a two-punch combo. Emotional manipulation followed by the Violent emotional insane force.

Do you really think that after so many many years of debating religion and 'reality' you alone are going to be the one to make The Irrefutable Argument? And that anyone who disagrees is just reading the proof wrong?

Do you know how to refute a logical argument? I'll give you a hint. Use logic instead of idiotic fallacies like Time = Truth.

No one has made the arguments I'm making before. I have no doubt they've been made, but I have no doubt those who made them were killed for doing so. Your illogical assertion of the ostensible validity of time as a logical proof (when we're discussing the most illogical literature ever written in all of living history) is so insulting it's positively horrifying. Can you do logic, Ma'am? Can you add 2 + 2 and come up with 4?

No you cannot, if you are religious. Justice? Another word for the evil that is "revenge". All religious constructs. Every last one of which is provably insane, with logic. I'll do the logic for you Ma'am. Watch me do logic a child can do (until they're infected with emotional insanity).

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."

Justice has been served? [ ]
Double the violent insanity [ x ]

2 + 2 = 4 instances of injury. Not zero. There is nothing remotely logical in the entire holy books the writers of Yahweh wrote brilliantly (but nary a verse, logically) to turn children into emotionally manipulative Toddler slaves for life.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"If you're reading... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 1:28 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by jonny: | Reply

"If you're reading it, it's for you," is absurd oversimplification. A lot of what I read is for other people, not that I require anybody know or appreciate it. Is it me, or is that comment mainly used to slam other people? Do elaborate- I'd love to know.

Actually I was just using it because I've seen Alone use it a lot. I'm obviously an abysmal writer, I'm far better at speeches & debates; for all I know I've butchered the use of it.

But I was borrowing it from Alone trying to make the point that nothing a Christian ever says to anyone is ever followed the Christian. Everything is endless Confidence Tricks. They think it's a freeroll because they've turned the entire world into their Prison where they win all the Prisoner's dilemma spots where Sanity faceplates incapable of seeing their insanity coming.

The Bible was not written for victims to read. And exploiters to use to victimise. If you're reading "If you do not forsake all that ye hath you cannot be my disciple", it's for you. It's not for the Christian who's telling you.

Christians preach at you. They do unto others. That filthy uneducated nigger menial labourer (who wanted to leech because he was too lazy to work) should have said:

Do unto yourSelf what you would have others do unto you.

But he fucked it up, didn't he? That was intentional. He is provably insane in spots like this over and over. He was a brilliantly written protagonist they constructed to manipulate with, but only logic can prove this fact.

Teaching children with violence instead of logic is how they keep this fact hidden for 3500 years of treading water in terms of Humanity's Progress.

The Golden Rule was how they spread their emotional insanity all over the world. That's how the demented religious insanity went viral. Insane imbeciles scream their unjustified opinions all over this world, silencing decency and killing any chance of fun.

Religion screams every innocent and pure human child insane. Well, it tries to. If that doesn't teach them, out comes the rod and the 'pretexts' for rape. A Christian has never made a logical case to persuade in all of human History.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"Teaching children with vio... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 1:47 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

"Teaching children with violence instead of logic is how they keep this fact hidden for 3500 years of treading water in terms of Humanity's Progress."

Treading water...more like spluttering and damn near drowning at this point...and religion has little to do with it, it's sort of incidental. There would have been some other thing to fight over if not that.

As my favourite anthem to the apocalypse suggests to us...

learn to swim.


(Tool's Aenema)

As for Ginny's comments, she's right to point out your bullshit. You talk about religion like it's this abusive thing that can never be good. You're splitting, saying it's all-bad. If only life were actually so easily divisible into good and bad. Speaking of simplistic narratives...

And you say this stuff about logic...but right before that you say this: "No one has made the arguments I'm making before. I have no doubt they've been made, but I have no doubt those who made them were killed for doing so."
That is very clearly contradictory...are you even reading what you type before hitting 'Post Your Comment'?

Please, spare us the bullshit martyrdom, it's been done to death, especially on this site. (and criticised repeatedly by the author.)

And, speaking frankly, I also see a lot of fear, and a lot of anger in your words. Both of which have a tendency to short-circuit our ability to reason soundly.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"Also the idea that an adol... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 4:05 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Also the idea that an adolescent cant consent to sex is bubcus.Consider the situation where two teens agree to sex with each other.In this situation there are two,and only two possibilities.
1 one or both children were raped .
2 both children gave consent."

This statement proves you are more concerned with making sure adults can fuck children than the well being of children.

If you aren't fucking children then the laws shouldn't concern you, should they? Do you think females look back on their childhoods and think "GEE I wish males had MORE POWER to push me into sex that was harmful to me when I was still intellectually and emotionally developing"?

YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN AT ALL. LET THE PEOPLE WHO DO MAKE THE LAWS REGARDING THEIR WELLBEING YOU SOULESS BEING

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Also- I am all for stopping... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 4:08 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Also- I am all for stopping teens from pushing sex on each other as well. Particularly preventing teen males from having access to any female teens if they haven't had a vasectomy. And otherwise supervising teens because they are quite frequently idiots or sporadic idiots i.e. mostly decent with moments of terrible judgement which for many iproves with age and for some not so much.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
oh, Daniel you are right. ... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 5:20 PM | Posted, in reply to Daniel's comment, by Gin: | Reply

oh, Daniel you are right. I wrote that on no sleep. I just woke up and dreamed about what I was halfway writing about, it was an unconscious thing, related to, well, *me*...

Tired of the Bible talk really, but one thing: when the Bible says, "take up the cross," not everyone believes it is Christ's cross. It sort of relates to giving certain things up. Looking at it more figuratively than literally (the standard view). Obviously for human life (the very first valuable thing in the Bible, sacred) one cannot live a reasonable life by literally giving up Every Thing in a literal way- no good for raising children or nurturing families. I find it best to not be very literal with Bible stuff except maybe sacraments (communion, marriage). Didn't write that for Daniel-wrote it for Jonny. I like you Jonny. I don't care *too much* about what you believe, because I like you, I just care because it is in *me* to care. You are okay by me.

You know what really interests me as a kind of intriguing manipulative environment- Versailles and Louis 14 (or was it 15). I loved learning about it in Western Civ. didn't learn a lot, but it was neat. That's what I think of when you talk about psych tricks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes,indeed you are a bit of... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 11:02 PM | Posted by daniel: | Reply

Yes,indeed you are a bit of a dreamer ginny!and btw i would have no interest whatsoever in the girl in the link.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I think the problem with th... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 11:15 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

I think the problem with this contention is that it appears to be a false dichotomy, however I believe the it attempts to reduce the contemporary beliefs to absurdity, thereby demonstrating the lack of rigorous reasoning.

Also, how is normal defined?

Any "social" definition has no physical properties, whilst neurology is of many fallible descriptions that are possible, including evolution.

Furthermore, appealing to any "social" ridicule, consensus, or authority has no basis in the naturalistic interpretive regardless.

Like morality, normality is not obligatory in empirical science, unless this definition operates in a physical continuum.

As for my personal input, regarding erotic practices involving the pubescent, unless there is good reasons to object (i.e. physical harm), I do not see why it need be outlawed to the extent of destroying an adults life with imprisonment or castration, or even rejection from the socio-cultural herd.

It appears to be specious, deontic drivel of the narcissistic code that has on increased the bandwagon size in recent times, as I recall, the age of consent was 13, and still is 13 in some cultures, however it is even more so disingenouos when there is thought policing involved (e.g. obscene abstract and material implications), which intriguingly uses the same circular, broken inferences to justify why it is wrong, yet violence in reality and fiction are certainly more distinguished.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Also its got nothing to do ... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 11:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by daniel: | Reply

Also its got nothing to do with me wanting to fuck children.its got to do with telling a paedophile they should refrain from doing it when they know you dont give a flying fuck when your kids rape the living shit out of each other.the link i posted was to illustrate that children can and do employ sophisticated and highly predatory tecniques to fuck each other.but you dont give a shit.why the fuck should a paedophile not do it if adolescents are given free slather to do as they please?its one of the biggest issues bought up by paedophiles in treatment.you cant convince them its wrong because the prohibition is selectively applied.are young people excused for murder.why rape?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Btw i have precious little ... (Below threshold)

July 9, 2012 11:56 PM | Posted by daniel: | Reply

Btw i have precious little interest in sex full stop.i have far better things to do with my time.sex is strictly reserved for takentless dumb fucks like yourselves!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
You know when i hear about ... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2012 12:24 AM | Posted by daniel: | Reply

You know when i hear about some kid getting busted and put on a sex offender registry for sexting,i think to myself "fucking sucked in".tough luck fucking loser.all those sooks trying to say how innocent teen boys are.just experimenting.theyre fucking perverts just the same as are paedophiles.they can get fucked in the arse just like paedophiles.maybe one of your sons ends up on the sex offender registry.fucking good.ill be sitting back laughing as i read it in the news.p.s ginny best get a hanky to wipe the trickle of shit running from his nostrils

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Dude- I never called you a ... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2012 12:49 AM | Posted by Gin: | Reply

Dude- I never called you a child molester.. I just was commenting on the post...it wasn't a personal response at all. I look at this as craft for me --- not an accurate reflection of anybody personally. Just something to think, write, and play with. Even Alone---I don't think this is even his whole, like, self, like I don't think he's really cantankerous or grouchy or whatever.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Get out much?... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2012 6:53 PM | Posted, in reply to postcompleteness's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Get out much?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Well im glad you like playi... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 1:47 AM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by daniel: | Reply

Well im glad you like playing with it,even alone.i guess i am a little cantankerous but,i guess thats how you become after arguing with people who refuse to face the facts and live in denial of reality instead.
in any event,ignore my advice at you own peril.its you kids getting raped.not mine.it dont affect me one way or the other.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You made me laugh! Nobody m... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 8:27 AM | Posted, in reply to daniel's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

You made me laugh! Nobody makes me laugh. You are terrible! You really are absolutely appalling. I'm changing my name now. No no--- excuse me, worse than that, I'm changing my *alias.* My nom de plume. And I'm ahead of you, and I'm telling you right now, no plume jokes. 'Jen'

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
kids are not "raping each o... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 11:31 AM | Posted, in reply to daniel's comment, by tim: | Reply

kids are not "raping each other" when they have sex...like seriously, are you for real?

the reason that it (usually) isn't an issue is that there isn't the power imbalance that is necessarily implied simply by there being a difference in age/maturity. if there is some kind of power gap between partners, parents ought to be stepping in to prevent that situation from being taken advantage of by a dumb kid. but to call all pre-age-of-consent sexual contact mutual 'rape' is just inane. you might also be able to argue that a kid who can't give consent also can't necessarily ask for it in a way that's meaningful, either, although I am less sure of this and whether it absolves anyone of culpability for wrongdoing even if it is true in principle. 'consent' is a tricky concept and more about having a nice-and-neat theory than about reflecting what's real.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
well if you can't convince ... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 11:36 AM | Posted, in reply to daniel's comment, by tim: | Reply

well if you can't convince them it's wrong because of what the culture/society is doing...then the problem is them, not the culture/society. this is a classic example of narcissism, crowd-sourcing the superego.

an action is not wrong or immoral because it is against the law, it's the other way around, if anything, and rather imperfectly I might add. and often there is absolutely no connection, so it is more sensible to think of them as mutually exclusive.

legals and ethics are two very different things.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Well im glad you like play... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 11:41 AM | Posted, in reply to daniel's comment, by tim: | Reply

"Well im glad you like playing with it,even alone.i guess i am a little cantankerous but,i guess thats how you become after arguing with people who refuse to face the facts and live in denial of reality instead.
in any event,ignore my advice at you own peril.its you kids getting raped.not mine.it dont affect me one way or the other."

Irony overload...irony overload...irony overload. Oh gawd, Houston we have a problem.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"As for my personal input, ... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 12:09 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"As for my personal input, regarding erotic practices involving the pubescent, unless there is good reasons to object (i.e. physical harm), I do not see why it need be outlawed to the extent of destroying an adults life with imprisonment or castration, or even rejection from the socio-cultural herd."

What terrifies me is that your vocabulary is so posh. Intellegent people are evil. I'll just remember that. Intellegent people can convince themselves that any behavior they like is ok. Not because they care about the person they FUCK S A CHILD but because they are worried about the person they relate to.

The poor adult man who just wanted to touch a little kids genitals! AAAAW the poor widdle man, just wants to touch...

Just hope the cops find you first because if that ever becomes legal then I will make sure that a lot worse than castration is within my legal rights to unleash on the pigs who do this shit to children.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Honestly, if we remove prot... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 12:14 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Honestly, if we remove protections on the young and vulnerable then you wind up with people like me in the world.

And I would be more than happy to show you what suffering is like, oh men who think it's fine to violate children.

I hope you get the opportunity to experience it in hell. I don't usually hope for the existance of hell, but people like you remind me that perhaps it has it's value. Maybe prisons aren't actually harsh enough.

But of course, torture won't cause you to develop empathy. Seeing as you are incapable of imaginging that a child or teen might be able to consent to an act that could TOTALLY DESTROY THEM PSYCHOLOGICALLY-- and not have the self knowledge, or wisdom, or courage to stand up to an elder or even know what they truly want or what the repecussions might be or even what the fuck is going on.

And that's what adults like about it. You evil sacks of shit.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
We- men and women alike- n... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 3:33 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

We- men and women alike- need to stop apologizing for those who exploit the sexuality of young adults who are not even old enough to vote or join the military or legally rent their own apartment. We need to stop minimizing the harm that can happen and ignoring those who have been devastatingly destroyed by it. The only argument I EVER here from men is that it's not a big deal and women seem to be pretty split. But the majority of people who don't think it's a big deal HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT AS A YOUTH. And what's more the people who HAVE experienced it and didn't wind up getting abused and treated like crap and pushed into awful shit with all kinds of fucked up mind fucking tell the happy story the world wants to hear about how "sometimes it's sweet" and magically that sticks.

Which is bullshit and wrong on the part of people with good stories who do a great job of minimizing the trauma of people who were totally fucked up by it and regressing our capacity as a society to make a united stand in protecting young people from exploitation.

Once society makes the kind of effort it should to make sure that adult on child/teen sexual advances are immediately prevented from going anywhere, then we can talk about having compassion for the adults who can't get it into their heads that this behavior is extremely exploitive to young people- or who think it's wrong but have an impulse control problem.

I think it's understandable that adult males lust for the young and want to exert their power over the young. This is why men should not work with or be exposed to teens or children. Unless you want to claim that the men ARE capable of refraining from sexually exploiting young people in which case, they should be held to that capacity. If men think there is ANY POSSIBILY they MIGHT make a mistake, and want a gently understanding response to such a "mistake" as sexually exploiting a young person-- they need to accept they should not be tolerated around young people because such "mistakes" are not tolerable.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
What's more I absolutely th... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 3:46 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

What's more I absolutely think we DO need to do more to prevent children and teens from bullying/abusing/or committing crimes on each other.

It's bullshit. But considering our social pressure is on single moms to work three jobs and never be home and leave adolescent children to raise themselves and deal with an exhuasted miserable mom when she is at home--- rather than supporting moms (and dads) actually continue parenting their children during adolescents and teen years including supervising them, teaching them values and spending time with them in the afternoons (who will be home with the kids when we want all the adults at work at all times?)--

We really put pressure on people to behave in ways that run COUNTER to effective parenting. And suddenly blame them when the inevitable happens. "Hey why have you been working instead of raising your kids! Now they are shitty and/or dysfucntional!"

We get all pissed because no one is parenting the children but that's because OUR SOCIAL PRESSURES are telling adults to value working and increased income OVER time with children and family values.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
@AnonymousIs that ... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

Is that an ad hominen or are you flaunting diatribes, anonymous?

Can you actually refute my views, or do you always result to these false modes?

'What terrifies me is that your vocabulary is so posh. Intellegent people are evil. I'll just remember that. Intellegent people can convince themselves that any behavior they like is ok. Not because they care about the person they FUCK S A CHILD but because they are worried about the person they relate to.'

I am not certain how your semantics values morality, however I would argue that sex is NOT wrong, even in the case of rape, it is in fact the opposition of ones free will that is wrong, sentient beings have free.

You appear to be autonomous to this "social" law, be it one herds

jurisdiction, or when psychology continues to spit poison on their DSM, it just happens to be contemporarily wrong, just as it was the case for homosexuality.

My concern is physical trauma, you see, I presuppose methodological naturalism, thereby having a basis to justify my moral values and duties to be rational, unlike the normatives practiced in "social" science.

Human disgust is not a rational theory of justification, it is a scribble of broken, spurious, fuzzy concepts, which have only suggested further harm.

For example, do you believe that one ought to be imprisoned or killed for having a sexual preference?

How is this ANY different from the fallacies of a bigot?

You cannot convince me that the appearence of ones melanine activity justifies ones free will, just like I cannot be convinced that on the basis of ones sexual preference, or any nuerotype, again, it is physical trauma.

You have a mind of your own, arguments do not have to be superficial, nor do you need to agree with sexual practices of young pubescent humans, you need only accept the fact that it exists, and the fact that it is a rational belief.

Humans just happen to be attracted to other developing humans physical traits (e.g. 11-17 puberty), although the sexual practice between any pubescent human is another contention, however if you do believe it is wrong, the onus is on YOU, just like the metaphysical interpretive of theism, furthermore the agnostic is justified to apathetic practices.

Personally, I value divergence, like biodiversity, it's constituents (e.g.neurology of humans) are also diverse.

'The poor adult man who just wanted to touch a little kids genitals! AAAAW the poor widdle man, just wants to touch...

Just hope the cops find you first because if that ever becomes legal then I will make sure that a lot worse than castration is within my legal rights to unleash on the pigs who do this shit to children.'

You cannot divert the subject of attraction to sexual practice, these ad hominens and strawmanning are fallacious, you have even presupposed that I am a paedophile.

Again, I do not see why it is wrong for pubescent humans to have sex, I do find that there may be disadvantages for a 13 year old and a 25 year old relationship, though I would still feel this way in regards to a 15-17 year old.

In the case of paedophilia, I do not find attractions like paraphilia wrong, yet I do find the sexual practice wrong in this case being that the child (i.e. a sentient being) is undeveloped, hence subject to physical harm.

Also, that last sentence is certainly amusing, such jargon is parroted by the sexually insecure zealots of self refuting justice, the kind of individuals that believe sex is worse than murder, whilst even vigorously censor it in media and arts.

/How disingenuous.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
Except THAT I HAVE BEEN THE... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 8:11 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Except THAT I HAVE BEEN THE CHILD BEING ABUSEd you motherfucker..

YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE ROT YOU PIECE OF SHIT

I know what it means to be psychologically manipulated and submissively allow horrible things because you are to young to understand what is happening and to have shitbags like you justify the actions of the adult who totally fucked my shit up.

I know what it's like to be raped up the ass DO YOU? Why DO YOU DEFEND THE VULNERABLE BEING EXPLOITED!?

CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE ABILITY TO ASSES RISK OR STAND UP AGAINST PREDATORY MANIMPULATION

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
The problem in allowing adu... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 8:13 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The problem in allowing adults access to teens and children under the guise that "sometimes they are respectable" is that skilled manipulators are often ordinary people who appear trustworthy and know how to convince a young thing to keep secrets.

Yes of course fellow children can know how to do this which is also why I don't think children should be spending large portions of time alone unspervised with the opposite sex.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I guess you're in favor of ... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 8:25 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I guess you're in favor of allowing the wolves have their prey with no consequences.

You think life in prison is worse than what I live with? You have no idea, the screams that rage in my system. All of the no's that were supressed by a manipulative bad person. My brain doesn't work, I have PTSD and cognitive disfynction and dissociation. FOR OVER TEN YEARS. You think it gets better? You think people can abuse a teen and ask them to stop crying while they do whatever they want for years and that it can JUST BE FINE?

MY LIFE IS HELL. Do I feel bad for the guy? Sure. He's happy with a wife and two kids while I CAN;T EVEN WORK because my ability to function has been so impaired.

SO FUCK YOU. YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE DAMAGE SEXUAL ABUSE OF TEENS CAUSES OR HOW EASY IT IS FOR AN OLDER PERSON TO GET A TEEN OR VULNERABLE PERSON TO ACCEPT TERRIBLY ABUSIVE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT FIGURING OUT WHATS BEING DONE TO THEM UNTIL ITS TOO LATE.

It's not too much to ask that society FUCKING PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM SEXUAL PREDATORS.

YEs I will say my consent as a teen (by default of staying not by default of ever agreeing or being enthusiastic about sex) was not ever even given to begin with but whatever passive consent I gave by not fighting back as hard as I could, but I guess eventually resulted in something like consent-- SHOULD NOT BE VALID AS CONSENT.

But I was not prepared to know what was happening or what my legal rights were or how to handle the situation safely or what was going the fuck on. I didn't even know it was illegal until he told me I had turned legal on my 17th birthday. Teens are not prepared to handle predators like this and we should NOT just hand teens over to adults "if the adults seem nice" FUCK THAT. Many people thought "he was so nice!"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
And no, teens don't know ho... (Below threshold)

July 11, 2012 8:37 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And no, teens don't know how to screen for abuse or undue pressure or manipulation and no their consent to things that are harmful (which includes psychological damage) to them is certainly not valid with an adult who has more responsability. Eventually we allow women to consent to abuse and therefore let the man off the hook. Which I think is bullshit to begin with but since I guess most men behave this way we just don't have the police force to lock up the majority of men for the reality of how pushy and coercive and forceful they are about sex. I'm saying don't let those predators anywhere near my kids or they will be dead. So if you care about adults who like fucking teens, perhaps figure out how to prevent them from thinking it's ok for them to fuck the shit out of my kids and then let the teen feel like they ust never tell anyone about the part where they cry and feel bad inside, and instead tell everyone that everything is good! and to keep letting themselves be fucked in horrible ways because the love is so reeeal! OF COURSE!

What's more because the teen LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVES the adult they need to stay happy and not be sad or scared or feel bad, because they don't want to make the adult feel bad. Everything is great! Yeah, it's ok, please don't want to die. I'm fine everything is fine.

And then when the teen gets knocked up? Then what? When this douche bag has been jamming his unprotected cock in a teen because "condoms block the flow of energy and he's sterile". Yeah even as a teen I thought that was bullshit and said I didn't want to have sex without condoms and he would say "Oh sure! We don't have to have sex!" Woops my penis just slipped inside you though, now what are you going to do about it?

Cry?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
well if you dont like kids ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 5:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by daniel: | Reply

well if you dont like kids being preyed on,why dont you restrict the kids from preying on each other.you dont like the idea but none the less you refuse to outlaw the behaviour of kids raping each other.what absolute fucking hypocrasy!Also,as far as your emotional difficulties go, do you think you would be any better off if a strong 17 year old pressured you tp have sex.that would be perfectly lawfull,but you would still have the same difficulties you have now.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
"why dont you restrict the ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 8:13 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"why dont you restrict the kids from preying on each other"

Hell yeah. Let's restrict kids preying on each other.

I DO NOTHING BUT INTERNET ACTVISM TO ENCOURAGE MALES OF ANY AGE TO NOT BE FUCKING PREDATORS.

Hahahahahaha, you really made up that I think teen males should be allowed to rape their peers to make yourself justified in encouraging society to let adult males fuck teens? Hahahaha! the lies you tell yourself. Look I know there is genuinely something wrong with your brain and you can't REALLY understand empathy for kids who suffer, but for any other intellectualy and emotionally stunted sheeple who think it's ok for adults to fuck teens and we should be MORE tolerant of it as a society, I want to make I offer an extensive counter opinion that actually comes from someone who went through it.

FOR THE FUCKING LAST TIME; I DO NOT THINK TEENS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RAPE EACH OTHER. Please stop making up shit to justify how much you want adults to get to fuck teens.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Your obsessed with the laws... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 8:18 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Your obsessed with the laws and how wrong they are. Whatever changes are made to the laws THEY SHOULD PROTECT TEENS MORE. So if are worried the laws are wrong the solution should be to fix them AND TO TAKE FURTHER SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL MEASURES to ensure that children are not being preyed on. What's more to stop sending the message to the idiotic scumbags we call regular men in this society that it's ok to sexually abuse and exploit anyone.

The very fact that you are implying that because teen males get away with sexually harming teen females THEREFORE adults should be able to fuck teens, shows me that youre concern has nothing to do with empathy for the teens but rather with making it more acceptable for adults to fuck teens.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
All i,m saying is dont exp... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 9:04 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

All i,m saying is dont expect any individual whoever they may be to respect any law,regardless of what the law relates to,if that law is not applied consistently to all members of the society.Dont expect anyone to respect a law which people pick and choose who they feel they will hold accountable to that law.You say child abuse is wrong under all circumstances,yet in the very same breath state a set of conditions under which the act of child rape can be justified,such as the anon who said that as long as the boys were vasectomised they could fuck the girls.How utterly absurd!
In any event there are plenty of good,advanced,healthy societies that do allow grown ups to fuck 13,14 15,16 year olds.Most of them have lower rates of mental disorders than societies that choose to "protect"(laugh) their children.I guess the child molesters can just hop on a plane and go there.Hell ill even buy them a plane ticket! At least there not hypocrites which say something is a crime,but then ignore it when certain individuals commit the crime,then expect others individuals to take the law seriously.
Also I find it interesting that the countries with the most vehement resistance to sexual "immorality" have the highest rates of sexual abuse,and highest rates of sexual addiction,pornography use etc,etc.You preach one thing but acheive the exact opposite.Countries with more liberal attitudes towards sexual morality have lower rates of teen pregnancy,sexual addiction,sexual abuse,so on and so forth.You should all step off your moral high horse.You think your all good people of high moral standing because you've been brainwashed to believe it.Point the finger at the "evil ones",then return to your lives of sloth,gluttony,rape,murder etc,all the time beleiving you are "good" people.Paying your taxes so your government can spend it building weapons to secure their share of the worlds dwindling resources.Youre not good moral people.Youre fuck all! Tell someone how wrong it is to have sex with your kids,then kiss them on the cheek as you send them out the front door to go to some party where there gonna be fucked in the ass,mouth cunt and whatever other hole some anonymous can find to have their own personal party in.Please save your lecturing for other "parentally endorsed" rapists.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
As a final note,I never sa... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 9:28 AM | Posted by Daniel: | Reply

As a final note,I never said at any point that adults should be allowed to fuck teenagers.The one and only thing I ever suggested is that the law be considered applicable to all individuals,and not applied selectively.Where I live,indeed nobody can legally have sex with anyone under the age of sixteen,not even another 15 year old.So if I am to use YOUR logic,I should beat to death any schoolboy who holds hands or kisses some other boy or girl their own age.After all they are paedophiles to the letter of the law.correct?I fail to see why they should be excused.After all in YOUR own words there can be no justification for child abuse.Children are expected to be held accountable for committing any other crime which applies to adults.Shoplifting,murder,assault,vandalism etc etc etc.Oh but when it comes to breaking the law in relation to sex,well its a different matter im led to believe.The law is to be ignored in that instance?And if the law is ignored in that instance,who is fit to decide which instances the law does and does not apply?You?me?the postman?Bob from down the road?Any other dumb fuck that chimes in.You want there to be laws which restrict who fucks your kids,FUCKING well obey them.Maybe then paedophiles would have one less reason to consider flouting the law.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Daniel-- still nothing you ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 10:22 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Daniel-- still nothing you have said has implied that legaliing adult on child sex is in the interest of the children who get fucked by adults.

Your plan involves throwing those children to the wolves.

You are a sociopath.
But please do continue to explain how the mind of a sociopath who has no urge to protect the wellfare of children works.

I do not want anyone killed. I would like a justice system to humanely keep sociopaths locked up so that individuals filled with pain and rage from being seriously injured don't have to take justice into their own hands and lash out even more viciously than the law would.


I think rehabilitation, education, and treatent of mental illness and child abuse/trauma neglect in crimminal populations should be higher prioritized and I do in fact care about their well being.

I also believe I have to right to self defense of myself and children and if my society is not "man" enough to look out for the fucking vulnerable and stand up against bullies and abusive people then I will have to fight them myself. I believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation and if you want a society that has mercy for adults who fuck teens, than I will advocate mercy for the people who kill adults who fuck teens in acts of vengeance.

Kids should not be persecuted the same as adults-- they literally do not have the same mental development. We need to focus on ensuring kids have in tact families, teaching good values, ensuring kids have access to mentors and role models and families have support and encouragement to learn good values themselves. And we need to focus on rehabilitation (AND REMOVAL FROM SOCIETY AND ACCESS TO OTHERS) for youth who are bullies. Since we don't know how to successfully rehabilitate harmful people yet, we need to focus on better identifying bullies and cruel people young and preventing them from having free reign on the innocent and teaching them that if they want to be cruel shits they will not be allowed to participate in society.

Because of the fact that will is complicated, we haven't yet figured out how to treat people with sadistic tendencies and don't really have proof either way that some people might not just "want" to be that way no matter how they were raised or what their biology gives them. What we can do is use the knowledge we have now to at least ensure that criminal and abusive behavior that is the result of lack of teaching compassion and right action, lack of healthy family life, and lack of ability to learn skills and assets that ensure a position in society and quality of life--- can at least erase those sources of cruel, ignorant, bullying, and criminal behavior.

We still need laws and a prison system, but they will always be imperfect, not to mention because people like yourself don't inherently care about other human beings are are focused on what the law says rather than on caring about people within your society.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
You're completely making u... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 10:32 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You're completely making up that I don't think teen girls should be educated about and protected from how harmful and cruel and ignorant of how much harm they can cause their partners that teen males can be. Teen females (and emotionally stunted male and female adults) can of course behave terribly to their partners as well as teens are not yet able to reliably intellectually understand how to behave in relationships, what the rules are, how their behavior affects others, or how to control their own impulses reliably.

The act of being pounded by a penis and being underneath someone who has the power to hold you down however puts females at much higher risk for truly traumatic experiences with sex whereas the actual risks to males are very different. (Though they can be emotionally and psychologically harmed by females as well.)

I don't think teens should be having sex at all. What exactly is your ideal society? One that allows adults to fuck teens with no intervention?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
By the way, society telling... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 11:01 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

By the way, society telling adults it's ok to fuck children does NOT make it feel any less scary or painful or confusing for children. It just tells the children the message that being treated that way is endorsed by society and if the child wants to live in the world they better adjust and accept that people want to do these things to them. And then they are quite literally made whores because it is entrenched within them that they must remain peaceful, compliant and submissive while the men do their business no matter what it feels like for the girl.

There is nothing about accepting men treating females this way that is in the interest of women. It may very well make men less violent--- giving them access to victims. But it is not an acceptable strategy to stop *"men" from being the violent creatures they are without access to women who can be exploited exactly as they want (without actual regard for the girl or woman in the big picture of her life or even in that moment)

* I certainly hope that most men can refrain from being evil violent creatures without having females handed over to them to prevent their monstrous behavior. Sacraficing the vulnerable female young to the monsters to appeas them is really a pretty gross strategy to achieve peace. I promise there are better ways. Or if men are so violent that they can't control themselves unless they can feed on the young, than men should be kept locked up and allowed to do work from the safety of their restrained lives.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
I should clarify the word "... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 11:07 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I should clarify the word "whore" did not actually mean recieving money for sex but feeling powerless to have agency in sexual relations-- a position from which many enter sex industries because being in that state is damaging to brain development and ability to succeed in school or work, or function within normal requirements of the work force. Child abuse has real affects on work performance, cognition, and exectuive function leaving such abused girls little option to earn income within the structure and requirements of the normal work force.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
@AnonymousYou stil... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:36 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

You still have yet to explain WHY sex is harmful, it has been argued as the finest and worst of human experiences, although I find this to be self refuting.

Which one is it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
@AnonymousIt is on... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:43 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

It is one argument to deny pubescent sex, however to argue further special pleading (i.e. gender discrimination) is truly amazing, I do hope you have good arguments to convince me otherwise 'cause your babble spiel, sexist horseshit is grounded in one dimensional, anecdotal reasoning.

I also find it amazing how you flaunt imprisonment and death around as if they were trivial consequences, LOL, if your experience was truly horrible, I am certain you would not even be alive today to spout this pretentious nonsense...

To clarify my position, it is true that I have never been subjected to what is interpreted to be this sexual abuse, however as an aspie I was physically bullied for many years, and the implications to resolve this being even worse.

This is an experience that would never be desired regardless of ones age.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Sex between an adult and a ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:45 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Sex between an adult and a child is scary and makes kids feel bad and they don't know how to assert themselves or understand what the adult is doing or why they feel aroused or whether their arousal means they have to let it happen or what is going on and it causes serious emotional crisis for many children.

God you're desgusting. You really think an adult penis jammed in your anus while you fucking try not to scream because you are instunctually respectful of what adults are doing is not horrific? You're not even a human.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
So Jerry Sandusky, was prac... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

So Jerry Sandusky, was practicing his love on the children? Hahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Children don't know how to ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:54 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Children don't know how to stand up to adults if the adult is doing something scary or that hurts and sex can be really scary and hurt and make people feel bad and it takes a lot of work to learn how to figure out what your needs are and assert yourself in sexual relationships.

What's so funny is that you are claiming your aspergers makes you a sociopath-- unable to understand what child abuse is. Which makes you a danger to other humans and if that is the result of your aspergers is damaging to other aspies because it means the appropriate societal response to aspergers would be supervised living the same as it should be for other disorders of in tact empathy and ability to know right from wrong.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
If you genuinely can't unde... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 2:58 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

If you genuinely can't understand right from wrong than you should be locked up for the sake of everyone around you. I do sympathize with the fact that would suck for you and I think should have access to art supply or musical equipment and fair treatment and all that, but you do not have the right to abuse other humans who are still developing and taking their sexuality when they are not capable of assessing whether the arousal they feel actually means the sex will ultimately be beneficial or harmful to them. If you don't understand that then I think you are wrongfully free and society needs to do better identifying people like you and getting you locked up sooner.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
'What's so funny is that yo... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:03 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

'What's so funny is that you are claiming your aspergers makes you a sociopath-- unable to understand what child abuse is. Which makes you a danger to other humans and if that is the result of your aspergers is damaging to other aspies because it means the appropriate societal response to aspergers would be supervised living the same as it should be for other disorders of in tact empathy and ability to know right from wrong.'

No, I do believe aspergers is a disorder, unless you are defining it in regards to typicality, hence in this case it is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

I am arguing that your suggested experiences with sex are moot to actual physical bullying, simply for being different.

Also, you have been enamored by the indoctrination of contemporary culture to extent of fallacious reasoning, you are not even open to moral ambiguity and gender.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
@AnonymousYou are ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:05 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

You are far too narrow, all your arguments are baseless assertions, in fact, you conclude that one ought to be imprisoned or killed for disagreeing.

So fallacious.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I'm not open to moral amigu... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:10 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm not open to moral amiguity when it means allowing adults to groom and sexually abuse children. Yeah. That's right.

I was when I was young. And men had a field day with that. No consent to be harmed out of childlike need for attention and affirmation and fear of being repremanded and disliked by adults is not consent.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Yes I do. Verbally enabling... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:11 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Yes I do. Verbally enabling child abuse is a danger to real children.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
And I am not interested in ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:13 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And I am not interested in killing anyone, I believe I have the right defense of my children or any child in danger and yeah I use whatever means I can. That priotizes the lives and well being of children over the live and well being of predators who would groom them and sell them on sexual experiences that could completely traumatize them and severely fuck up their development and connection and trust to normal human beings.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
@AnonymousCognitiv... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:17 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

Cognitive arguments (i.e. disorders) are certainly more vague than physical arguments, for example, we acknowledge that all organism are programmed to survive, there is preservation of life.

These arguments are concrete, however being emotionally damaged is open to interpretation, it requires thorough analysis, and that being IF your presuppositions of the mind are granted.

We are discussing if sex is harmful, not if it is of repulsing qualities.

You really ought to have a fact-value distinction in your arguments.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Why does adults fucking chi... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Why does adults fucking children cause harm? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

get a broom handle. Ask a friend to tie you up and shove it up your ass for about an hour. If you bleed or bruise or cry out, that's fine tell them they should just keep on going. You can cry, that's fine. Now imagine an adult you trusted is telling you this is what needs to happen and encourage you to let it happen. They even get your consent. "See you like that don't you" you don't really but they tell you you should, and adults are older and know things, right?

Mostly it just hurts and you WISH you could die. You WISH you could collapse within yourself. In fact you learn how to disappear. You can go somewhere else. Somewhere deep inside and everything you see above you is far far away. Far away. You can be away from all that.

And then after years, after years of that, you can't stop the dissociation. It doesn't just happen when he's doing things, but anytime you see men. Your body wants to protect you. You disappear, reality starts not working. You can just disappear. but then it shatters, it shatters, you're dissappearing too much and you can taste your body collapsing inside, it's not working right. You're having panic attacks and delusions. When the men come near, it makes everything bad. Everything is bad.

WHY is it bad for kids?! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH hahahaha. You support torture. And yes, if you're wondering, your choice of moral ambiguity over preventing innocent humans from torture for no reason---- does indeed make on the side of evil.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
And no I do not believe you... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:35 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And no I do not believe you should have been bullied and support us collectively as a society doing more to prevent bullying. Do you support such measures being taken or are you an advocate of bullies as well?

What about moral ambiguity? How can you prove that being bullied was in fact wrong? Maybe you liked it and it was beneficial for you and you just don't know it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Are you arguing from person... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:37 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

Are you arguing from personal experience?

How can you generalize this?

When I was 13-17 years of age, I was neutral to the concept of sex, yet even now my views have remained consistent, and more intriguingly I did know a student at 14 that had a relationship with an individual suggested to be 23, she got married at 16 and appeared fine to me.

Perhaps it is YOU that simply dislikes sex, regardless the problem I find with your views are the exceptions (i.e. my claim) and double standards (i.e. sexism).

Furthermore, the onus is on YOU, I am actually agnostic in regards to this topic, therefore I can appeal to skepticism.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Maybe the bullies were real... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:38 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Maybe the bullies were really good people who loved you and knew what you wanted better than you did. How do you know? there are not enough facts and not even proof. Maybe we should encourage society to be more tolerant of bullying, and love bullies and let them do what they want to their victims, because we want to show we are thoughtful and open minded.

How can you prove they were harming you at all and were not in fact giving your body an experience to grow stronger through adversity! How kind of them! Training your body to grow stronger and meet adversity is a rewarding experience, why are you claiming that such training is inherently harmful? What's harmful about that?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
You see, I do not actually ... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:41 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

You see, I do not actually believe bullying is wrong in the naturalized philosophical sense, however I do believe as sentient human beings it is our best interest to flourish.

I have personally been poisoned with many pejorative labels, aspergers syndrome, dyspraxia, dyslexia, and originally even having a medical diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in my early years, yet as soon as I see past these flawed extrapolations and my personal excuses as a victim that I no longer had these dysphemisms with the exception of autism.

Furthermore, I actually managed to resolve the bullying.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Blahblahblah yes I know you... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 3:55 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Blahblahblah yes I know you support children getting groomed and psychologically manipulated and sexually abused by adults, I get it. You're really cool!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
So, I was bored this evenin... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to postcompleteness's comment, by tim: | Reply

So, I was bored this evening, here's the result of that:

[OP's comments in normal type, my replies in italics]

July 11, 2012 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by postcompleteness: | Reply

...

I am not certain how your semantics values morality, however I would argue that sex is NOT wrong, even in the case of rape, it is in fact the opposition of ones free will that is wrong, sentient beings have free.

Why is sentience a determining factor? If a person is dead, is it okay to have sex with their corpse? If they’re passed out and on drugs and won’t remember (see TLP’s piece ‘When is it okay to rape a woman?’) and therefore not “sentient” while they are being abused, and they won’t experience the trauma (ridiculous counterfactual anyway, but go with it) does that make it moral or amoral? No. If I need to explain further, read the aforementioned piece.

What is ‘free will’? Why is free will a determining factor? What do we mean when we say a being has ‘free will’? You might think this is an easy question to answer, but it’s not. It does produce nice-and-neat ethical theories which provide easy explanations of the world, though. But life is more aporiatic, more nuanced than that.

...

My concern is physical trauma, you see, I presuppose methodological naturalism, thereby having a basis to justify my moral values and duties to be rational, unlike the normatives practiced in "social" science.

So you don't accept the idea that we have a consciousness, that we have a mind, that we have the capacity to be abused emotionally? Okay, you're projecting your schizoid feelings onto the world, and methodological naturalism is your philosophical justification for this detached and unemotional approach to life. This paragraph is a virtual non-sequitur. So you’re going to completely disregard the literature on the topic you’re speaking about and then proceed to expound on it as though your opinions are worth listening to? Why is methodological naturalism the only admissible way of knowing? You have not explained this, you simply take it as axiomatic – but again, why? So much for soundness.

And what are these supposed ‘normatives’ practiced by social science? Why did you put the word social in scare quotes? If you’re going to disregard like a dozen different fields of inquiry, you need to give more than a one-sentence explanation of why. Speaking of skepticism....

Human disgust is not a rational theory of justification, it is a scribble of broken, spurious, fuzzy concepts, which have only suggested further harm.

It isn’t, but it points to a rational theory of justification. And what’s more, all of our ethical propositions, and most or all of our propositions about science come from our emotions in one way or another. We tend to reason retrospectively. For instance, your focus on logic and ‘methodological naturalism’ – it’s hard to not see a link between this approach and autism. We all have a tendency to self-justify, even in our supposedly “rational” and “logical” beliefs and attitudes. Cognitive biases cause us to tend to think in these ways, and it takes a good deal of self-reflection to see around them, and this is almost always imperfectly. Unconscious emotional relationships to various symbols in the world also shape our beliefs about the world (for instance, attitudes about the state are often shaped by one’s experiences with authority in early life). So when we have a disgust reaction to something, we should pay attention, and see if it has validity, and isn’t misplaced or misdirected reflex. It seems that it is exactly on target here.

For example, do you believe that one ought to be imprisoned or killed for having a sexual preference?

This question is disingenuous and presumes that we are talking about something that is similar to homosexuality, simply because of this DSM aspect to the debate. It isn’t, it’s categorically different. Other apes display homosexuality, it is normal. Other apes do not display pedophilia, nor do hunter-gatherers who have not entered the domestication process, it can in no way be said to be natural (except insofar as this pathology is a natural reaction to experiencing trauma and abuse). Second, complex PTSD/PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia (to name just a handful) as virtually-invariable effects on one party due to the practice is a damn good reason to argue for outlawing this “preference” (to call a pathology a “preference” is rather disingenuous, the neutrality of the language is inappropriate to the context). There may be exceptions to this, but we do not base our legal system on exceptions. Kantian ethics, the basis of our legal system, is all about there being no exceptions (never make any ethical proposition that you would not at the same time will to be a universal law). What’s more, there are many reasons why we should take issue with this that have nothing to do with the violation of the sentience of the victim’s free will…(not to minimise this, it’s a key issue). What about the free will of the perpetrator? They act out of compulsion, and many of them have an intense self-loathing about the whole thing. They’re not accessing your precious ‘free will’, either.

How is this ANY different from the fallacies of a bigot?

Because there’s a good basis for the claims that isn’t about fear and hatred, even if it isn’t being made by the poster you’re responding to. Racists don’t have any sound arguments for their claims, zero. Those in favour of prohibition of pedophilia (those lunatics!!1) have too many to list.

You cannot convince me that the appearence of ones melanine activity justifies ones free will, just like I cannot be convinced that on the basis of ones sexual preference, or any nuerotype, again, it is physical trauma.

You have a mind of your own, arguments do not have to be superficial, nor do you need to agree with sexual practices of young pubescent humans, you need only accept the fact that it exists, and the fact that it is a rational belief.

Why should we accept that these practices are based on a ‘rational belief’? What exactly constitutes a ‘rational belief’, in your view? You need to explain this term and the relevant claim since meaning of the term and basis of the claim are both unclear. What’s more, to claim that a pubescent child’s understanding of sexuality is “rational” is simply ludicrous, and indeed, is as such prima facie. Part of the reason why we place so many restrictions on pubescent expressions of sexuality is because it takes a while to work out one’s rational understanding of many aspects of life, sexuality included. Putting it simply, due to societal/cultural complexity (as compared with more ‘primitive’ social models such as bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and pre-industrial modernity) the individuation/maturation process takes much longer to complete than it has in the past. This is yet another reason why we place these restrictions on pubescent expressions of sexuality.

Humans just happen to be attracted to other developing humans physical traits (e.g. 11-17 puberty), although the sexual practice between any pubescent human is another contention, however if you do believe it is wrong, the onus is on YOU, just like the metaphysical interpretive of theism, furthermore the agnostic is justified to apathetic practices.

Actually, the onus is on you, because you’re disagreeing with basic human biology. Humans do not “happen to be attracted” to children just by default. And even if that’s true, we also have other aspects to our minds that, in a healthy mind, will interrupt that attraction, not because it’s a violation of law or social norms (though this is part of the explanation) but for a much better reason – because it violates the other person, since they would be unable to deal with that kind of relationship in a way that is healthy for them. Also, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or metaphysics.

Personally, I value divergence, like biodiversity, it's constituents (e.g.neurology of humans) are also diverse.

This is a non-sequitur.

...
Again, I do not see why it is wrong for pubescent humans to have sex, I do find that there may be disadvantages for a 13 year old and a 25 year old relationship, though I would still feel this way in regards to a 15-17 year old.

It’s wrong because they are incapable of consenting properly since they are emotionally, mentally, physically vulnerable to manipulation, for starters (there’s a lot more to it than this, but this fact alone is enough to support the restrictions currently in place, if not stronger ones). If we had a way to extend this provision to people over the age of majority who still suffer from this immaturity, we might do it, but that is much more difficult than drawing the line at sixteen or eighteen or wherever.

In the case of paedophilia, I do not find attractions like paraphilia wrong, yet I do find the sexual practice wrong in this case being that the child (i.e. a sentient being) is undeveloped, hence subject to physical harm.

So, I’m left wondering – is your implication that a ‘developed’ and ‘sentient’ being would not be subject to physical harm? What else are we to conclude from “I do find the sexual practice wrong in this case being that the child (i.e. a sentient being) is undeveloped, hence subject to physical harm”? If that is your claim, it’s ridiculous.

...

July 12, 2012 2:36 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

You still have yet to explain WHY sex is harmful, it has been argued as the finest and worst of human experiences, although I find this to be self refuting.

Which one is it?

This is a red herring. You’re trying to shift the debate away from where your position makes no sense to a context where it does, but that context you want to advance is missing important elements of the issue.

July 12, 2012 2:43 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

It is one argument to deny pubescent sex, however to argue further special pleading (i.e. gender discrimination) is truly amazing, I do hope you have good arguments to convince me otherwise 'cause your babble spiel, sexist horseshit is grounded in one dimensional, anecdotal reasoning.

Everyone needs to convince you that your bullshit is wrong, apparently. And you have no responsibility to explain why yours is right? I think I’ve heard this one before.

I also find it amazing how you flaunt imprisonment and death around as if they were trivial consequences, LOL, if your experience was truly horrible, I am certain you would not even be alive today to spout this pretentious nonsense...

You’re being both condescending and callous in this paragraph. If this is how you speak to someone who is obviously dealing with abuse, you should seek help. How about a little compassion instead of “LOL”? Your laughing is totally out of place, it’s kind of nauseating, actually. And then right in the next paragraph, after bullying this person you attempt to appeal to our sympathies, relating your own experiences with bullying, and how much it hurt you. Do you have no sense of irony? Your posts are nothing but pretentious nonsense, this much will be clear by the time you’ve finished reading this.

To clarify my position, it is true that I have never been subjected to what is interpreted to be this sexual abuse, however as an aspie I was physically bullied for many years, and the implications to resolve this being even worse.

First off, I’m not sure why you so readily refer to yourself as an “aspie” when you dismiss the validity of those “social” sciences (your quotes) so carelessly, yet you label yourself with a theoretical construct drawn directly from that same literature. So do you accept the validity of the social sciences (which includes psychology) or not? So much for “methodological naturalism”....

Moreover, you minimise your interlocutor’s experience with sexual abuse, claiming that it’s simply his/her “interpretation”, and you ridicule this person, saying that if what they experienced really was horrible that they’d have died from it. Oh, and you also laughed at them. This is both callous and condescending. These sound more like the words and reactions of an anti-social than an “aspie”. Many borderlines and narcissists tell themselves they are Asperger’s disordered as a way to self-justify. See TLP’s post ‘Penelope Trunk, Abuser’ for more on this.

And what’s more, you earlier criticised your interlocutor for arguing from anecdote, and then you do so right in this post. So is anecdote admissible only when it’s your anecdote, and not anyone else’s?

Further, you minimise an experience of sexual abuse, in fact you do everything short of accusing your interlocutor of lying about his/her experiences – saying that it’s his/her “interpretation” amounts to an accusation of deceit. This is an accusation which is totally without rational basis – whoops, so much for logic and reason. And then you proceed to relate your anecdote (I thought those weren’t valid?) about how you were bullied, and how this was painful for you. It’s also fairly obvious that you’re implying that your experience was much worse than that of your interlocutor’s. Maybe your experience of being bullied was just your “interpretation” and really when you were being hit and experienced it as abusive you were just “interpreting” your reality incorrectly? No? Didn’t think so.

And what’s more, you never had to deal with being told that the abuse you were experiencing was right and good, since bullies can hurt you but they cannot force you to re-interpret your experience as somehow justified or ‘okay’. But this happens all the time in cases of sexual abuse, since perpetrators are usually trusted authority figures. And that adds another layer to the crazy-making that is its effect.


This is an experience that would never be desired regardless of ones age.

But sexual abuse, that’d be fun, right? That’d be something to “LOL” about when you’re older? Again, no.


July 12, 2012 3:05 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

You are far too narrow, all your arguments are baseless assertions, in fact, you conclude that one ought to be imprisoned or killed for disagreeing.

So fallacious.

All of your arguments are also baseless assertions, they just have a few philosophical terms peppered through. There’s no actual evidence for any of your claims, either, they just sound better and appear more logicky. As for narrowness, there are few approaches more narrow than methodological naturalism.

July 12, 2012 3:17 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

@Anonymous

Cognitive arguments (i.e. disorders) are certainly more vague than physical arguments, for example, we acknowledge that all organism are programmed to survive, there is preservation of life.

Who is this “we” that you are referring to? You need to say who. As for the notion of organisms being ‘programmed’ – this is a proposition that comes directly from cognitive science, the approach that you criticise right in the same sentence.

These arguments are concrete, however being emotionally damaged is open to interpretation, it requires thorough analysis, and that being IF your presuppositions of the mind are granted.

These “arguments” are not concrete; they’re collapsing like a house of cards under simple critical analysis. When you say that being emotionally damaged is open to “interpretation”, this is tantamount to a claim that any person who makes this claim is lying about it. Again, was it open to interpretation when you were emotionally damaged by being bullied? Did you have any doubts about whether you were traumatised? Your agnosticism and ‘skepticism’ appear to be a cover for a schizoid way of thinking about these experiences.

We are discussing if sex is harmful, not if it is of repulsing qualities.

You really ought to have a fact-value distinction in your arguments.

Oh, the irony…

July 12, 2012 3:37 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

Are you arguing from personal experience?

How can you generalize this?
And again you criticise your interlocutor for arguing from anecdote when you did so yourself.

When I was 13-17 years of age, I was neutral to the concept of sex, yet even now my views have remained consistent, and more intriguingly I did know a student at 14 that had a relationship with an individual suggested to be 23, she got married at 16 and appeared fine to me.

Because a teenager is a great judge of character, right? Sure. Again, more anecdote; more inadmissible bullshit, by your own standard.

Perhaps it is YOU that simply dislikes sex, regardless the problem I find with your views are the exceptions (i.e. my claim) and double standards (i.e. sexism).

Furthermore, the onus is on YOU, I am actually agnostic in regards to this topic, therefore I can appeal to skepticism.

This is victim-blaming bullshit. Again, your supposed “agnosticism” is a schizoid reaction. Agnosticism about this sort of thing has another name; it’s called lack of empathy.

July 12, 2012 3:41 PM | Posted by postcompleteness: | Reply

You see, I do not actually believe bullying is wrong in the naturalized philosophical sense, however I do believe as sentient human beings it is our best interest to flourish.

What does this mean? What would it mean for bullying to be wrong in the “naturalized philosophical sense”? What “naturalized philosophical sense” are you appealing to? Just because you can use fancy language doesn’t make your arguments valid or sound.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
blah, forgot to tag a coupl... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 10:00 PM | Posted by tim: | Reply

blah, forgot to tag a couple of paragraphs, starting with
"Moreover, you minimise your interlocutor’s experience with sexual abuse, claiming that it’s simply his/her “interpretation”"
ending with:
"...And that adds another layer to the crazy-making that is its effect."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
and apparently a few more a... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 11:11 PM | Posted by tim: | Reply

and apparently a few more as well...anyway, it should be obvious when it's my writing anyway.

Alone, ever thought about an edit button? :3

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
what's more, your conflatio... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2012 11:19 PM | Posted by tim: | Reply

what's more, your conflation of metaphysics with psychodynamics is absolutely ridiculous. this is not the consensus view, you're in no-man's-land. but i guess you're happy out there.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I dont think children need... (Below threshold)

July 13, 2012 12:12 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by daniel: | Reply

I dont think children need face the same penalties as adults for committing sex offences.as with other crimes,youth should be afforded lenience in terms of penalties.however it is appropriate that there is recognition by society that even when teens have sex with each other,it is wrong and a very serious issue.as it stands there is usually no form of discipline applied,and usually no formal recognition that a crime has been committed.many have posted that they dont want teens having sex with each other.yet there are no serious measures taken to prevent it.even in situations where the law does in fact prohibit say a 14year old and 15 year old having sex,the law is generally ignored.do you ignore it when you see youth vandalising public property?yes they are entitled to leniency.yet they are still held accountable,made to face a court and if found guilty the offence is formally recognised.people say they dont want teens having sex,but there refusal to actually prohibit the behaviour is motivated by an underlying belief that they do in fact have the capacity to make choices about who they sleep with.now i dont believe young children should ever have sex either.even to me,mid to late teens is the lower limit as to when sexual relations might be reasonable for some individuals.where i live the age of consent is 17.an hous flight to a neighbouring state its 16.so does that make me a sicko if i have relations with a 16 or 17 year old?does it make me a sicko if i respect them to the utmost and if perhaps they are even more sexually experienced than i am?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
'wrong turn' is a moral eva... (Below threshold)

July 13, 2012 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

'wrong turn' is a moral evaluation, it has no meaning in this context. your claim that homosexuality is a 'birth defect' is simply dumb. what this reflects is something that is far more likely to be the case, which is that human sexuality is normally distributed, with heterosexual-only and homosexual-only orientations representing the two extremes. there's plenty of good evidence to suggest that most humans are bisexuals of some description or another.

as for your claim that it is 'not adaptive for the organism' this is also pretty stupid since humans are social animals and in the wild we raised our young collectively, so homosexuals would not be out of place. you're taking our current atomism as default, rather than remembering that humans used to live in kinship-based societies, where collective action was the norm.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dear Tim, Thank you.... (Below threshold)

July 13, 2012 1:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Dear Tim,
Thank you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
@timI was finished... (Below threshold)

July 13, 2012 2:56 PM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by postcompleteness: | Reply

@tim

I was finished with this overly hateful topic, although an effort was made to analyse my post, thus I will respond:

You appear to believe that I was engaged in philosophical discussion, however this was not the case.

My concerns are regarding argumentation itself of physical attraction and to a lesser extent, freedom of interpretation, to simply punish one for the opposing interpretive I find amazing, like a kind of totalitarian system of thought policing, the very fact that philosophy of the mind is unsolved suggests contemporary uncertainty.

Also, I do not care for the actual politics regarding age of consent, or much in life for that matter, this was in fact the strawman, sexist fueled hate speech of Anonymous.

'Why is sentience a determining factor? If a person is dead, is it okay to have sex with their corpse? If they’re passed out and on drugs and won’t remember (see TLP’s piece ‘When is it okay to rape a woman?’) and therefore not “sentient” while they are being abused, and they won’t experience the trauma (ridiculous counterfactual anyway, but go with it) does that make it moral or amoral? No. If I need to explain further, read the aforementioned piece.'

Sentient being may be interpreted as moral agents, there is a neurological basis for pain awareness.

While I do disagree with the concept of philia, paraphilia is physically harmless, yet the practice of necrophilia may contract disease, being harmful.

Furthermore, even if there is no memory of sex, there are moral consequences.

'What is ‘free will’? Why is free will a determining factor? What do we mean when we say a being has ‘free will’? You might think this is an easy question to answer, but it’s not. It does produce nice-and-neat ethical theories which provide easy explanations of the world, though. But life is more aporiatic, more nuanced than that.'

Knowledge that defines free will, be it incorrigible a priori truths (i.e. I think, therefore I am) and a posteriori truths (i.e. observation of bodies in a spatio-temporal continuum), as sentient being we make sense of reality, the ontology of subject-object harm establishes prescriptive values of behaviour, at least I find this definition rational, and not necessarily true.

Having proclaimed being a methodological naturalist, free will would be defined in natural science, to clarify, physical descriptions operate independently of any "social" science, the mind may also be acknowledged, although it would demarcate methodological naturalism, reductionism is contained from biological to classical physics in this case.

However, a metaphysical definition would be identified in a continuum of some logical possibilities, perhaps deterministic, this definition may satisfy both natural instrumentalism and the mind.

'So you don't accept the idea that we have a consciousness, that we have a mind, that we have the capacity to be abused emotionally? Okay, you're projecting your schizoid feelings onto the world, and methodological naturalism is your philosophical justification for this detached and unemotional approach to life. This paragraph is a virtual non-sequitur. So you’re going to completely disregard the literature on the topic you’re speaking about and then proceed to expound on it as though your opinions are worth listening to? Why is methodological naturalism the only admissible way of knowing? You have not explained this, you simply take it as axiomatic – but again, why? So much for soundness.'

No, I do accept that humans have a mind (i.e. sentient), though I am not certain if it monistic or there is dualistic properties, regardless I am a proponent of philosophical functionalism and neurodiversity, no "social" science is required.

Methodological natualism is not specifically a metaphysical view, it is of the epistemic interpretive, also please do elaborate on how inductive (i.e. empically derrived) inferences would entail soundness?

Finally, I am not approaching life as a "schizoid", I believe that ANY biological suffering is defined physical, hence any mental states are simply reinfied, ad hoc hypothesis.

'It isn’t, but it points to a rational theory of justification. And what’s more, all of our ethical propositions, and most or all of our propositions about science come from our emotions in one way or another. We tend to reason retrospectively. For instance, your focus on logic and ‘methodological naturalism’ – it’s hard to not see a link between this approach and autism. We all have a tendency to self-justify, even in our supposedly “rational” and “logical” beliefs and attitudes. Cognitive biases cause us to tend to think in these ways, and it takes a good deal of self-reflection to see around them, and this is almost always imperfectly. Unconscious emotional relationships to various symbols in the world also shape our beliefs about the world (for instance, attitudes about the state are often shaped by one’s experiences with authority in early life). So when we have a disgust reaction to something, we should pay attention, and see if it has validity, and isn’t misplaced or misdirected reflex. It seems that it is exactly on target here.'

What I am attempting to emphasise is that, I do not feel morally obliged to save a potential rape victim because they are suggested to be mentally traumatised from SEX, I already argued that it is the opposition of a sentient bodies free will, which is physical.

This appears to tie in with human disgust, again, the emphasis that relative disgust is NOT wrong, we have subjective beliefs, be it this reinfied concept of biased cognitive faculties, or not, my concerns of disgust are the physical implications, how is it measured, and if one justified (e.g. murder someone ugly), or even the distinction between a paedophile physically harming a child from rape or simply ones erotic fantasy for the prepubescent, or even again, fictional-reality violence distinction.

The fact remains is that disgusting implications will result in special pleading because it is a fuzzy concept, this is why I apply this "detached and unemotional approach to life", it is of a rational basis that attempts resolution.

'This question is disingenuous and presumes that we are talking about something that is similar to homosexuality, simply because of this DSM aspect to the debate. It isn’t, it’s categorically different. Other apes display homosexuality, it is normal. Other apes do not display pedophilia, nor do hunter-gatherers who have not entered the domestication process, it can in no way be said to be natural (except insofar as this pathology is a natural reaction to experiencing trauma and abuse). Second, complex PTSD/PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia (to name just a handful) as virtually-invariable effects on one party due to the practice is a damn good reason to argue for outlawing this “preference” (to call a pathology a “preference” is rather disingenuous, the neutrality of the language is inappropriate to the context). There may be exceptions to this, but we do not base our legal system on exceptions. Kantian ethics, the basis of our legal system, is all about there being no exceptions (never make any ethical proposition that you would not at the same time will to be a universal law). What’s more, there are many reasons why we should take issue with this that have nothing to do with the violation of the sentience of the victim’s free will…(not to minimise this, it’s a key issue). What about the free will of the perpetrator? They act out of compulsion, and many of them have an intense self-loathing about the whole thing. They’re not accessing your precious ‘free will’, either.'

The more "social" systematics you apply, an increasing burden of justification will be required.

Now, let us open the taxa to order of the primates to contemporary hominens (i.e. humans), I already stated that I do not like the concept of philia, I believe the context is a stricture of "social" science, therefore does not entirely acknowledge the apes regardless.

The "hunter-gatherers" and "domestication" is in fact, disingenuous, they are CULTURAL regardless, you have simply elevated the burden of further classifying different cultures, nor do you acknowledge natural history, such as the conditions of upper and lower paleolithic era which are suggested to be barbaric, how do we know paedophilic attraction was non existent?

It is amazing how you also imply what is normal on the basis of this inept statistic, that being if your claims are even true.

However, the largest of burdens you have is "social" pathology, by these conditions, your entire framework is an appeal to consensus, which are for any number of reasons derived from authority, ridicule and emotion, therefore I understand why it is inferred as a "soft" science, there is nothing concrete here, and nothing entirely quantitative, "social" research may even be qualitative data, how does data analysis work in this case?

Is it really fair to claim that I am disingenuous, yet it is you flaunting science in a specious manner, you even suggest exceptions that may falsify your argument?

My greatest concern, however, is your confidence in the lack of exceptions in legal systems when they are entirely relative, I mightily disagree, I mean the age of consent may continue to be revised by any culture that do not even have a consistent age.

How do other countries communicate if they have a two year difference in their age of consent, is one not "pathological" to simply hold or represent this belief, assuming that you also believe this so for hebe or ephebe age of despairaty.

To conclude, if I grant your mental assumptions, the "social" pathology you suggested is still assertion, whilst does not operational like that of natural scientific definitions, I understand that even if there is nuero chemical-physiological arguments is because it implies a perfect standard of perception, and teh concern being philosophy of the mind being unresolved.

As an I aspie would I be justified to propose autism as the perfect standard?

'Because there’s a good basis for the claims that isn’t about fear and hatred, even if it isn’t being made by the poster you’re responding to. Racists don’t have any sound arguments for their claims, zero. Those in favour of prohibition of pedophilia (those lunatics!!1) have too many to list.'

This is where there is misconception (i.e. the strawman), I do NOT support paedophiles, however I do certainly accept paedophilia attractions, there is no reason deny paraphilia, it would only be thought policing.

Furthermore, as an individual, it is my desire to be reasonable, being open to any consideration regardless of how much ridicule the herd morality is being spouted, it amazing how many do not EVEN consider if an argument may be justified, thereby I ask if there is any good reasons to deny the possibility of pubescent sex, and why sexism is rational, again, this is not politics, the laws are already in motion, this is a discussion for the open minded, the fact that it is being discussed demonstrates that there are concerns from different view.

Also, it is not a sound argument, the inference would not be of necessary entailment in the sense of sentential language, even if the premise is true it can never be deductively valid.

You simply need to convince others why moralistic or naturalistic fallacies ought to be practiced or have a rational basis for philosophical belief.

'Why should we accept that these practices are based on a ‘rational belief’? What exactly constitutes a ‘rational belief’, in your view? You need to explain this term and the relevant claim since meaning of the term and basis of the claim are both unclear. What’s more, to claim that a pubescent child’s understanding of sexuality is “rational” is simply ludicrous, and indeed, is as such prima facie. Part of the reason why we place so many restrictions on pubescent expressions of sexuality is because it takes a while to work out one’s rational understanding of many aspects of life, sexuality included. Putting it simply, due to societal/cultural complexity (as compared with more ‘primitive’ social models such as bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and pre-industrial modernity) the individuation/maturation process takes much longer to complete than it has in the past. This is yet another reason why we place these restrictions on pubescent expressions of sexuality.'

This another misconception, again, I did NOT state that you ought to accept such practices, however you must accept the ontology of possible sexual attraction to any sexual and non sexual stimuli, and that there may be rational justification to have such attractions being derived from nature, even the cultural consequences of a genotype.

For clarification, rational beliefs are conclusions derived from inferences to the best explanation, it is a cumulative system that cogent ones normative beliefs.

I also never stated that a pubescent childs understanding of sexuality is rational, however you have asserted otherwise, although your argument of cultural complexity is somewhat convincing, and while I do acknowledge why there is an age standard, it also suggests how relative it all is, which is why I am open to hold the possible belief that YOU feel that you are developed and seek a partner,

As an aspie, my neurodevelopment was atypical (i.e. disorder), full development was reached at 19-20 as a late bloomer, yet even now that I am developed I still do not feel ready, such "social" labels do not necessitate one to seek a partner.

'Actually, the onus is on you, because you’re disagreeing with basic human biology. Humans do not “happen to be attracted” to children just by default. And even if that’s true, we also have other aspects to our minds that, in a healthy mind, will interrupt that attraction, not because it’s a violation of law or social norms (though this is part of the explanation) but for a much better reason – because it violates the other person, since they would be unable to deal with that kind of relationship in a way that is healthy for them. Also, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or metaphysics.'

I will refute this assertion by arguing that 1) biological is of inferred physical quantity, and 2) biology identifies any niches that are biological, do not confuse applicational science (i.e. medicine) with biology.

My proposition is true regarding that humans "happen to be attracted", not all humans need to be attracted, that was never my argument, therefore the onus is on Anonymous.

Atheistic or theistic propositions are subject to a burden of evidence or formal proof in the sense of binary values, and while I also did that the agnostic is justified to apathy, it should be noted that this is true with consequences (i.e.dominance of law).
I am not certain what mean by "health", you will need to clarify.

'This is a non-sequitur.'

How so?

This was mutually exclusive information, if my opponent acknowledges that I am a proponent of neurodiversity, it will increase the chances of resolution.

'It’s wrong because they are incapable of consenting properly since they are emotionally, mentally, physically vulnerable to manipulation, for starters (there’s a lot more to it than this, but this fact alone is enough to support the restrictions currently in place, if not stronger ones). If we had a way to extend this provision to people over the age of majority who
still suffer from this immaturity, we might do it, but that is much more difficult than drawing the line at sixteen or eighteen or wherever.'

What do you mean by "immaturity", do mean measuring (i.e. quotient) sentience or intelligence?

This certainly varies, there many countries with low averages of intelligence.

If the consensus truly feel this way, it cannot be helped, yet this does not necessarily mean it is in fact true, it may just superficially appear so, I would have still had the possibility to make such decisions when I was child, even if I was never going to do so, the illusion of free will would have been convenient.

It is just intriguing how sex is more of a concern than the violence I experienced, I interpret this to be irrational, even if it condition me to be physically active, being hit with a duster could of killed me.

'So, I’m left wondering – is your implication that a ‘developed’ and ‘sentient’ being would not be subject to physical harm? What else are we to conclude from “I do find the sexual practice wrong in this case being that the child (i.e. a sentient being) is undeveloped, hence subject to physical harm”? If that is your claim, it’s ridiculous.'

If a pubescent child is subject to physical harm, they are in fact, not pubescent, being biologically ready for sex would not be harmful, furthermore, if there is a significant difference between partners, 120lbs female and 300lbs male partner may also be harmful.

I will respond to the rest of your more later if possible.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
@tim'This is a red... (Below threshold)

July 13, 2012 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by postcompleteness: | Reply

@tim

'This is a red herring. You’re trying to shift the debate away from where your position makes no sense to a context where it does, but that context you want to advance is missing important elements of the issue.'

How exactly does my position make no sense?

What are these important elements?

'Everyone needs to convince you that your bullshit is wrong, apparently. And you have no responsibility to explain why yours is right? I think I’ve heard this one before.'

Yes, 'cause everyone needs to convince me that sexism is right, amirite?

'You’re being both condescending and callous in this paragraph. If this is how you speak to someone who is obviously dealing with abuse, you should seek help. How about a little compassion instead of “LOL”? Your laughing is totally out of place, it’s kind of nauseating, actually. And then right in the next paragraph, after bullying this person you attempt to appeal to our sympathies, relating your own experiences with bullying, and how much it hurt you. Do you have no sense of irony? Your posts are nothing but pretentious nonsense, this much will be clear by the time you’ve finished reading this.'

You have been certainly cherry picking the arguments, your appeals to emotion only entails double standards, it is no coincidence that you ONLY selected my posts, and the fact that you also happen to believe that I was appealing to the sympathies of others convinces me further.

I also do hope this much will be clear by the time you’ve finished reading this.

Even the strawmanning, the pretentious nonsense I suggested was of no association to the abuse, it was in fact the imponderous overuse of death and imprisonment, being asinine.

I have experienced PHYSICAL bullying, again, the concept of SEX itself is a moot point in regards to such experiences, it is independent of age and consent.

I have already emphasised this in my previous post, I found this thread by searching sex being worse than murder, it has always baffled me as I find it even feeble as an attempt when comparing it to physical violence and even imprisonment to a lesser extent, although this Anonymous user has yet to convince me otherwise.

'First off, I’m not sure why you so readily refer to yourself as an “aspie” when you dismiss the validity of those “social” sciences (your quotes) so carelessly, yet you label yourself with a theoretical construct drawn directly from that same literature. So do you accept the validity of the social sciences (which includes psychology) or not? So much for “methodological naturalism”....'

Wrong.

Autism is a NEUROdevelopmental disorder, aspergers syndrome has actually merged with the autistic spectrum.

To clarify the quotes, "social" science is an umbrella term that I subvert for consistency, it may suggest law, history, psychology...ect.

These are not natural sciences, physical laws are only presupposed in this case, in fact it is in essence, methodological naturalism.

'Moreover, you minimise your interlocutor’s experience with sexual abuse, claiming that it’s simply his/her “interpretation”, and you ridicule this person, saying that if what they experienced really was horrible that they’d have died from it. Oh, and you also laughed at them. This is both callous and condescending. These sound more like the words and reactions of an anti-social than an “aspie”. Many borderlines and narcissists tell themselves they are Asperger’s disordered as a way to self-justify. See TLP’s post ‘Penelope Trunk, Abuser’ for more on this.'

Now you truly are being pompous.

In regards to my clarification above, yes, if an experience is horrible enough, you will die, if an experience is painful enough, there is concussion.

I find it amazing how you attempt to defend Anonymous at superfluous efforts, yet pretend that I was NOT subjected to the same posts and the mountains of diatribes.

It is likely that 1)appeal to emotion, and 2)sexism, which you also appear to be defending and even claimed that the onus is also on the skeptic.

'And what’s more, you earlier criticised your interlocutor for arguing from anecdote, and then you do so right in this post. So is anecdote admissible only when it’s your anecdote, and not anyone else’s?'

Actually, it is the anecdote vs. anecdote, there are NO double standards, hence I will respond with relative conditions.

'Further, you minimise an experience of sexual abuse, in fact you do everything short of accusing your interlocutor of lying about his/her experiences – saying that it’s his/her “interpretation” amounts to an accusation of deceit. This is an accusation which is totally without rational basis – whoops, so much for logic and reason. And then you proceed to relate your anecdote (I thought those weren’t valid?) about how you were bullied, and how this was painful for you. It’s also fairly obvious that you’re implying that your experience was much worse than that of your interlocutor’s. Maybe your experience of being bullied was just your “interpretation” and really when you were being hit and experienced it as abusive you were just “interpreting” your reality incorrectly? No? Didn’t think so.'

In regards to physical violence, yes, I will certainly minimise the suggested psychological implications of this sexual abuse, one our sense organs detects harmful stimuli, does this rationale apply to sex, no?

Didn’t think so.

Furthermore, how is my question an accusation?

You would have demonstrate that I was begging the question.

Also, I never stated that the anecdote is invalid, I stated that the sexist justification was anecdotal, it is intriguing how you continue to grasp at straws.

'And what’s more, you never had to deal with being told that the abuse you were experiencing was right and good, since bullies can hurt you but they cannot force you to re-interpret your experience as somehow justified or ‘okay’. But this happens all the time in cases of sexual abuse, since perpetrators are usually trusted authority figures. And that adds another layer to the crazy-making that is its effect.'

Wrong.

I accept human ignorance and the possible implications of dominance, however this does not mean that I desire to be a victim simply because of a trivial neurological difference like autism.

'But sexual abuse, that’d be fun, right? That’d be something to “LOL” about when you’re older? Again, no.'

Have you personally been sexually abused?

My concern is that it just happens to be abuse because of sex, which I find fallacious unless there is physical harm involved.

Why is THIS experience any different from other possible mind games?

'All of your arguments are also baseless assertions, they just have a few philosophical terms peppered through. There’s no actual evidence for any of your claims, either, they just sound better and appear more logicky. As for narrowness, there are few approaches more narrow than methodological naturalism.'

Again, wrong.

you have not even demonstrated why they are baseless assertions, and as for your baseless assertion, the natural world exists, thereby it is metaphysical naturalism, or some metaphysical substitution, my methodological assumptions continue to be consistent regardless, it essentially entails scientific method.

'Who is this “we” that you are referring to? You need to say who. As for the notion of organisms being ‘programmed’ – this is a proposition that comes directly from cognitive science, the approach that you criticise right in the same sentence.'

Again, again, wrong!

It is natural selection, genetics is a classification and nomenclature of physical quantity.

'These “arguments” are not concrete; they’re collapsing like a house of cards under simple critical analysis. When you say that being emotionally damaged is open to “interpretation”, this is tantamount to a claim that any person who makes this claim is lying about it. Again, was it open to interpretation when you were emotionally damaged by being bullied? Did you have any doubts about whether you were traumatised? Your agnosticism and ‘skepticism’ appear to be a cover for a schizoid way of thinking about these experiences.'

Inferring physically arguments are concrete, by definition that is what it means to be concrete.

My experiences were bad in the sense of acute pain, I do not wish anyone to have such experience, and I can remain apathetic to this trauma you continue to parrot as being harmful, or even the feelings of knowing that you were attacked for being different, I will certainly not play the victim.

'Because a teenager is a great judge of character, right? Sure. Again, more anecdote; more inadmissible bullshit, by your own standard'

You are begging the question, you see, it was also MY judge of character that everything appeared to be fine, and who knows, perhaps it was the case.

I do not need to be indoctrinated by "social" science in order to make judgements.

'This is victim-blaming bullshit. Again, your supposed “agnosticism” is a schizoid reaction. Agnosticism about this sort of thing has another name; it’s called lack of empathy.'

You are missing the point, if emotional damage is as harmful as that which is being argued, why does this only apply to females, surely it can also damage males.

Why do I have to except sexism?

'What does this mean? What would it mean for bullying to be wrong in the “naturalized philosophical sense”? What “naturalized philosophical sense” are you appealing to? Just because you can use fancy language doesn’t make your arguments valid or sound.'

On the naturalistic view, we are interacting biochemistry with illusion of a purpose, the natural interpretive appears to be somewhat incompatible with objective moral values.

As a final note, you appear to be obsessed with accusing me of lacking empathy, being schizoid and antisocial, yet this is not my intention, you must simply be misinterpreting my posts, just as Anonymous did.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Empathy involves being capa... (Below threshold)

July 14, 2012 10:27 AM | Posted by kevin: | Reply

Empathy involves being capable of acknowledging the existance of others emotions which you claim do not exist and that physical pain is the only form of pain or suffering that exists.

Which yes, absolutely does mean your capacity for empathy is broken and you should discuss with a professional the thoughts you are having right now and see if they can help you develop at least an intellectual understanding of what empathy itself actually is. If you deny that emotions exist or can be extremely painful to experience you lack basic empathy entirely.

When someone is crying do you tend to feel a flat unmoved response and believe that they are not actually experiencing pain unless there is a physical injury? I have family members with aspergers and if aspergers is what you're using to excuse this I can assure you that professionals can help you work on this if the problem is that you can't read facial expressions well. It doesn't sound the problem is that you can't read facial expressions well, it sounds like at a fundamental level you do not believe emotions exist or matter. Which again, is not apbergers but a trait that is a danger to people around you. You are responsable for telling a professional you're having problems understanding what empathy is or that other human beings feel anything other than physical pain and that you would like to work on it, and doing the work they suggest. If you are correct your problem is aspergers than you are perfectly capable of taking responsability for this and doing better than you're doing.

If you actually believe intellectual people believe the kinds of things you're saying (most of which are nonsensical, not to mention cruel) you might want to try sharing these opinions with intellectual people more often and asking for their feedback. I suspect in real life saying cruel things to people may have precipitated some of your bullying problem. Your words are quite hurtful to people, and since you don't believe that words or ideas can hurt (no emotions exist, only physical pain!) you have been going around injuring people around you without noticing. Since our school system and social structure usually fails to address verbal bullies, or identify bullies and remove them from having free reign to injure people, people take matter into their own hands. I don't support physical bullying, but since our society doesn't currently do a good job of identifying people with disorders of empathy and requiring they learn to manage their condition- people do what they feel they need to do to make the world better. (And people like you really make the world a worse place. Your humanity still matters but you make the lives of everyone around you miserable.) You are in fact a bully yourself and should not have been put in a position to verbally berate people and invoke them to violence (both for your sake and theirs). Of course since I am sure you are indeed non-neurotypical, phsycial punishment doesn't teach you anything because no matter how injured you aren't capable of either basic empathy or of modifying your lack of empathy or behavior in order to avoid physical pain. If you were capable you would have done so. I promise, this is not aspergers which is about having a hard time reading people's cues or understanding what behavior makes sense in social situations and not about dismissing the existence of others emotional existance entirely.

The actual literature of the long term affects of both physical bullying, rape, and child sexual abuse is extensive and I suggest you read it: (rape by the way is not "sex" and your inability to understand the difference or the existance of harm that can occur when people are raped or mistreated sexually again points to the idea that you really need to speak to a professional about this.)

If your problem is actually aspergers than you are simply making a choice to not have empathy and you should go read about what empathy is and change that. I think the problem is more complicated than that (and not related to aspergers and should NOT be considered a socially acceptable problem) and you should speak about the details of this problem with a professional.

If you think you are in the right in your self understanding than speaking with a professional about this in detail could uncover how right you are in your thinking. I suggest you give it a try. Try printing out this thread and showing it to a professional and tell them you would like to better understand yourself and know if your thinking about this makes sense or is a sign of disordered and potentially harmful thinking and what kind of treatment or work you can do to make that better if needed. Since you're sure you're in the right, just see this as an opportunity to validate yourself by someone with extensive education. If you like, pick someone with a specialty in aspergers and whose treatment program validates your own views. I promise you need to work on this and professionals in the aspergers community would agree. (Though they will be very empathic and understanding about it because that's their job).

Asbergers is not a free pass to go around in the world dismissing that others emotions exist. You are responsable for knowing that others emotions exist and behaving in a pro-social manner with respect to others existance. Hiding behind aspergers is a cowardly excuse for refusing to acknowlege the experience of other beings in the world. If you are genuinely having a hard time understanding the concept of empathy for emotions other than physical pain, please ask for some clarification from professionals.

I say all of this to you because I genuinely hope that even if just out of curiosity you will actually discuss your views on this matter with a professional. If you are already seeing a professional you trust I suggest you print this out and show it to them and ask them for some clarification on the issue.

Why do you read this blog, by the way? Part of the point of this blog seems to be to encourage self examination, personal responsability, and to address the parts of ourselves that are harmful to others. Taking responsability for this means acknowledging there is a problem and doing the work needed to make it better. For you, this starts with a professional because you don't understand right from wrong (feel that right and wrong is itself ambiguous and uncertain) and that is something you must address because harming people, whether physically or emotionally, is not a morally ambiguous issue.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
@kevinI do not den... (Below threshold)

July 14, 2012 12:56 PM | Posted, in reply to kevin's comment, by postcompleteness: | Reply

@kevin

I do not deny the existence of emotions, it is a self evident evident truth, again, I already suggested this, it is the "social" sciences that raise my skepticism, they do not appear to be rigorous argumentation like natural sciences (i.e. human biology), the suggested studies and theories are disputable, in fact I have studied my advance levels of several "social" sciences, including psychology, therefore I am somewhat justified, even if I do not hold degrees.

Many users of this board must have reading comprehension, I have already suggested why I am on this blog, I enjoy arguing, hence I search for opponents that can refute my views, however the actual concern is why sex is interpreted by many to be worse than murder, this is even evident to the extent of media and artistic censorship.

Now as for THIS specific blog, there are two personal contentions, 1)is paraphilia (e.g. paedophilia) an unnatural and harmful attraction, and 2)being that many believe sex is ostensibly worse than murder or even violence in general I am intrigued to know how others feel about pubescent sex if it is not physically harmful, by isolating the argument to mental harm I anticipated the most convincing of arguments that may refute my views of sex.

You assert that I lack empathy, yet I can FEEL the insecurity of other views regarding sex in general, even more so regarding this topic, in fact, rational discussions are derailed by fallacious and profound arguments, and although I can disregard diatribes, I do not feel the same for the ad hominen, being that it destroys any resolution of the contention.

As for paraphilia, it is to defend freedom of thought, for example, we acknowledge the harmful consequences of ones paedophilic practices, however who is to deny such attractions if there is no casual properties?

What if you enjoy violent movies, books, comics and videogames, does this mean they are "harmful", NO, this is simply an anthropomorphic fallacy, there is NO physical harm.

Not to mention that your post appears to be narrowing ethical interpretations by simply appealing to ridicule on the basis of "social" dominance to any philosophical or scientific inquiry, or you can simply propose that this view is a "danger" for simply challenging the consensus, which I find to be in itself a self refuting proposition, whilst ironically a possible "danger".

Also, I never stated that aspergers syndrome justifies my arguments, I actually used aspergers syndrome to argue my views regarding physical vs. mental bullying, and mentioned it on several other occasions, you really ought to a linguistic distinction of using words, and mentioning words, being that it appears to entail a strawman.

Finally, why are you cherry picking ONLY my words, did no one else use hurtful or cruel words?

This is the problem with herds, at least I do not result to one sided, superficial modes, and actually analyze every view, and not recommend a professional opinion, however if you are intrigued, yes, I have seen several and even private consultants, and while their opinions do vary, it is NOTHING like your views, furthrmore they play semantic games, meaning that during my psychoanalysis, the psychiatrist deconstructed any EMPATHETIC, natural language into ambiguous interpretations.

I wonder if it is simply that I am far too empathetic, because I appear to be the only user that has not been subjected to special pleading.

/rant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Tim, I can teach you how to... (Below threshold)

July 18, 2012 2:56 AM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Tim, I can teach you how to do logic but I don't want you to feel I'm patronising you. Of course, the emotionally sane never get insulted. That's another religious construct which is illogical and therefore, insane. Only the emotionally insane ever get offended. It is literally impossible to insult or offend me. I challenge anyone to try.

When I take the time to write critical logic for the benefit of an individual, it is probably the greatest compliment I can imagine giving. The compliment is implied and should really be quite obvious; only the emotionally insane imagine that criticism is negative. Criticise my assertions with logic, obliterate any fallacy I incorrectly believe to be logical; and I will always be delighted.

If you feel or imagine that I could have a motive to be combative for the sake of conflict, that would be farcical emotional insanity and one of the more brilliant of the many thousands of sneaky tricks of the Abrahamic religions (all of which are designed to shift the goalposts of everything logical and sane in order to confuse childlike minds into being their emotional slaves they can control and emotionally manipulate into doing things as insane as killing and / or dying in their wars; building their pyramids working double shifts (remunerated in pennies); buying products which are less functional than symbolic (the sole purpose of which is really just to flaunt their wealth or taunt the have-nots or impress the imaginations of the needy); or breeding more of all four types of slaves.

You cannot think critically, pragmatically, objectively, rationally or reasonably when your emotions have been corrupted by religion. The emotional corruption of religion will preclude your ability to think analytically and you will embarrass yourself by making assertions so mind-numbingly ironic, one cannot help but shake their head. Just like this assertion below (for example).

Illogical example I:

And, speaking frankly, I also see a lot of fear, and a lot of anger in your words. Both of which have a tendency to short-circuit our ability to reason soundly.

The irony is just... You see fear and anger? And you feel that your perceptions are valid...why? Because you feel that way? Your ability to reason will never be sound until you understand that what you feel doesn't determine what is real.

So few people in this world understand that their perceptions of reality are merely a distortion of what is real. It's ludicrous and emotionally insane of them to imagine what they see, hear, sense or feel could ever be the reality. It's merely what they perceive.

This is very simple logic. You cannot do logic. But I am one of the best in the world at logic and I am happy to teach you; but only if you want to be lifted up.

Asserting your emotional (mis)perception onto me is really quite galling. You think I'm trying to be a martyr? That's a religious construct of insanity. I am probably one of the most intelligently Selfish people alive. I reach my hand down to pull others up. I grab the hands of others who will pull me up. If you think that I'm trying to push you down, that's insane. When I pull others up to my level, I will be trying to push others up as well; my motive for doing this is the expectation that others will do the same.

Unfortunately, this is a very religious world of corrupted perception and confusion. They moved the goalposts on everything sane. They made everyone think Selfishness means caring only about yourSelf. That's the dumbest idea I think I've ever heard. Narcissists suffer in confusion because no one will give a crap about someone who only cares about themSelves. They're not really being intelligently Selfish, are they?

I don't do charity. That's religion's shifting of the goalposts. I act only in my best interests which I believe includes caring about the best interests of Humanity. Snivelling emotional Toddler imbeciles ridicule themSelves at such sentimentalism but they're literally too stupid to be plausible. I am so Selfish it's really quite sane; I want all my ~7.3 billion options for happiness.

It's tragic that so many emotional Toddlers cannot understand those ~7.3 billion human options can deliver happiness _or_ pain.

When you speak, you really should be speaking frankly 100% of the time. If you feel this is not advisable, you'd be making an insane mistake. Sane people have no requirement for non-frank deception. There is literally nothing as rude as politeness (lying in fear of offending the insane). Politeness is a spectacular logical fail because who gives a rat's ass about offending the insane? Their offence is not valid. it is either imagined in their insane minds or a pretence asserted for the sole purpose of emotionally manipulating the gullible.

Religion polluted yours and mine and every child's mind with this horrifying filth. They did it to us when we were impressionable, and the only way they were able to corrupt the entire world into feeling illogical insanity rather than thinking logically and critically, was by tricking imbecilic men into thinking it was a good idea to exploit the mothers of 100% of humans. Mothers are responsible for Early Childhood Development (i.e. emotional development). Men are imbeciles for not realising that the children of the exploited would be exploited. Women have been the victims of religion's faux misogyny for 3500 years for this brilliant (and somewhat transparent) purpose.

Illogical example II:

and religion has little to do with it, it's sort of incidental. There would have been some other thing to fight over if not that.

You have not make a logical case for your assertion. That's an opinion which is never valid because it has not been justified. It's just the way you feel.

The above counter-'argument' you make to my provable claim that the Abrahamic religion's emotional corruption in their Holy books is responsible for all the emotional insanity in the world today is identical to the 'arguments' asserted in 99% of the 31,102 verses in the KJV Holy Bible. There's never any justifications for anything. It's pure insanity from start to finish.

Your 'argument' above is equivalent to saying something like "if I didn't kill him, someone else would have". That may be true, but no case has been presented for the assertion. So it's not a valid expression of anything but insanity.

Illogical example III:

Tim, this is logic an uncorrupted child would understand instantly:

There is no such thing as emotive words. There are descriptive words which emotional readers perceive to be emotive, but if you cannot understand that the word nigger (for example) will only be as emotive as the reader's emotional corruption incorrectly imagines it to be, then you need to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

nigger (noun): A slave who fights those who would emancipate them.

Did you, in your emotional insanity, incorrectly believe the definition of that utterly benign noun was something impossibly disgusting, insane and...emotive? I suspect that you did, but I literally have to suspect because you you didn't actually justify any of your assertions.

Tim, I don't know if you are capable of understanding logic or making logical arguments. But that's only because you have not shown any evidence of your capacity to do so. You seem to be like everyone else in this terrifyingly insane world; they believe what they feel must be valid and accurate for no other reason than...it's how they feel. The entire world is emotionally insane and manipulatable and this is 100% the result of the Abrahamic religions' corruption of the emotional development of children via the exploitation of their mothers.

The children of the exploited will be exploited. Alone has written blog posts about this fact. The Abrahamic religions' are a manual for the acquisition of power (which is only desired by the emotionally insane). The sane are horrified by power. They prefer to use logical arguments rather than force or emotional manipulation to persuade.

It is in your's and mine and Humanity's best interests if you learn that your 'opinions' must never be asserted without logical justification. You must make the case for why you feel that way.

Mothers literally never make this case. They use force and emotive appeals to 'teach' lessons to their children in order to get their children to be slaves who please them. But that is not sane. That is not how you teach children to think.

That's how you corrupt children into feeling their way through life. If you can't see the correlation between the methods used by this terrifying world obsessed with using punishment and emotional validation to manipulate human behaviour...with what the Bible, Qur'an and Torah advise (literally nothing but unjustified assertions and invalid 'opinions' from start to finish); then you should really make a logical case for why you feel otherwise or (and this would be in your best interests) admit that religion and your mother hobbled you into being their emotional slave.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
your post is about as long ... (Below threshold)

July 18, 2012 2:16 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

your post is about as long as one of Alone's posts. Maybe you should become a guest blogger.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jonny, supposedly you grew ... (Below threshold)

July 18, 2012 3:49 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Jonny, supposedly you grew up in CoG, right? why not spend the emotional energy criticizing who and what really hurt you instead of something safer, mainstream religion, which is similar enough for your purposes but different enough to be safe? Whhat you're doing with your own thoght processes is making the entire world manipulative and power-hungry which may seem like an okay choice, it would certainly give you an excuse to minimize contact with whomever you thought was dangerous, but it also *would alienate people with whom you could maybe be friends and have a positive relationship.* Just my 2 cents.It's Ginny- so if you want to be pissed, you can get pissed at me, not anyone else.
P.S. I'm a Christian, and I think it makes me a better mom.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Tim, I can teach you how to... (Below threshold)

July 19, 2012 3:14 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Tim, I can teach you how to do logic but I don't want you to feel I'm patronising you. Of course, the emotionally sane never get insulted. That's another religious construct which is illogical and therefore, insane. Only the emotionally insane ever get offended. It is literally impossible to insult or offend me. I challenge anyone to try.

The fact that your reply here is as long as it is, is proof positive that you’re lying in the above paragraph. Also, you kick off your post with like 4 different assertions that are all unproven. As for your 'challenge' -- this is thinly-veiled insecurity talking. We're all thinking as we read this that the exact opposite is, in all likelihood, true. In fact it's quite transparent.

When I take the time to write critical logic for the benefit of an individual, it is probably the greatest compliment I can imagine giving....

The moronic and self-important blatherings of an obvious narcissist. We should feel blessed by you spewing your bullshit out on a blog’s comment stream? Yeah, sure. Maynard/Tool again, 'Eulogy' this time:
Come down
Get off your fucking cross
We need the fucking space
To nail up the next fool martyr

If you feel or imagine that I could have a motive to be combative for the sake of conflict, that would be farcical emotional insanity and one of the more brilliant of the many thousands of sneaky tricks of the Abrahamic religions [blah blah blah blah blah].

I am not a religionist, nor have I ever been one. The above is a lot of meandering and irrelevant bullshit. Read something that wasn’t written by Nietzsche and get back to us.

Illogical example I:
And, speaking frankly, I also see a lot of fear, and a lot of anger in your words. Both of which have a tendency to short-circuit our ability to reason soundly.
The irony is just... You see fear and anger? And you feel that your perceptions are valid...why? Because you feel that way? Your ability to reason will never be sound until you understand that what you feel doesn't determine what is real.
So few people in this world understand that their perceptions of reality are merely a distortion of what is real. It's ludicrous and emotionally insane of them to imagine what they see, hear, sense or feel could ever be the reality. It's merely what they perceive.

Thank you, captain obvious. My claim was not meant to have any universal truth value, it was specifically my point of view on what you wrote. I never claimed that it had any truth value beyond what ‘my truth’ about the world is. But thanks for the condescending bullshit (even more of it).

This is very simple logic. You cannot do logic. But I am one of the best in the world at logic and I am happy to teach you; but only if you want to be lifted up.

Yet more condescension. And yet you don’t have a clue. What you attempted to explain is not as simple as ‘logic’; it’s (post-positivist) ontology – nice try, though. As for ‘lifted up’ – was that an ironic reference? ‘I am one of the best in the world is a total non sequitur’ -- and speaking of supporting a claim with sound premises, how about some proof for this ridiculous assertion? Oh, except there is no proof except your own grandiosity. Got it.

Asserting your emotional (mis)perception onto me is really quite galling. You think I'm trying to be a martyr? That's a religious construct of insanity. I am probably one of the most intelligently Selfish [sic] people alive.
...

You’re a self-important idiot, you have nothing to teach me, except about how not to be in the world, and how notto perceive and think about the world.

Unfortunately, this is a very religious world of corrupted perception and confusion.... They're not really being intelligently Selfish [sic], are they?

‘Intelligent Selfishness’ is an oxymoron. ‘They made everyone think Selfishness means only caring about yourSelf’ [sic] – sorry, but you don’t get to just unilaterally re-write the definition of a concept because it doesn’t suit your version of things.

...

Religion polluted yours and mine and every child's mind with this horrifying filth. ... Men are imbeciles for not realising that the children of the exploited would be exploited. Women have been the victims of religion's faux misogyny for 3500 years for this brilliant (and somewhat transparent) purpose.

Stop projecting. I am not religious, was not raised in a religious household, and have never believed in god. Also this stuff about division of the sexes is completely irrelevant.


Illogical example II:
and religion has little to do with it, it's sort of incidental. There would have been some other thing to fight over if not that.
You have not make a logical case for your assertion. That's an opinion which is never valid because it has not been justified. It's just the way you feel.
...

As long as we’re getting technical, insanity is a legal term that has little meaning in this context. As for my claim, it was meant to be a throwaway, it would be impossible to prove it correct but it is a reasonable enough proposition. ‘Civilized’ humans have tended to find reasons to get in conflict with one another, whether religion is involved or not.

As for supporting my assertions, what assertions did I even make? I said a few things, they were hardly propositions in the serious sense. Besides, not every proposition has to be logically supported at all times across all places, this would be crazy-making.

Also, did you support any of your assertions? I mean, there are plenty of statements, but is any of them really sound? No; there's just a lot of self-important drivel about how great you are, and projection and reaction formation about how awful religion is.

Illogical example III:
...
It is in your's [sic] and mine and Humanity's best interests if you learn that your 'opinions' must never be asserted without logical justification. You must make the case for why you feel that way.
Mothers literally never make this case. They use force and emotive appeals to 'teach' lessons to their children in order to get their children to be slaves who please them. But that is not sane. That is not how you teach children to think.
...

Once again, I haven’t been ‘corrupted’ by religion – you’re projecting. Where's your support for this assertion? You speak as though you know a lot about my life, including my apparent religious faith (which is nonexistent) with absolutely no evidence at all -- so what am I to conclude other than that you're projecting your insecurities at me? Don't expect any replies after this by the way, I've had enough of being a mirror for narcissists to yell at for one life time.

As for ‘Illogical example III’ you failed to actually quote the line in question so I can’t be sure what you were responding to. And children are not born being able to understand rational argumentation. If you try to have a discussion with a five year old, you’re going to get absolutely nowhere and then wonder why your kid is in therapy in twenty or thirty years. I’m not saying using force against children is an acceptable alternative, but trying to ‘reason’ with them when they’re small children is a total waste of time and is a good example of failed parenting. It’s developmentally inappropriate.

If you can't see the correlation ... then you should really make a logical case for why you feel otherwise or (and this would be in your best interests) admit that religion and your mother hobbled you into being their emotional slave.

Talk about your run-on sentences. My mother didn’t ‘hobble me’ into being anyone’s emotional slave. She was not religious, neither am I. Again, you’re projecting, about both religion and your issues with your love objects. This maps pretty clearly onto narcissism, along with the rest of the garbage you write in these pages.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
your post is about... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 10:41 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

your post is about as long as one of Alone's posts. Maybe you should become a guest blogger.

Alone can write. I cannot. Unless that was your point ;)

I could probably felt him in a poker game. I wouldn't like my chances anywhere else, but then I'm not a winner anymore. I became sane and am no longer powered by pain. We should pity the victims of the Games of the XXX Olympiad; I vaguely understand they have not been as lucky. Poor devils.

All that suffering to please.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
"The moronic and self-impor... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 11:17 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"The moronic and self-important blatherings of an obvious narcissist. We should feel blessed by you spewing your bullshit out on a blog’s comment stream? Yeah, sure. Maynard/Tool again, 'Eulogy' this time:
Come down
Get off your fucking cross
We need the fucking space
To nail up the next fool martyr..."

Jeez. Leave him alone, he's working his shit out in his own way. He doesn't appear to be overly narcissistically burdened anyway but perhaps you are--- as far as moronic, you're the one who quotes Tool repeatedly. Not even for profound reasons but to come up with insults.?! My God. The narcissism insult you picked up, of course, from Alone. What are you doing, crowd-sourcing yourself? And not very well either. "The moronic and self-important blatherings of an obvious narcissist-" sounds like an insult that would be thrown by a narcissist somehow. That's the new thing, haven't you noticed? Narcissists saying, "I know you are but what am I?" Everybody knows the term now and it's becoming useless and disingenuous.

I also find some of what Jonny writes compelling. Even when I'd argue a different point or take a different tack, it's intellectually and emotionally important.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
another term for intelligen... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 11:37 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

another term for intelligent selfishness Jonny mentions may be enlightened self-interest and it is an important concept and a valid concern for religion to address, as well as something valid to be addressed outside religion. I can't really blame people for disrespecting religion when it certainly has been used to encourage an imbalance between caring for oneself not at all and caring for others excessively. Perhaps somethinng else to criticize would be the idea that those are opposites at all or in conflict. It's pretty natural for human beings to think in dualities, though; somebody a little smarter, better educated than I can address that. But even as a Christian I'd never suggest one take a path of self-sacrifice to other beings (particularly humans, ha ha) because I believe that is a massively oversimplified outlook to have.

In Catholic school they told us of a saint who was murdered when a man tried to rape her and she said she'd die before she let him do it, so he killed her.

The rules for becoming a saint involve miracles after death, so I can't really criticize her saintliness, knowing nothing about it really. But it is one valid example, I believe, of being led to reach conclusions about self-sacrifice that are pretty extreme, and particularly in the absence of further reflection, study, and a healthful life something like that can be misused or misinterpreted with disasterous results.

We were told of this saint during a workshop for girls on what to do if we were ever raped, by the way. I was in either 7th or 8th grade... and my school, the nuns who ran it in partiicular, was considered *progressive* as a Catholic institution.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Jonny, supposedly ... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 12:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Jonny, supposedly you grew up in CoG, right?

That's correct. I ran away at 14 to enroll in my first day of school (Year 10). Boy, that was a tough first day. I'd never watched TV, never seen a movie, never read a newspaper, never read a magazine, and only book allowed to be read was the KJV of the Holy Bible, which I'd read three times by the age of 12 so I talked with an American accent using words that would have made me sound like one of King James' scholars. I had no idea what anyone was saying to me, except when they asked me what language I was speaking.

I'd tell them, "English!" They thought I was special ed material. But I adjust quickly. I learned proper English and topped the entire grade by Year's end. All I cared about were girls by that stage; which meant, high school popularity political games. The horror of what children do to each other in high school games of popularity is almost as bad as what grownups do other humans in geopolitical power struggles.

why not spend the emotional energy criticizing who and what really hurt you instead of something safer, mainstream religion, which is similar enough for your purposes but different enough to be safe?

Criticising Catholicism is safe? When did that happen? I don't really have the capacity to draw their attention, but you don't hold onto power for 1500 years crushing all powers that rise up against you by smiling sweetly and turning the other cheek.

You think I'm frightened of the cult?

To the best of my knowledge, no one in history has withstood brainwashing for as long or as successfully as the nine years I terrorised CoG masters of emotional manipulation. They'd always make the mistake of using their Book of Exploitation, and they'd lob these pathetic underarm serves, tired old cliches and Bible verses; and I'd just riddle them with dozens of verses they'd never heard of. They'd get so embarrassed, they'd take it out on my parents who took it out on me. I was publicly exorcised maybe 50 times. I never remember attending an exorcism where someone else was having non-existent demons and devils called out from them. I was possessed with an obsession for asking "Why?" nonstop. 50-0 against your God, btw.

I don't mean to brag about beating nothing, but then I didn't know what these idiots were thinking? That I would care about the opinions of the lemmings? That's exactly what they were thinking. But I had no one to impress but me.

How often do you explain your motives to your children, Ginny? Do you raise them to please you and respond to emotive appeals or do you raise them to (intelligently) act in their own best interests and please themselves (which would include acting in the best interests of everyone around them who was sane)?

Why would I attack the CoG when the problem is not extremist cults? The problem is the emotional corruption of the Holy Books they give to children to fill their minds with suggested insanity, helpful insane horrifying laws legislating against inhumane horrors that no one capable of committing could ever be sane enough to deter with laws (leaves the question of motive open, doesn't it?) - it's all pure suggested corruption, confusion, just a nice - helpful - way for a child to learn how to feel like a sociopath.

What you're doing with your own thoght processes is making the entire world manipulative and power-hungry which may seem like an okay choice, it would certainly give you an excuse to minimize contact with whomever you thought was dangerous, but it also *would alienate people with whom you could maybe be friends and have a positive relationship.*

I left the cult sane (if hilariously naive, I was literally a clean slate), and Society sent me insane with their emotional manipulation. I was so desperate to please everyone except mySelf, I forgot to protect mySelf like I had been doing. I let my guard down now that I was safe and got my ass handed to me by a great many creepy manipulators over the next decade.

I was exploited viciously by those I did make the stupid mistake of Respecting and Trusting and Loving (it's the only way you can be exploited, of course). I respected and trusted my mates (assuming reciprocation that was never reciprocated because this is not that kind of a world), and I was exploited by leeches who made me dependent on them because they needed me. I loved some girls, and rather than get taken advantage of, I basically just creeped them out. But then these insane emotions are the creepiest lies sold to everyone.

God is Love. Love is God. Fear God. Love is Fear.
Love is Insanity. Love is Needy. Love is Terrified. Love is Addiction.
Love is Dependancy. Love is Jealousy. Love is Possession. Love is Ownership.
Love is, and has always been, about Control.
Love is clipping the wings of those you Love so they can't fly away.
Love is hobbling those you Love so they can't escape.
Love is dumbing down those you Love, Lying to them, Deceiving them, Corrupting their sense of Self, because you're trying to sell a ludicrous proposition: That You > Any One of billions of other options, or even You > All of Humanity (combined).

What % of people who imagine (it's all insanity in their mind, of course) this sociopathic emotion do you think would be 100% willing to move aside if they came across someone who could make the person they ostensibly Loved Happier? 1%...? I doubt it. Love is Evil. Love is leeching, sucking the life out of those you Need to Exploit because you have no sense of Self.

Love is the lie sociopaths tell themSelves to enable them to sell it to their victims.
Love is a brilliant Confidence Trick.
Love is invented by religion, just like most of the insane emotions which are turning (or perhaps have already turned) Humanity into a breed of sociopaths and narcissists who scream their imagined insanity all over everyone and everything & breed life on which they feed.

When you're finished with exploiting your victim, suddenly your Love evaporates. I've been on both sides of this horror. We tend to say something moronic to the used carcasses we have sucked clean of life, like "It's not you. It's me."

Just my 2 cents.It's Ginny- so if you want to be pissed, you can get pissed at me, not anyone else.

I don't really feel those kinds of insane emotions anymore. I'm not 100% yet, and may never be, but I'm pretty healthy. Let me tell you, that's a relief.

I ran away from one of the most twisted apocalyptic religious sex cults of the 20th century, relatively unscathed. I just wanted to have some fun, for a change. I should have known better. The Society that created the CoG/TFI was never going to be the sane Utopia of my dreams. No one really knows how to have fun because no one understands free will. Everyone is so creepy with their endless moronic deceit and lies (all for your welfare, of course).

Everyone is happy for others to suffer to please them. That's insane.

I ran away from the CoG relatively pure because I'd never given a single one of them the R.E.S.P.E.C.T they were asserting they were owed (they can't tell the difference between respect & fear because they've never be capable of generating the former). I ran away from the CoG; only to run smack into the outstretched arms of a cult almost as creepy, but with far slicker marketing.

I ran into Society. I ran into nationalism. I desperately tried to run into high school popularity but that cult ain't easy to get into. I ran into pretty girls. I ran into the military, wanting to fly jets and I very nearly ran into the Coalition of the Willing. Unwilling to kill but mostly unwilling to be killed for Queen, God and Westphalia, I ran away.

I’ve been running from something or another, ever since. This is a terrifying world of exploitation. I've been in Survival Mode ever since I realised I was being lied to (i.e. taken advantage of, a religious insanity) by everyone I trusted. Then I picked up John le Carre's A Perfect Spy (the finest novel ever written) and everything was explained to me.

"Love is whatever there is left to betray." - John le Carre
P.S. I'm a Christian, and I think it makes me a better mom.

I'm sure you're a perfectly generic and decent mother, but then if you're not raising your children to think critically, logically, analytically, unemotionally, pragmatically, reasonably, rationally and as intelligently Selfishly as possible, you'd be doing parenting wrong.

As long as you're not emotionally manipulating them to please you, or - heaven forbid - suffering them to please you like the CoG, I'm not going to lecture at you.

That's the Christian thing to do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Don't say my God is the CoG... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gin: | Reply

Don't say my God is the CoG God, thank you very much.

As far as you portraying yourself as powerful and a victor of a cult, I believe you. Fine. A not-unreasonable assumption based on what you've posted so far might be that that story varies, maybe based on mood, or that it varies based on how badly you might need to see yourself as not a victim. But if you say itt is so that you aren't, then okay. the problem, as you say, is not, *for you,* the cults. Fine. I still have big issues with them.


Criticizing Catholicism is safe- give me a break. And saying they are some kind of almighty victors for the duration of history is the same as saying the Jews were always the ultimate victims; it is just factually not true. It's been repeated so much it seems that way, like a lot of things. So yes- criticizing Catholicism is safe. If you paid any attention, people in various positions with the church here in Chicago and elsewhere go up against their church all the time. We all make up the church, technically.

My children are all essentially healthy and quite capable of expressing and advocating for themselves and of discerning motive without it needing to be explained to them--- i.e. once again, they are *healthy.*

Lemmings don't throw themselves off cliffs. It's been widely accepted; it's just not true. I hate to be petty but taking shots at the church (yawn!) dangerous cults (double yawn) and high school popularity wars (triple yawn...) aren't exactly big challenges either, so.

More later. It's a long-winded comment and I only have so much time> I did notice that towards the bottom you said you were sure I was a perfectly generic mother or whatever. That's so untrue- why are you so presumptuous? I am really not what could be described as generic in anything at all--- to be honest, being more generic would feel like balance to me, I wouldn't mind it at all and would consider that to be a fine situation. But I can see clearly that you would be loath to describe yourself that way.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
@Tim when I try and post li... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

@Tim when I try and post links I get this message. I've tried with 3 ludicrously long posts but not sure how it works or how to get around it. I'm just trying to post Imgur screenshot links.

The Last Psychiatrist

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Don't say my God i... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Don't say my God is the CoG God, thank you very much.

He's your God and your Christ! Nothing the CoG did wasn't Biblical. They just ignored all the countless Biblical passages that said they were going to Hell etc. That's the entire point of these Books. Come on. Google "Bible contradictions" or "Bible absurdities" to see the complete lists compiled. Thousands and thousands of instances.

The CoG were Christians, Perfect Christians. Exploiting children. Raping, molesting, lying, Confidence Trickers. Like I said, Perfect Christians. You seem a little confused about your Bible or are you one of those "NT erased the Old Covenant - we just keep it in there to confuse children" types?

Of course I'm a victim of their horror. But I'm more a victim of the Bible than the CoG; if only because I was able to avoid the really damaging shit; I have siblings that weren't as lucky. But everyone was on their own, in that kind of jungle. It's pure survival. You cannot spent 14 years trying to survive prison and not sustain damage. But the damage I sustained was nothing compared to what I allowed to happen when I was tired of being "on edge" and let my guard drop in Society. Big mistake.

I fell in love. Uh oh.

Criticizing Catholicism is safe- give me a break.

They're not who you think they are. They're pros. But there's no point debating it, if you believe power that launches Crusades, empires of conquest and Inquisitions - burning to death any threats along the way - is now 'sweet', okay. Look, I think I'm safe. But if I had power, I would not be. You only have to watch how deferential CNN and BBC are when the Pope shares his hateful views with Africa. 50 million, Medicines sans Frontiers said would die. I think they low-balled the figure.

I saw how deferentially CNN and BBC respectfully carried the Pope's reminder to Africans that Jesus only died for murderers and rapists. Put a condom on? Burn in hell for eternity. Jesus didn't die for that Sin.

Yeah look they're not sweet guys but okay. You should go to the 96% Catholic Philippines sometimes and see hardcore Christianity in action. They make the CoG look respectable.

My children are all essentially healthy and quite capable of expressing and advocating for themselves and of discerning motive without it needing to be explained to them--- i.e. once again, they are *healthy.*

I have no reason and no motive to dispute this. But I will make the point my mother would say the same thing about her children. Every mother believes their kids are doing fine.

But if you're not explaining motive...do they ever ask? Are they like little soldiers? Motive is the most important thing in the world. It should be discussed constantly, imo.

Lemmings don't throw themselves off cliffs. It's been widely accepted; it's just not true. I hate to be petty but taking shots at the church (yawn!) dangerous cults (double yawn) and high school popularity wars (triple yawn...) aren't exactly big challenges either, so.

I was referring to "peers" when I used that word. If lemmings don't throw themselves off cliffs, I'd need an animal that did to describe the children of the children of the CoG. i was very alone. They were very exploited. I could not save them. They refused to save themselves in 1992 when the Docs raids took every child except for one commune in the country. That was a freakishly lucky break for Evil. I would have whipping those 'lemmings' into line. But it might not have mattered, some dark evil happened there. It's too horrifying to get into in full but basically something very powerful intervened and politicians started covering their asses, police chiefs were getting accused of setting up Cabinet ministers, everyone choosing their words very carefully; huge ass-covering exercise for this.

Secret Cabinet deal killed Family case The Age/1994-04-29 By Alex Messina

A secret Cabinet decision made to end litigation involving the religious group the Family overruled the secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services, Dr John Paterson.

According to sources close to the case, the political directive to end the child-protection case was in spite of Dr Paterson's view that the case should proceed.

The decision was made over a month ago and a secret deadline was imposed for a settlement. It was exceeded as negotiations dragged on, but the deal was sealed on Friday last week.

It is believed that Dr Paterson maintains the view that the department's evidence was strong and would have justified the protective concerns for 86 children from the Family, formerly known as the Children of God. Sources said the deal was widely considered a total capitulation within the department.

Once the deal was struck, Dr Paterson was gagged by the Minister for Community Services, Mr John. Dr Paterson has made no comments since the settlement. A spokesman for the department said he was uncontactable last night.

I didn't realise the Cabinet could interfere with the judiciary like that. Seems almost implausible. Something or someone very powerful scared the crap out of power. if you're interested the Special Session of Parliament called for the purposes of ass-covering transcript is fascinating watching these creeps protect themselves.

NSW Attorney-General The Hon J.P. Hannaford: "Those investigations culminated in court proceedings, which were resolved through the mediation of Sir Laurence Street. A number of matters were clarified and an undertaking was given not to disclose certain aspects of that resolution. Therefore, I will not advert to them. The court then made orders staying those proceedings subsequent to the resolution of the proceedings."

"I am not in a position to comment on all the evidence and on the evidence that was not brought before the proceedings. In a number of these issues there are many reasons why certain matters will be resolved in a particular way, especially if the future care of the children is assured."

"The resolution of the proceedings should not generate any presumption as to the nature or character of evidence that might have been adduced. I do not know, nor does anyone in this House know, what might have been involved."

"I know what happened in the proceedings, and as a result of what transpired subsequently I am not going to comment on the conduct of all the parties to the proceedings."

"I am prepared to exercise care in commenting on the proceedings, because following the resolution of them all parties acknowledged that the future care of the children is now being properly addressed."

All parties? The Prosecution was outraged to be cut out. The Cabinet made a secret deal with the cult, gagged everyone. Silence.

I spent 14 years in that cult. I was 11 when this was going on, but all hidden from me. I knew these kids. Future of children assured? Their suicides have been hitting in regulation fashion yes.

You're asserting things about Power you don't really give the impression of being in the position to assert with certainty. It's a dark, dark world. You want proof?

The CoG has never lost a court case. I've read all the transcripts, the media reports, the outraged prosecutions and decent humans horrified at the miscarriages of justice, the judicial process gets abrogated in ways so comical it's all a huge joke really. Judges refuse to allow evidence whilst stalling the case to a close or the Police claim to have found nothing. Defence lawyers keep a single witness on the stand for 3 months with inane insanity. Power gets involved every time. Who has power to frighten the governments of all these countries?

I can only think of one possibility. But you seem to be sure they're sweet now.

As for challenges with high school, I'm not sure i know where the conversation has gone. I was just rambling my dumb story. I don't plan or edit these posts, you know ;) ? I like to pretend it's because it's intellectually dishonest to edit and self-censor but the truth is I'm just lazy and terrible. But Christians aren't sweet, I think is the important message that 150,000,000 indigenous Americans would tell you.

If they could.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
More later. It's a... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 4:00 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by jonny: | Reply

More later. It's a long-winded comment and I only have so much time> I did notice that towards the bottom you said you were sure I was a perfectly generic mother or whatever. That's so untrue- why are you so presumptuous? I am really not what could be described as generic in anything at all--- to be honest, being more generic would feel like balance to me, I wouldn't mind it at all and would consider that to be a fine situation. But I can see clearly that you would be loath to describe yourself that way.

Missed this bit. Genuinely sorry about the long-windedness, you're not the first to suffer. Either I don't respond or this happens. I'm happy to do whatever the other party wishes. You don't need to respond to everything or anything I post, nothing is really important. I'm just killing time.

My presumption is due to polling such a huge sample size of mothers from such a diverse range, who all raise children more or less the same way.

I would be stunned to find a mother after all this time who had children that didn't glow or beam when she praised them or felt crappy when she expressed her displeasure. Look, I don't think human slavery is a big deal. We're all slaves. The children seem cool with it. I've seen guys almost killed on basketball courts for questioning the character of the sorts one just assumes had terrible mothers. They don't think so. They'll kill you to prove it. Who am I to tell anyone how to raise their kids. I just do logic.

Logic says you shouldn't be raising your child to please anyone but themSelves. This does not mean you raise them to be narcissistic. That's not intelligent Selfishness. Narcissists are miserable. They can't work out why everyone else isn't as interested in them as they are.

Logic says motive is the most important thing you can ever discuss with a child. If I had a child, motive would be discussed before any action. I would never order. I would make a compelling case for why I felt my child should choose what I believed was in his or her best interests.

nb. he or she will get to choose and learn about consequences and ownership of your own choices made for better or worse

I cannot really be more generic because I'm not normal. I can't say anything or you'll twist it out of context like with what really is an unbelievable story (I can't even believe I did it, running away from the CoG for Day 1 of high school in Grade 10). I'm a worker slave. Other slaves make excuses. We all do what we can when we can. No one is superior to anyone else. But there are a great many inferiors. That's not counter-intuitive.

All I can do right now is make the logical case against the Abrahamic religions. And ramble some insight I have about things other people seem suspiciously confused about. Like how to raise happy children v slaves.

I think if everyone stopped telling others what to do WHILST simultaneously doing the opposite (have you given up all that you hath?), this world could be Utopian. I'm not an idealist. I'm a logician.

Everyone's playing Prisoner's dilemma optimally. We could all get out of prison if we stopped doing that.

nb. I just remembered I posted this East v West exploitation post last night, to get back to pedophilia and OnTopic. It was blocked as I was linking to screenshots to make the argument for how Thai's do Exploitation and how superior it is to the West's creepy exploitation-in-denial and subsequent horror and emotional degradation etc. Eh, if it's worth reading I'm sure it'll show up.

But if it doesn't, Nerkoo is a Thai dating site. 2 million "Likes" on their Facebook page. It's a huge dating site. If you went to Nerkoo dot com and searched for girls you'd see some remarkable...liberty. 13 year olds looking for men. Lots and lots and no one has a gun to their heads. This is pure media power.

Though I couldn't possibly be interested in "women children" (ahem), until the horror of the West smears them, I don't think it's as horrifying as my first reaction. Whats the more horrifying horror? The children believing they want to do what they don't realise they've been conditioned to want to do in the same ways all of us have been conditioned by Power to believe we want to do things....or the west smearing their doing it with emotions that degrade everything; shame, horror, victimisation, and crap I know a lot more about than I let on. I was not that victimised in the CoG. Just a human slave until I was 14. It was in the past. Some people really wanted to make it in the present. Those people were unsolicited, imposing, emotion-transferring, Compassionate Christians.

They seemed to want to make me their victim despite my assertions that I was fine without their concern. I note you've done the same. You're assuming things about me and literally nothing really bothers me but then it might be degrading to do that to a child. You can't put your assumed damage onto them. I know who I am and no one I've ever met is as candid. But when I was still working out a lot of things, there were some very creepy types wanting to frame me in ways I didn't see myself.

Namely, as a victim. It was very, very creepy. Little habit of Christians, I've noticed.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
In Catholic school... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 4:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

In Catholic school they told us of a saint who was murdered when a man tried to rape her and she said she'd die before she let him do it, so he killed her.

We were told of this saint during a workshop for girls on what to do if we were ever raped, by the way. I was in either 7th or 8th grade

The Catholic position on rape is to effectively suicide? Isn't suicide a Catholic crime?

Do they give this same lecture to choirboys?

Speaking of choirboys, what are Catholic girls' opinions on not being allowed to sing for God? Not angelic enough, or something, I understand? God doesn't care for the sound of little girls singing, probably not as sweet an ear-savor. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Are the opinions of Catholic schoolgirls to the NO CHOIRGIRL rule something like

"Phew."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Am I explaining motive- aga... (Below threshold)

July 21, 2012 4:36 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gin: | Reply

Am I explaining motive- again, no, and as you so adequately point out over and over, you are the one with the problem with overly people-pleasing behavior that has turned into overly defiant behavior, two ends of the same coin, both of which have you in common. My children have no problems discerning motives adequately, being overly people pleasing or overly defiant considering. People grapple with issues like that throughout their life span to varying degrees with varying results. What worries me i the idea you've stopped grappling. Why? Because you seem to think you're perfect e.g. perfectly logical. that I have a huge problem with. You seem to think you're at the end of the road as far as development goes--- everybody has something to learn or understand except you. That's wrong and you'll suffer for it. Not morally wrong--- allowing yourself some space to feel emotionally okay would be awesome, if you ever do that--- but wrong for reasons of personal peace of mind and growth and all that.

And the big dramatic pause: "I fell in love" , doesn't impress me either. We all suffer in love, just as if it were in a contract we signed to have the right to ihabit a human body so I can't imagine why the drama.

Unless that's a psych trick (how you love those!), part of how *you* bait chicks. Sometimes this approach works: "I fell in love- she hurt me," "I fell in love- after we married she woulddn't sleep with me for fifteen years," so girls feel sorry for you, give you sex, and when you treat them like shit (as you do me) they make excuses for you, "well, he's been so hurt".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
@Tim: I'm a moron. I rea... (Below threshold)

July 22, 2012 5:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

@Tim: I'm a moron. I realised I could post the imgur dot com links with only the end of the link so it would be imgur dot com /xxxxx (just for verification - none of this is important. This is what I tried to post yesterday.

My run-on sentences are a crime against decency.

But I never lie. I don't really understand the creepy concept of bragging but I'm vaguely aware it has something to do with wanting the approval of others. I mean, I see a lot of people do it but I don't really get it. Who do they think they're impressing? I want the opposite; I want the criticism. Approval I have had enough of, it has no value. It's kind of sleazy and gives me shivers.

As for ‘lifted up’ – was that an ironic reference? ‘I am one of the best in the world is a total non sequitur’ -- and speaking of supporting a claim with sound premises, how about some proof for this ridiculous assertion? Oh, except there is no proof except your own grandiosity. Got it.

I don't like making claims without verifying them but I don't know how to do it without looking like a tool. I am who I say I am, I have no need for coy or privacy or any of that horrifying religious deception. This is all very degrading but then it is necessary, in this world of creeps who assert things they cannot verify.

My name is jonny vincent. I'm 31. From age 24 to 27 (2006-2008) I played online M/HSNL HUSH (Mid-High Stakes No Limit Heads-up Short-Handed) Texas Holdem professionally.

I had a blog called PokerCrack which I was using to assuage my guilt about players who would get starry-eyed at the fabricated glamour the poker industry (one of the creepiest industries ever) tries to sell as reality for 'winners'. Due to my obsession with needing to be liked, I was friends with so many kid millionaires. Many dozens; all of whom were miserable, some were suicidal (as I was), all of us were in denial, just trying to have fun & buying misery instead. Some of my friends degenerated into finding 'joy' in belittling or degrading the desperate / poor who will do things for money that...probably aren't worth repeating.

No one is winning in poker, is my point. It's all lies and bs marketing and a great deal of the show games are something like WWC.

My blog was intended to illuminate the dark miserable reality of winning (for the victims of the marketing) and I also had a lot of questions to ask about this insane world but no one had answers. There were like 30,000 poker players reading it at one point but they only see what they wanted to see. I was trying to show them how miserable this world of imbeciles truly is, and how miserable I was - it was a cry for help, in hindsight - because I only had questions and no one had answers.

I don't think even a single reader got the point. They all seemed to think I was writing comedic accounts of dealing with imbeciles or ridiculing for the sake of it. It was horrifying so I killed it. Literally no one seemed to realise I was consistently writing about humans reduced to something below animal intelligence. Just pure insanity.

I generally don't like to talk about these dark stages of my life because when I used my mind to exploit religious disparities, they were the most miserable and embarrassing mistakes of my life. I did it once and it nearly killed me (just too easy), and I swore never again. Then I did it again with poker.

Initially, I was manipulating girls after failing to impress and basically sleeping alone for 6 years. Dark stuff. The 2nd and final time I will use my mind to take advantage of the defenceless was when I was bitter at being expelled from my juris doctor Masters Law program for my 'crime' of being broke, and I swore I'd only play poker long enough to earn my law tuition which was something like 80-100k imgur dot com /9jQM3 . Then I was going to be a barrister for Legal Aid.

But I never went back to school. It wasn't a loss in the end (I know things about the Law now I didn't know then); but I was wracked with guilt my entire poker career because I was betraying mySelf. I believe humans are coded to want to contribute. We're just all horribly confused. But I would do these horrible leeching things in shame, and get idolised by imbeciles. Taking advantage of disparities in this world is idolised. This is insane.

The corruption of our species has been clinically achieved. Exploiting & the guilt resulted in my becoming an emotional cutter. I was just horrified at everyone, horrified at myself, horrified at the 'human' nature of kids you've never met believing they had a personal relationship with you because they "love your blog, how you wreck those fools" - I wasn't wrecking fools. I was trying to get them to be coherent / competent.

I like to help people so if they caught me in a tolerable mood I would answer their endless Hand History emails and requests for advice / strat but I only would ever tell Truth and isn't that is the most optimal way to offend in this insane world?

I'd get so many emails from victims of the marketing; these really dull types would ask me to validate their decisions to leave schools or jobs to play poker professionally and I'd just tell them the Truth. It was a miserable life and, more delicately, I'd try to convey to them how quickly they'd get slaughtered by players they'd simply never have the capacity to compete against.

Truth is a compliment. But I have noticed the emotionally insane don't like it. how peculiar. They just wanted me to insult them; tell them they could make it if they were dedicated or some idiocy. But it wasn't true. They didn't have the intelligence to ever compete; or the discipline / emotional stability to even win at SSNL or micro limits. Poker variance is insane. It sends almost everyone insane.

When you tell truth instead of insulting humans with creepy sleaze, the 'idol-worshipping' creeps turn into these horrifying vitriol-spewing, hateful stalkers. I'd never met these faceless names, and they'd just dedicate an entire year of their lives to...? I don't even know. Hate? Just insane.

Of course I was insane as well but these things are relative; and I was only confused because in this world, everyone lies nonstop. Fact. I cannot remember the last person I met who valued Truth. Everyone says they do, then they lie or "no comment" or "I don't want to talk about it" in response to a question. And they don't see that as lying. Insane.

Exploiting disparities is so insane...both periods of my life were the most embarrassing and miserably idiotic patches of suffering. You cannot exploit without exploiting yourSelf.

You cannot manipulate girls into thinking they want to sleep with you. Pretty sure that's rape. I was just desperate; that's the only guys they were going for.

You cannot find happiness creating misery. But billions of humans are killing, assaulting, raping, molesting, exploiting, manipulating and lying nonstop...in order to be happy. Something's wrong.

People have called me insane my entire life, but they just can't understand what they don't get until you exploit them, then they're like perfectly horrifying little mystics who think you're doing magic. They want to know the magic tricks. It's surreal. Poker is like intermediate statistical modelling, pattern detection, relatively basic mathematics and mostly streamlining optimality across as wide a range of feasible lines as you're able to manage. But I hate talking poker. This is probably already dementedly long.

I don't hate verification, I just find it embarrassing and degrading because I'm not proud of anything I've done. I speak without emotion, and state things entirely apathetically; but readers like you will interpret all kinds of insanity through your emotional processing PoV. It's just not there. You're imagining emotional sentiments that aren't there. I don't know how else to say it.

I swear my entire life I wanted to use my mind to help those who couldn't help themselves; the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised. I ended up doing the opposite. I ended up becoming the type of person I hated.

I became a leech instead.

imgur dot com /V1Thg

I'm gayboy6969 obviously, but I had a lot of usernames for various networks and accounts. No one would play me on the iPoker & Cake networks by the time I pulled the plug, and only some terrifying Scandinavians (who may have been Superuser inside accounts) would play me on Prima. I was very, very good. And suicidal every other day. The highs would be emotionally flat. The lows would be emotionally devastating. This phenomenon is almost generic amongst HSNL players. A reverse freeroll on your emotional state.

To win at this level, I can't describe the pain. It's All or Nothing intensity. It's obsession, surely deranged on some level. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't eat. Every spare moment spent doing something other than improving would be miserable because...my opponents would be improving whilst I was not. And you can't compete if you allow that. It's not a winning attitude.

'Winners' are powered by misery that is indescribable. Ofc I was in a haughty denial, lashing out at everyone that annoyed me, intolerant of everyone and everything - just disgusted by people but the gambling industry isn't exactly a haven for inspiration.

My contempt & abuse would actually result in recipients worshipping (what's with this, is this a religious thing?) even more. Only gentle Truth would turn them into horror shows. We're a terrifying species.

But for 2-3 years I basically withdrew into my little bubble of focus. I was very, very good. There are egos at this level here (100/200 blinds or US$20,000 buyin [100BB]) that do not submit easily. In the interests of disclosure, their sitting out was only because they were not as insane and action/variance-hungry as I was (just because they sit out doesn't mean I'm necessarily better; but I was very ruthless). I was a machine. Literally a highly functional human robot. And suicidal every other day.

I made like US$1.7mil in 3 years. And the day I retired (5 yrs ago) I very nearly did something very embarrassing with a whole lot of Ambien, Alprazolam, Diazepam & Rivotril - like a few hundred - I'm not kidding about the misery. A number of my friends have committed suicide. These are literal winners, according to the marketing of Society. In hindsight, I was an emotional basketcase but I couldn't cope with the human depravity of gamblers, denial, misery.

We're a messed up species. Humans have been reduced to a level so low...we're in big trouble. I think we're all going up in mushroom clouds as resources dwindle but I hate sounding like my Apocalyptic father. But everyone's emotionally insane. Ridiculously exploitable. Exploiting each other. Getting exploited.

imgur dot com /h4N6W

Just more sitouts. I couldn't get a game on my preferred networks in the end, so I was forced to bite the bullet and accept I had nothing to live for. I later read this was a generic issue faced by professional athletes who'd retired. Once the miserable driving intensity is gone, they're lost.

imgur dot com /0oYVx

This is just to show an example of how imbecilic humans are. I played guys with so much money who were so stupid...people losing millions & never improving over months or years. It made zero sense. If you know a bit about poker, you'll realise this stuff is just demented. 5 figure USD pots. They're all emotionally insane. I'd pressure them into cracking and they'd rifle off stacks in pure tilt.

imgur dot com /o6uEj

His bet sizing here is abysmal. But playing for 5 figure pots on multiple tables every minute, you have 6 figure variance swings that literally send almost everyone insane. Or sane(?) - "insane" I mean no one who plays HSNL values money anymore. You can't value the $ your playing for or you WILL be destroyed by someone like me who doesn't. You will not be able to compete if you hesitate about pulling the trigger.

imgur dot com /DgX2A

This is me about to bust out of my 30th consecutive or so 10k buyin event. They were emotional torture. Fields of thousands of imbeciles with nothing but dreams. Pure exploitation. Just literally morons blowing 5 figures most obviously can't afford on a lottery ticket where their expectation might be less than an 1/8th of mine or 1/20th some of my live tourney pro friends. These guys would just get lied to by Harrahs who sell these Disney "wouldn't it be nice?" type dreams. So much sadness. But they only show the happy, of course.

imgur dot com /28p5s

I actually don't know this person and yet, I feel like I've met her in every other girl I've ever met and most guys as well. She's in you, Tim. This mad certainty. I have no motive to offend. You can see the combination of ignorance AND unwarranted certainty of the validity of her expressing...noise? Everyone's like this. It's mad.

Narcissistic Toddlers. They're screaming the entire world insane. This is the real reason I was miserable. If you wouldn't prefer to be the dumbest of 7.3 billion sane people rather than the smartest of 7.3 insane people, you'd be doing logic wrong. But no one can do logic, literally. I know a handful of poker pros who can. Everyone thinks they can. I don't know how to approach the issue.

I thought my effort above was exceptional (maybe too delicate which I guess is insulting) but your reaction suggests otherwise. I don't know what to do, in that regard. I just state truths.

nb. this is purely for verification as you demanded it; there's really nothing important or of value I don't think. I'm who I say I am. It's verifiable. I don't really get this creepy thing where people lie.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
What worries me i... (Below threshold)

July 22, 2012 6:15 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by jonny: | Reply

What worries me i the idea you've stopped grappling. Why? Because you seem to think you're perfect e.g. perfectly logical. that I have a huge problem with. You seem to think you're at the end of the road as far as development goes--- everybody has something to learn or understand except you.

What makes you believe this? I have no idea where you're getting this from. Literally all I can do is logic. I have no other skills. I wish I could write because I have things to say that are important but then I'm not sure anyone listens anyway. No one even gets what John le Carre is writing about; or Alone for that matter (but then his motives aren't as clearly defined).

There is no end of the road for learning or improvement. I'm always looking to do both. Are you sure you're not just projecting? My point about tendency of Christians who try and impose their assumed emotional degradation onto victims of imagined trauma is pretty insightful (I think). You can't deny you're guilty of doing it. It's right there plain as day.

A not-unreasonable assumption based on what you've posted so far might be that that story varies, maybe based on mood, or that it varies based on how badly you might need to see yourself as not a victim.

This is just wrong. You shouldn't do this. It's indefensible. It doesn't bother me but it can infect a child who doesn't see themselves as a victim until a Christian comes along.

And the big dramatic pause: "I fell in love" , doesn't impress me either. We all suffer in love, just as if it were in a contract we signed to have the right to ihabit a human body so I can't imagine why the drama.

Love is burning up this world. Destroying people, by the billions. It's a pretty serious issue; because it's the lie sociopaths tell themselves in order to exploit. It's also entirely a construct of the Abrahamic religions.

It's pure evil. It's pure insanity. Children are brainwashed with it in classical literature and across the entire spectrum of children's media. It's perfectly horrifying.

part of how *you* bait chicks. Sometimes this approach works: "I fell in love- she hurt me," "I fell in love- after we married she woulddn't sleep with me for fifteen years," so girls feel sorry for you

What? No. Firstly, I don't do emotional manipulative games anymore. That was insanity a decade ago. Secondly, what? No cute girl in the world ever feels sorry for anyone - this is simply illogical and does not mesh with the reality. If they felt sorry for creeps like that, they'd be going to bed with 20 pathetic guys a day.

What I was doing was inflicting pain; making them (idiotically) feel they needed to impress me. The exact opposite of what you're talking about here.

No cute girl in the world would buy into that pathetic nonsense. Maybe it'd work with a motherly type, I dunno. I was gaming more at the darker, sharper end but it's all very creepy and nothing to do with who I am. I was just painting illusions like the guys I could see them going for. It was pure economics. Meeting Demand with Supply.

Very horrifying. And in no one's best interests. But it's important because it's about the corruption of our species.

We all want what we cannot have. When we have it, we don't want it because we want what we cannot have. This has got to be the definition of insane preferences. It cannot be natural. It's a recipe for misery.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
what a clusterfuck of intel... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 12:21 AM | Posted by tim: | Reply

what a clusterfuck of intellectually masturbatory bullshit...not even sure I want to bother reading it...the guy actually attempts to prove he's 'the best'. again, your logic might be valid but it's so far from sound that it's actually laughable.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
what a clusterfuc... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:19 AM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by jonny: | Reply

what a clusterfuck of intellectually masturbatory bullshit...not even sure I want to bother reading it...the guy actually attempts to prove he's 'the best'. again, your logic might be valid but it's so far from sound that it's actually laughable.

What am I the best at?

I stated no one in this world can do logic. It's very nearly a fact. The % of people who can think logically in this world is so tiny, it's negligible.

You ranted about there not being one speck of verification or evidence and that I was blowing hot air.

I provide what really is an embarrassing forced verification of my perfectly accurate and unemotional sentiment: That no one can do logic. It's literally amazing that schools do not teach logic, or teach children how to speed read whilst retaining the information and comprehending it. There are lots of things schools do not teach, but no one is talking about it.

You are abysmal at logic, Tim. I was happy to teach you but you don't want to be taught. You already know everything there is to know. I think I've seen your type before. I mercilessly destroyed them. I'm not proud of it.

You force me to verify, then you assert I'm trying to prove I'm the best? What am I best at?

At logic, there are few in the world who are better. At everything else...? I have no other skills.

Now, I will talk down to you. Stop being an immature Toddler. Grow the hell up.

You just can't win with emotional Toddlers. They just want to make everyone lose.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Jeez. Leave him alone, he's... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 2:43 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

Jeez. Leave him alone, he's working his shit out in his own way.
He doesn't appear to be working much out, just re-hashing the same themes over and over again, ad nauseum, but whatever. As for leaving him alone, I was replying to him, and he addressed me as someone who he obviously thought of as being inferior. He did everything short of tell me that I was an idiotic child. Excuse me for getting my back up about someone trying to intellectually shit on me, and for not being so disingenuous in turn that I have to veil my response in a lot of hand-wringing falsely-apologetic bullshit. Yuck.

He doesn't appear to be overly narcissistically burdened anyway but perhaps you are
Perhaps I am, based on what, exactly? Oh, that's right -- nothing, since you have no basis for that accusation.

And oh, he doesn't appear to be narcissistically burdened? Let's examine that claim, shall we?
A few choice quotes from Jonny:
"No one has made the arguments I'm making before." Obviously false.
"It is literally impossible to insult or offend me. I challenge anyone to try." Narcissists tend to be extremely defensive, and get defensive about their supposed defensiveness.
"This is very simple logic. You cannot do logic. But I am one of the best in the world at logic and I am happy to teach you; but only if you want to be lifted up." So he's "one of the best in the world", apparently I'm inferior and he's trying to 'help' by shitting on me. I think I've heard this one before.
"Motive is the most important thing in the world. It should be discussed constantly, imo." This indicates a basic fear, and basic lack of trust of others in the world, a deep-rooted belief that is common to all narcissists.
"God is Love. Love is God. Fear God. Love is Fear.
Love is Insanity. Love is Needy. Love is Terrified. Love is Addiction.
Love is Dependancy. Love is Jealousy. Love is Possession. Love is Ownership.
Love is, and has always been, about Control.
Love is clipping the wings of those you Love so they can't fly away.
Love is hobbling those you Love so they can't escape.
Love is dumbing down those you Love, Lying to them, Deceiving them, Corrupting their sense of Self, because you're trying to sell a ludicrous proposition: That You > Any One of billions of other options, or even You > All of Humanity (combined)." and "'Love is whatever there is left to betray.' - John le Carre". The narcissism is staring you in the face, can you see it yet?
"Mothers literally never make this case. They use force and emotive appeals to 'teach' lessons to their children in order to get their children to be slaves who please them." Narcissists, especially male narcissists, usually hate their mothers. Nothing new here.
"The horror of what children do to each other in high school games of popularity is almost as bad as what grownups do other humans in geopolitical power struggles." Narcissists love to dramatise and romanticise. This is ridiculous on its face. Yeah, high school popularity contests, almost as bad as war. Give me a fucking break.

I could keep going but I won't for the sake of brevity.

as far as moronic, you're the one who quotes Tool repeatedly. Not even for profound reasons but to come up with insults.?! ...
It may well have been an insult, but it also happens to be true, which might be why you admonished me for being rude, instead of actually disputing my claim. Also, way to be a hypocrite -- if accusing someone of martyrdom is an insult, so is accusing them of narcissism (which you do here, by hinting at it (disingenuous), rather than coming right out and saying it. Talk about intellectual dishonesty).

The narcissism insult you picked up, of course, from Alone.
Yeah, that's totally where I got it from.

What are you doing, crowd-sourcing yourself? ...
What does this even mean? How exactly could one crowd-source oneself? That's an obvious contradiction.

...an insult that would be thrown by a narcissist...
Based on what, exactly, other than that particular statement? (Which does not stand on its own as a proof of your assertion.)

That's the new thing, haven't you noticed? Narcissists saying, "I know you are but what am I?" ...
Yeah, and you just did exactly that. Oops. My claim about Jonny's supposed narcissism has a sound and valid basis, your claim about my supposed narcissism lacks even internal validity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Read my mind, Tim. What am ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:15 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Read my mind, Tim. What am I thinking right now.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What's the point, are you t... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:22 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

What's the point, are you trying to imply that I've been acting like I can read minds? Care to elaborate, or are you just bullshitting?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
It's like when you give som... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:35 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It's like when you give someone a really big "fuck you" smile and say, "read my mind," because the annoyedness can't quite be captured in words or perhaps there are other people around, so.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Oh, I see -- I call you on ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

Oh, I see -- I call you on your bullshit and you respond with sublimated aggression. I guess it struck a nerve. I was closer to the truth than I'd realised. Cool.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I stated no one in this wor... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:26 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

I stated no one in this world can do logic. It's very nearly a fact. The % of people who can think logically in this world is so tiny, it's negligible.
This is bullshit. Provide a sound and valid basis for this ridiculous assertion.

I provide what really is an embarrassing forced verification of my perfectly accurate and unemotional sentiment: That no one can do logic. It's literally amazing that schools do not teach logic, or teach children how to speed read whilst retaining the information and comprehending it. There are lots of things schools do not teach, but no one is talking about it.
Embarrassing? Forced? Bullshit. Earlier you said that you welcome the criticisms, but now you're playing the victim. Yeah, I'm so evil for pointing out that your suppsed 'logic' is unsound, from first principles. As for your point about pedagogy -- totally irrelevant, false, and again, not supported with even a modicum of evidence.

You are abysmal at logic, Tim. I was happy to teach you but you don't want to be taught. You already know everything there is to know. I think I've seen your type before. I mercilessly destroyed them. I'm not proud of it.
You have nothing to teach me, as I said. What evidence do you have to show that I am "abysmal at logic"?

You accuse me of being a 'type' without knowing anything about me, it would appear, simply because I disagree with you. You don't like what I've said so I must be a "bad" person. I must be like the people who abused you (I am genuinely sorry for that, by the way. Take it or leave it.). It seems that you lump me in with those who hurt you because I disagree with you. And then you put in some thinly veiled threat about how you 'mercilessly destroyed' people like me. Am I supposed to be scared now or something? Give me a fucking break.

You force me to verify
I didn't force anything. We're conversing on an internet blog. How exactly am I able to force you to do anything? This is just more emotional, defensive bullshit.

then you assert I'm trying to prove I'm the best? What am I best at?
You claimed that you were "one of the best in the world at logic" -- this is how you started your post. I assumed that this is what you were attempting to prove, I haven't read the whole post yet (as I already stated in the post that you replied to most recently).

At logic, there are few in the world who are better. At everything else...? I have no other skills.
You have no *sound* basis for a claim that there are 'few in the world who are better' at 'logic'. This is a claim that cannot be proven. It's like trying to show that God exists.

Now, I will talk down to you. Stop being an immature Toddler. Grow the hell up.
You've been talking down to me from the first sentence in your first reply to me.

You just can't win with emotional Toddlers. They just want to make everyone lose.
The irony is palpable.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Jonny, anecdote is not e... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:25 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

Jonny, anecdote is not evidence. This is absolutely elementary. Logic 101.

But I never lie. I don't really understand the creepy concept of bragging but I'm vaguely aware it has something to do with wanting the approval of others.
Yeah, and you have a similar but different issue -- you seem to want the *dis*approval of others. This is still narcissism, and it's still bragging. See TLP's piece 'Shame is the desired outcome'. Desiring infamy is just as much a hallmark of narcissism as desiring fame is.

I mean, I see a lot of people do it but I don't really get it. Who do they think they're impressing? I want the opposite; I want the criticism. Approval I have had enough of, it has no value. It's kind of sleazy and gives me shivers.
I never accused you of lying, I said that you needed to support your claims with sound, valid premises, especially if you are claiming to be "one of the best" logicians "in the world".

I don't like making claims without verifying them but I don't know how to do it without looking like a tool. I am who I say I am
"I am who I say I am" -- that's a good summary of your reasoning for why you're "one of the best in the world at logic". Nothing but a bare tautology, and the rest is all just irrelevant noise.

My name is jonny vincent. I'm 31. From age 24 to 27 ....
Whoopdy-doo, nobody cares. I didn't ask for your life story, I didn't ask for personal details. If you feel that you need to provide them, that is your prerogative, not mine. Anecdote is not evidence.

No one is winning in poker, is my point. It's all lies and bs marketing and a great deal of the show games are something like WWC. ... But I hate talking poker. This is probably already dementedly long.
This is very, very off the point. You're great at stringing together random tangents -- as for sound arguments, that is another story.

I don't hate verification, I just find it embarrassing and degrading because I'm not proud of anything I've done.
Boo-fucking-hoo. Nobody asked for a lot of irrelevant, meandering, self-involved bullshit. What you've said does not back up anything that you've claimed, and in fact supports my claims pretty clearly.

I speak without emotion, and state things entirely apathetically; but readers like you will interpret all kinds of insanity through your emotional processing PoV. It's just not there. You're imagining emotional sentiments that aren't there. I don't know how else to say it.
I'm not imagining emotional sentiments that aren't there. We all have feelings, and they do shape and guide our thinking, in ways that are not always obvious. This is a truism. Denying this is a defense mechanism reaction, nothing more.

I swear my entire life I wanted to use my mind to help those who couldn't help themselves; the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised. I ended up doing the opposite. I ended up becoming the type of person I hated.
Right, so the problem is not the world. The problem is you. As TLP is fond of saying.

I'm gayboy6969 obviously, but I had a lot of usernames for various networks and accounts....
Blah blah blah blah blah blah. I thought you hated talking poker? You sure seem to like it enough to go on and on and on and on about it.

'Winners' are powered by misery that is indescribable. Ofc I was in a haughty denial, lashing out at everyone that annoyed me, intolerant of everyone and everything - just disgusted by people but the gambling industry isn't exactly a haven for inspiration.
I think it's sort of funny that you say all this stuff about winners, yet in your most recent post, you say "You just can't win with emotional Toddlers. They just want to make everyone lose." So do you want to be a "winner" (this discussion is not a contest) or not?

My contempt & abuse would actually result in recipients worshipping (what's with this, is this a religious thing?) even more.
"Is this a religious thing?" Don't be so coy -- you should know; that's where you learned it from.

I actually don't know this person and yet, I feel like I've met her in every other girl I've ever met and most guys as well. She's in you, Tim. This mad certainty. I have no motive to offend. You can see the combination of ignorance AND unwarranted certainty of the validity of her expressing...noise? Everyone's like this. It's mad.
You're projecting again.

nb. this is purely for verification as you demanded it...
Anecdote does not verify anything. Someone who is supposedly "one of the best" logicians "in the world" would know this, would take it as axiomatic. So much for your claims to being a great logician. You don't know the first thing about it.

In fact, any decent first-year philosophy or science student could tell you this.

Alright, now I am actually done with talking to you. This discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and all I'm doing is feeding your broken ego.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Tim, if you don't want to a... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:30 AM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

Tim, if you don't want to act your age, I cannot get down in the gutter with you; I have no motive to do so.

But who else is talking about the things I want to talk about? These are themes I am forced to re-hash until someone counters the logic. You just want to flame. Isn't there a Bebo or Hi5 or 4Chan thread your Toddler incapacity for coherency (never mind logic) might be more suited to?

No one is effectively countering or even engaging me on these serious topics. I want errors in logic to be criticised. I want whatever is valid to be confirmed. Unjustified & nonsensical personal 'opinions', please save for Bebo okay kiddo?

Themes 1 and 2 (out of 4) [for now, I have lots more but I understand no one teaches children how to speed read at school]:
_________________________________

1. The conditioning power of the media / Society to literally create any kind of behaviour they want.

How do you think these '13-year-olds' (there would be 12 and 11 year olds on this dating site, which has 2,000,000 Likes on Facebook & is one of Thailand's largest "societies for singles looking for sex") became motivated to look for men? No one had a gun to their head.

imgur dot com /W8oYJ

They do it with literature (Alone has written at length about The Hunger Games; Twilight is horrifying with its cute introducing of pedophilia and imprinting to prepubescent girls in the happy ending; Jake imprints to the toddler, the toddler never gets to choose when her mother just gives her away - it's all so 'sweet'). They do it with teen magazines. Have you read these things? They're really very naughty & clearly obsessed with drilling romance, love, serendipity, fate and destiny into the minds of prepubescent and teenage girls.

For the boys, there are violent or racing(see #2) computer games & superhero comics where the heroes are always men or boys saving the nation or the world; fighting villains (rarely the State). In classic (who decides?) literature like Dumas, Dickens, The Hardy Boys, Tom Clancy, Jane Austen, etc; it's all creepy conditioning. Swashbuckling or heroic tales of courage and self-sacrifice, saving of the inevitable damsel in distress - just non-stop creepy propaganda. Young boys are drilled with this stuff; I know, I was one.

Social media has always been very creepy. But probably the most powerful conditioning occurs with children's entertainment on television and Hollywood movies. How is no one talking about the power of the music, television, movie industries?

You have bad-ass risk-taking action films where 007 apparently has a special (read: privileged) License to Kill but if you think about it, he has the identical license to kill as you do. You can go to Africa and start shooting bad guys; you have the same 'license' to kill abroad. Back in London, MI6 have no license to mow down Tube passengers. It's a License to Kill for the government; which makes his killing is okay. Uh huh. His motives for wanting to work for MI6 are never defined. He just seems to like the killing and the inevitable car chases, the gambling (he always wins even though he's too dull to know anything about house advantage or optimal strategy, he loves the gunfights which he always wins and - of course - the objectified babes who melt into his arms.

It's embarrassing but the power of children's television & movies to motivate & influence the behaviour of idiotic children (I know one) cannot be understated. I literally joined the military after seeing Top Gun. I know exactly where my obsession with winning (a filthy lie) & trophy girls was sourced; movies like The Rock where Sean Connery is his wise, Irish brogue advises the wimpy Nick Cage (whom I & many other boys would have identified with; he was frightened, nervous, etc) at the movie's climax:

"Losers always whine about their best, Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

...and Cage is motivated into heroic action, wins & saves the nation!

Why is there so little discussion about this creepy & surreptitious conditioning of impressionable minds?
_______________________________

2. We're being literally setup by Society, the State, Religion, the Law to faceplant. The most obvious example is motor vehicles with capacity for top speeds as high as 240-300km/hr (150-180mph).

Young boys grow up watching NASCAR, rallies, Formula One and playing computer games which simulate a lot like driving an actual car.

When I was given a loan to buy a 240km/hr performance vehicle at 17 (license to drive at 16, 10 question test on road signs), the factory speedometer measured up to 260 kph with 130km/hr suggested average at the top of the dial. The speed limits in Australia are 50 kph in built-up areas, 110 kph maximum on interstate highways. Yet manufacturers are shipping cars with capacity speeds of 300kph. Even my Nan's Camry could do 200kph+ easily. It's scandalous.

Over the next few years, I was involved in three major accidents where a vehicle lost control & went off-road (I was at fault 3/3), two cars were written off, I lost my license from hidden camera speeding fines twice (quickly returned to me within months on both occasions), finally managed to snap out of the denial & haven't hardly driven since.

After a decade of trauma, I discover they have had speed limiting technology for 40 years now.

Recommended scenarios Based on the assumptions set out in this report, the scenarios showing the most promise are, in order of merit (benefit cost ratio in brackets): All new vehicles fitted with a top speed limiter set at 120km/h at a cost of 50 cents per vehicle (90:1) All new vehicles require a speedometer scale no more than 120km/h at a cost of $1 per vehicle (23:1)

This report was commissioned by the Vehicle and Equipment Safety Section, Road Safety and Traffic Management Directorate, Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Australia.

Paine, M. (1996) Speed Control Devices for Cars.
For the Road Safety & Traffic Management Directorate
Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW
Research Report RR 5/95, June 1996.

All recommendations ignored.

They give you the license to drive at 16.
They give you a loan to buy a car you can't afford at 17.
They give you a car with the capacity to do 240km/hr.
They give you decades of sleazy conditioning which associates speed with "fun", "cool" and "sex".
They give you a speedometer that only makes sense when you understand it's about the power of suggestion. I used to work at McDonalds. You have no idea how many people go "Oh yeah" to fries.
"Would you like 130km/hr+ with that?"
Of course you do. You've been conditioned to want to.

They give you everything to set you up and then they say "Don't do it." Why is no one talking about this?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Themes 3 and 4... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:53 AM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

Themes 3 and 4

3. Western (primarily religious) horror 'helpfully' imposed onto children who may well have been victimised by Society's conditioning but then so long as they believe they're choosing to sleep with who they imagine they want to, how can there be any ongoing trauma or this damaged-for-life imagined incapacity to get over their (no longer occurring ) tragic victimisation (which is so prevalent in the West)?

It's religions that stigmatise the child victims of what really is the Abrahamic religions' obsession with child deference to their elders. Children are subjected to physical violence (i.e. beaten) in order to teach them to respect their elders. The child is then victimised by someone like a Catholic priest (called by God to lecture you on your 'human' shame & hang out with a lot of innocent, pure teenage boys "NO CHOIRGIRLS...!!!") - and that is tragic - but then for the rest of their life, creeps helpfully assume they must be suffering in the present for what happened in the past.

It's very, very creepy how Westerners' horror is imposed onto what we perceive to be horrifying but isn't nearly as horrifying as the emotional degradation transferred onto victims who are exploited into choosing but are not given the choice to decline the unsolicited imposition of horror, disgust, contempt and outrage.

When Westerners (usually conservatives & Christians) do this creepy shit...that's where the damage is done. That's what is so much more horrifying that the creepy conditioning that makes children think it's their choice when the reality is - quite simply - there is no such thing as "free will".

We are who we have been conditioned to be, less or minus our experiences. Being horrified for the benefit of a child (who might well have 'chosen' their exploitation) is the Christian victimisation that creates victims out of children who might not have seen themselves as being victimised until Society continually insists they must be suffering or damaged. This ensures their (imagined) suffering is dragged out for - potentially - their entire lives.

One can only hope they don't perpetuate cycles. Or is that the creepy point of all this assumed trauma?
_________________________

4. Traumatised / horrified individuals (perhaps well-meaning - usually exploited women > mothers) transferring their emotional degradation, fears, trauma onto children instead of instilling education, skills, intelligence, confidence in the child to know he or she can cope in the pressured situations which every child is likely to face sooner or later.

Prepping children for Reality with Fantasy. It's so patronising. And it boils down to this world's terrifying population of Toddlers who breed (my mother would be in the bottom 5% of global IQ and bottom 1% of global EQ; which is why she had 12 children) and nothing can shake their terrifying certainty that "Mother knows best."

Mothers who cannot logically justify their reasoning or motive when telling their children why they should 'want' to please her or make their parents proud will never know best. They know nothing except how to raise a child to be an emotional junkie addicted to ego-stroking, deceit, sleazy compliment & endless validation.

It's emotional corruption designed to manufacture slaves out of children. Children do not grow up with the opportunity of learning how to make choices for themselves. They don't get to choose. Their (mostly) narcissistic parents simply dictate.

And to keep control, the parents will censure a great many things which aren't remotely traumatic until the child which has been prepped with Disney Fantasy hits the inevitable Reality. This protection is so insulting and it's used to keep children 'innocent' in order to shift the goalposts from taking care of themselves to requiring Mommy or Daddy throughout their lives of dependancy. Sage Stallone's recent suicide, for example. Depressed for years, suicide in the end; motive? He missed his Daddy and felt ignored when Stallone remarried. He's was 31 for crying out loud. He was literally a crybaby.

Parents, especially mothers, are making their children dependent instead of independent; I believe, intentionally. They want control of their property.

This is undeniably an Abrahamic religious insanity.
* Respect your elders.
* Spare the rod, spoil the child.
* Honor thy father & mother.
* Women children virgins, keep alive for yourselves.
* Tokens of virginity.
Eww.

I read about Purity Balls the other day. Christians are so creepy. They cover the world with this creepy emotional 'protection' and 'horror' (for the children's sake, of course).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Nothing was really sublimat... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 7:54 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Nothing was really sublimated there. pretty big word for a guy who likes to quote Tool, however.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
so my listening to Tool mea... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 8:29 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

so my listening to Tool means I'm stupid?

...apparently you've never listened to them, because their lyrics/music, whether you think it's good or not, is a lot more intellectual in its content than the average.

after all, name me another band that talks about psychoanalysis in its lyrics, and does it well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Jeez. Leave him alone, he'... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 12:40 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Jeez. Leave him alone, he's working his shit out in his own way."

By bullying people on the internet? Sorry, working things out in his own way is fine so long as it involves just himself.

Using other people and harming them to "work yourself out" is basic emotional/psychological abuse of others. If you need others to coddle you and assist you in working out your issues that's what therapy is for.

Strangers on the internet have no responsability to be an emotional/psychological punching bag for people who have suffered abuse and want to launch their abusive and deranged (and dangerous) belief systems all over others. I am all about offering empathy to those who suffer, and I want people like jonny to get emotional support with what he's struggling with.

I DO NOT support abuse survivors or the mentally ill, or those who are incapable or choose not to care how their words or belief systems affect others be enabled to go on thinking that way without being challenged simply because they have issues or need support.

If jonny needs a hug from people here, he can ask for a hug. That's not what he's asking for, he fucking with people just for the hell of it and trying to validate and harmful belief system that could have real world consequences if actually applied to real life.

And by jonny's own account HAS translated to him actually abusing real people.

His belief system is not harmless and refusing to call him on it is not doing him or people around him any favors.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
By the way, the fact that j... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:06 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

By the way, the fact that jonny glosses over having deliberately abused other people by pointing out how awful THEY were for letting themselves be abused?

Uh... seriously if you want to enable that kind of thinking you are contributing to abusers thinking they have actual societal backing for the ways they harm vulnerable people and justifying it with their own misanthropy and general hatred of human vulnerability, weakness, or need for love.

IF you're going to claim that people like this "have a point" you are literally promoting sadism and cruelty.

I think the people who abusex jonny were wrong for doing it and so does jonny. So why does jonny get a pass? Or are you saying the people who abused him deserve a pass as well because they "working things out in their own way" (by abusing jonny)?

At what point can we say that abusers don't have any inherent right to be enabled and tolerated in their abusive behaviors and beliefs/thought patterns/value systems -DESPITE that they have issues they are working out and might need support with? You can respect someones experiential nature and humanity while also saying their abusive belief system( and subsequent behaviors and speech other real human beings who have to deal with them) is bullcrap and has no business being accepted or tolerated by anyone.

Take that shit to a therapist and actually work it out.
Rick Ross forums might have some resources for working through religious cult abuse issues.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
BTW jonny, if you want to c... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:13 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

BTW jonny, if you want to come here and say "I'm having a hard time and I'm in pain and I cant control my behavior and everything is fucked up" I'm actually cool providing all kinds of support. The part where you act out the abuse you were taught while simultaneously holding people who didn't hurt you responsable and launching vitriol at people who did nothing to you at all---? No.

No. You need to figure that shit out. If you need to know others care about extreme forms of suffering and pain that have altered who you are-- I do.

Which is exactly why I will not take any part in letting you think it's ok for you to launch suffering on others. I care about you even though your capacity to care how you harm others is broken. But I think people like you need to be stopped in your tracks so the cycle of broken damaged people harming others (and justifying it and expceting sympathy from society) may be broken.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Can you guys sign your name... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:37 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Can you guys sign your names to your posts please? Little decency. And Tim, can you please Google simple html tags or with quoting type *blockquote#TEXT YOU WANT TO QUOTE*/blockquote# (replace * with ). Your posts are incomprehensible the way you alternate in and out of italics inaccurately.

Strangers on the internet have no responsability to be an emotional/psychological punching bag for people who have suffered abuse and want to launch their abusive and deranged (and dangerous) belief systems all over others. I am all about offering empathy to those who suffer, and I want people like jonny to get emotional support with what he's struggling with.

Can you please focus on the issues I've raised instead of trying to assert that I'm struggling or that I have dangerous belief systems. That's idiotic slander. My belief systems are Truth and Intelligent Selfishness and zero reliance on (petty) others for valuation. You're just spewing irrational and emotional vitriol. Address the Themes I've raised or leave the discussion.

I DO NOT support abuse survivors or the mentally ill, or those who are incapable or choose not to care how their words...affect others be enabled to go on thinking that way without being challenged simply because they have issues or need support.

If you're so emotionally insane that Words can hurt your feelings, then you're not in a position to be commenting about anything or anyone until you get help. What are you, Karen Klein? Grow up. Don't let others take control of your emotions like that. I can help you with that. But not if you don't want to be helped. You need to want to be in control.

That's not what he's asking for, he fucking with people just for the hell of it and trying to validate and harmful belief system that could have real world consequences if actually applied to real life.

Is that three times you've referred to a "harmful belief system" without saying what in the hell you're even talking about? Speak Toddler. Communicate coherently.

And by jonny's own account HAS translated to him actually abusing real people.

I disclose mistakes I have made 5 and 10 years ago. You have some nerve being illiterate and slandering me using that present tense. I abuse absolutely no one. I'm a humanitarian anti-theist libertarian. If you're imagining offence in your emotionally insane mind, you need to take that up with the guy in the mirror. Okay kiddo? You need to grow up and take control of your feelings. I'm not that powerful that I can hurt you.

Only you can hurt you.

His belief system is not harmless and refusing to call him on it is not doing him or people around him any favors.

FOUR times without stating what the hell you're babbling about? Are you tasting colours and smelling shapes. What's wrong with you?

Communicate!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Seriously, can you research... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:49 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Seriously, can you research Netiquette please? You're impossible to take seriously when you say things like this without quoting what the hell you're even talking about:

By the way, the fact that jonny glosses over having deliberately abused other people by pointing out how awful THEY were for letting themselves be abused?

Learn how to communicate or no one will ever take you seriously. How am I to speculate what you're taking out of context? Are you talking about poker players who take out mortgages on their house, fail to pick up their children from school, spend their kids' college funds and then abuse everyone and throw objects at dealers because they're too insane to realise they're too stupid to compete?

Yes, they are pathetic scum. I'm starting to wonder whether your incapacity to even have the decency to make your posts readable and quote what the hell you're even referring to, places you in a similar class. Sign your name to your posts, you Toddler. Have some dignity.

I think the people who abusex jonny were wrong for doing it and so does jonny. So why does jonny get a pass?

What are you talking about? Be specific or I will not engage you again. One more post like this where you make ludicrous, vague assertions forcing everyone to speculate what you're even babbling about and I WILL ignore you. Grow up. Learn how to communicate with clarity or get the hell out of the conversation.

You're abusing me right now. Why do you get a pass to be such an ingrate?

speech other real human beings who have to deal with them

This is all about your hurt feelings, isn't it? Awwh pumpkin. If I say Sorry will you feel better about your giving someone else control of your mind when I wasn't even trying to manipulate you? Awwh.

How can I make your imagined emotional pain - which isn't remotely real outside your traumatised and abused mind - dissipate? Should I lie and tell you that you are sane when you're imagining non-existent pain?

Grow up dude. Be a human being. Have some self-respect and take control of your own feelings, emotional state, and imagination. Or stop spewing your insanity into the already noisy din of billions of emotionally insane Toddlers crying about how Words hurt their feelings...awwh.

I'm not your mother, child. It's time for you to Grow Up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Um. BTW j... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 1:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Um.

BTW jonny, if you want to come here and say "I'm having a hard time and I'm in pain and I cant control my behavior and everything is fucked up" I'm actually cool providing all kinds of support.

I actually think unsolicited offers to assist someone you're projecting onto should be a (humane) capital offence. It's transparent what you're trying to do. I speak about it in Theme #3. I've spoken about it to Ginny earlier. Don't attempt to creepily impose your unsolicited crap onto me. I don't need it. I haven't asked for it.

Why don't you stop trying to "get back at me" and address the four Themes which are important to discuss?

launching vitriol at people who did nothing to you at all

Take control of your own emotions. I'm 10,000 miles away. What are you, 3 years old? Take your imagined hurt feelings up with the woman who made you this way. You're imagining pain inside your own mind. I cannot hurt you.

You are hurting you.

Which is exactly why I will not take any part in letting you think it's ok for you to launch suffering on others. I care about you even though your capacity to care how you harm others is broken. But I think people like you need to be stopped in your tracks so the cycle of broken damaged people harming others (and justifying it and expceting sympathy from society) may be broken.

Who am I damaging, Tim? You either start communicating with specifics, like a adult (or at least a nine year old) or stop talking at all. You're just flinging around vague assertions imagining I can read your mind.

I couldn't read your mind if you were sane.

How the hell can I read it when you're insane?

Unless you can be specific and communicate with decency, I cannot engage you any further.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
And Tim, can you p... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 2:02 PM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

And Tim, can you please Google simple html tags or with quoting type 8blockquote8TEXT YOU WANT TO QUOTE8/blockquote9 (replace * with ). Your posts are incomprehensible the way you alternate in and out of italics inaccurately.

That was strange. It removed the symbols. Replace 9 with > and 8 with

Or just google "html tags" for goodness sake. If you're too lazy to learn how to communicate with a degree of coherency, why should anyone give you the time of day?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
This appears to be adressed... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 2:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Gin: | Reply

This appears to be adressed to me. I never said Jonny gets a pass- I've told him 2 r more times (ifferent thread) to get some emergenncy help and I did so pretty elaborately w/out hurting his feelings i hope.. but Tim appears to be to just be spoiling for a fight and i directed the comments at Tim. He's kind of picked an easy target (jonnnyy has *obvious** problems) to take his own shit outt on. For the record I didn't read all your posts- just some of two of them- so there may be stuff I'm missing. RE: what's dangerous: eally in the end I am not sure the 'abuse' thing holds for Jonny and Tim, Tim being abused and Jonny being the abuser and it might also be dangerous to let *Tim* think tthat it does hold.


but I am still iinterested in what people say. I'll look at the rest of the posts later I just don't feel like it right now. thanks for feedback.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
He's kind of picke... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 2:59 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by jonny: | Reply

He's kind of picked an easy target (jonnnyy has *obvious** problems)

Okay I'm going to have to draw a line in the sand here. State the problems.

This is Christian classic transference of your emotional degradation onto someone who has challenged your preconceptions in a confronting way and you're responding by going on a personal attack..

I only want the best for your kids, and the other 4-5 billion. Right now, they're not being raised to be sane. They're being raised by mothers (and fathers) who train their children in ways that force their kids to respond with narcissistic evolutionary protection mechanisms (otherwise they'd get manipulated to death). I actually have a paper I want someone to critique that theorises this pattern:

Human children > Narcissists (to protect from emotional manipulation) > Sociopaths (Narcissists who have learned how to feel without being exposed to exploitation) > Human children.

And round and round it goes.

I can effectively prove using logic that you are raising your children to be your dependant emotional slaves; who are dying to please you instead of focusing on intelligent Selfishlessness (or enlightened Selfishness is also quite good).

(jonnnyy has *obvious** problems)

But this, what you're doing now; is an amateurish emotional manipulative trick. If it could be used successfully against me, don't you think the CoG would have had success with it; and all the Christians I've met since? They all tried to assert that I had problems. They couldn't make a logical case for it but they tended to assert their vague beliefs usually when I had forced them into a logical corner they couldn't get out of, without admitting they were Confidence Tricksters.

You cannot try to imagine I could be suffering for something that was not happening in the present? I'm literally not capable of carrying your Christian trauma with me. It's in the past. Look forward. Only an imbecile agonises over suffering that has ceased.

You need to stop doing this, for the sake of decency. This is how Christian insanity went viral. "Do unto others what you (being insane) would have them do unto you."

Golden Rule? More like a Golden Shower. Christians urinating their opinions (without justification of course) all over the world; preaching at everyone. Doing the opposite themselves.

You can't see how Jesus was a creepy sociopath? He should have said:

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

State your assertions with clarity. You cannot just keep asserting I have problems to avoid addressing what I really want to talk about. There are four important issues / themes I posted about. Let's talk about them.

I'm not important. I'm one of ~7.3 billion who I value and would like to convince the world to understand their true value, because the world doesn't value humans logically. Everyone's insane. I'm not important, Tim is about as important as [something negative]. Let's focus on the important issues.

Tim is imagining his abuse. Just like Karen Klein gave her mind over to those middle-schoolers. Except I wasn't bullying him. He just got offended anyway, like a Toddler. I speak Truth. I'm not going to pretend he's sane or grownup if he's not going to make an effort to understand that he's been exploited and abused by those who make him imagine emotional pain and offence.

When I point out that I cannot be hurt this way, it's to point out the optimality of having a sense of Self. I don't need the validation of others, anymore. What they say cannot hurt me inside my imagination. If Tim could understand this, it would be the most important day of his life.

But of course, Toddlers know everything. They know how to play advanced poker strategy. Why not? They've read a book and watched a TV show. Why wouldn't they be able to compete with guys who've won over 2,000,000 hand sample sizes at impossibly competitive limits?

They're Toddlers. They were made to be this way for War, to be Slaves. Tim doesn't get it. I'm here to illuminate and learn. He wants to scream. It's impossibly insulting that he could imagine I have a motive to cause him suffering (or it would be, if I could get insulted). But how important does he think he is?

Let's talk about the important Themes I posted. Please? I have like 22 more after those 4 lolz. Okay that's it from me. I'm going to sleep. peace all...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I feel like the only respec... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Gi\n: | Reply

I feel like the only respectful thing to do here is to bow out, as a courtesy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gin-- I see you doing what ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:46 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Gin-- I see you doing what I have done for abuse survivors and defend them against facing that they are spewing harmful bullshit and value systems that are literally dangerous to people around them.


Allowing him to think his value system makes sense serves no one. I think you're defending Jonny and you're exactly the type of person Jonny has had fun with abusing for real. I don't think your niceness will make a dent (though likely neither will Tim's attempt to put forth an application of actual logic to Jonny's blatherings).

Please don't ask the general population to coddle people like Jonny and tolerate their bullcrap.
I think it's perfectly relevant to point out when a person is spewing bullshit and put forth some logical explenations of what is wrong with their claims for anyone left in the population that actual cares about using rational thought.

Your position- Gin- seems to be "Oh he is obviously messed up so don't point out what is wrong with his logic"

I think that is not a useful position because I think for the sake of people who are working out their value systems it's worth exploring whether people in front of you are making any sense at all. Considering here at this blog there are probably a LOT of people who can't tell whether or not they are narcissists or whether their own behaviors/thought/value systems have any empathy at all within them--
This is exactly the kind of readership that probably DOES need dangerously low empathy belief systems/thoughts pointed out to them.

Not to mention people who need these things spelled out to them are all over the place and it's worth doing even if it won't make a dent in people like jonny or postcompleteness who are so completely emersed in ego-defense they fight against self examining their own positions or value base as much as possible.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
"I cannot hurt you. <... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 3:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"I cannot hurt you.

You are hurting you."

This is classic abuse.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
"I cannot hurt you... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:12 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

"I cannot hurt you.

You are hurting you."

This is classic abuse.

This is the emotional Toddler's idea of logic. An assertion that amounts to pure insanity. No justification. No logic. Just a feeling. An opinion asserted as valid when it cannot possibly be valid because how can I hurt someone from 10,000 miles away?

If you emotional humans,interrupted cannot continue your emotional development to the point where you're in control of your own feelings, emotions, imaginations and minds; then the most horrifying thing of all is that someone gave you the idea you could be in a position to raise a child.

You cannot hurt my imagination, feelings, emotions or make me feel pain in my mind. Because I am sane.

You are imagining pain, your feelings are hurt, your emotions are traumatised and you're feeling offence, insults and pain. Because you're insane.

Which one is more optimal?

You think you can do logic? What horrible person set you up to fail so miserably. You should be quite miffed about the damage they did to you.

Four year olds have superior minds than you guys. "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but Words make the emotionally insane imagine pain inside their traumatised and abused and manipulated and corrupted minds.

I have to tell the Truth. I'm compelled to. The position you put me in here? I don't want to say it. But you're imbeciles if you cannot understand something this simple.

Don't give others the power to hurt you with Words. That amounts to you hurting you.

This is classic logic. You're abusing yourselves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"You're abusing yourselves.... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:19 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"You're abusing yourselves."

Is that what you told the women you admit you abused? Does it help you sleep better at night? Your words concern me not because they harm me, but because I am concerned about other people in the world you may have access to and how your belief system may affect other abusers looking for reinforcement and justification for having no empathy for how their behavior affects others.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
And yes I think words can d... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:20 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And yes I think words can definately be used to hurt people and refusing to acknowledge the emotional existance of others in relation to your actions in indeed a sign your empathy is broken.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I think--- this is mainly ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:54 PM | Posted by Gin: | Reply

I think--- this is mainly a gut reaction--- but Jonny already has a confused value system in terms of, on the surface, valuing "logic" over emotions. Your placing --- no, re-placing this emphasis again, on top of Tim's assertions, is only going to upset him but technically it does reinfoce his chosen value sytem, screwy as it may be (logic over emotions)> which may be what his main *problem* is for all I know.

Also, it's tearing him down right in the spot where 5his self-esteem resides; his ability to be logical..

I recall affirming an emotion in a rather limited context toward him---- not his entire system of thought. I'm surprised I have to point this out. ?!

What would you have me do- withhold any attention or affirmation of anything until you or somebody else work him around to 'right' action (such as medication management and outpatient treatment)? Because that would probably be fairly typical of what he experiences already in his life, as it is with lots of mentall4y ill people. Furthermore, it is unfair to *me* to not respond. I can work with what and how--- really--- but I didn't read anythinng ttoo connstructive i what you said. outside of maybe "try to encourage logic, like Tim."

While it is not nice to see abuse survivors perpetuate the cycle with their maddening hiding behind a victim stance while hurting other people, it also isn"t nice to see "normal" people abusing others either, particularly while defending their positions as the 'normal' and 'logical' positions. Which is also classic.

Stepping in on issues like this, as compelling as it may be, is debatable in terms of effectiveness for altering behavior. I am not at all sure it is even appropriate as a goal or guideline for what or how to post. It sure is interesting to see what merits attention and what does not- seems it would open a can of worms.

It is certainly true that for me personally, the persons who place an enormous emphasis on 'right thought,' reinforing their interpretation of (for lack of a better term) Alone-ism, and correcting oother people's actions would exactly rub me the wrong way. On a purely personal level, give me a different kind of craziness any day. I've also noticed the people who do this are generally insufferable and do it over and over again--- I'm not sure they are grappling much either.

Not that I am saying I am innocent of any of the above, of course.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
My comment registered right... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 4:57 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

My comment registered right after your empathy remark- I didn't get a chance to read it before I wrote. Whose emmpathy is broken?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ginny- seriously you think ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:17 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Ginny- seriously you think stating an abusive belief system when I see it is me being a "normal" person abusing an abuser?

That is SO backwards. I got abused by enough people exactly like jonny through my teens working in food service and crap jobs and they run the fucking show-- and in real life they can just beat you up and rape you, or try to pscyhologically destroy you claiming it's "just words" while systemically working to wear down any amount of health you have left if they decide you aren't bowing down to them enough.

I believe those of us who have been abused by fuckers like this deserve to call them the fuck out and I don't appreciete you defending them and claiming that is me "abusing" poor little jonny. You're being an enabler and I think it's crappy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
And it's so funny ginny bec... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:32 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And it's so funny ginny because you are more sympathetic towards jonny even though both jonny and myself are abuse survivors and he openly claims to have abused others.

Anti-socials are really skilled at elliciting sympathy for themselves from others over their victims. It's amazing how it works on you Ginny. Trust me, Jonny knows all about it and dislikes people like YOU exactly because you're just so easy to manipulate towards his purposes.

Anti-socials hate the weak of mind and believe they deserve abuse because their weakness of mind makes them so desgusting. I disagree. I think humans are subject to manipulation, and that sucks, but does not make anyone deserve horrible abuse and that abusers need to be systemically stopped by people within society learning about it and neglecting to reinoforce people like this and actively looking out for each other and pointing out when they see shitty behavior/speech.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I never said 'you,' dude.. ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:35 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

I never said 'you,' dude.. truthfully I have no idea how normal or abnormal you aare orr think you are. So chill out.

Because of the way my email formats these postings I can't tell if I am talkinng to an anonymous for reaal or to Alone. I'd like to know so I can revise my opinins and feelings, if you please.

If you think the world is run by 'Jonnys' as your post seems to say, I'm more worried about you than him.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
oops- I meant from an actua... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:37 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

oops- I meant from an actual 'Anonymous' or from Alone. Thank you for clarifying.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"If you think the world is ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:44 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"If you think the world is run by 'Jonnys' as your post seems to say, I'm more worried about you than him."

Can you elaborate what you mean by this? Because it sounds like you're being condescending. Please clarify if not and I'll adjust my further response from there.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I keep responding to above ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:48 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

I keep responding to above posts and around the time I do, another one is posted above mine.

Why is it so many of Alone's readers are so preoccupied with the same diagnoses- narcissism, histrionic, borderline, antisocial--- personality disorders, all. I think it is just that within a limited set of informaation, almost anything can look like one of these, or maybe, more to the point, that with someone with an ax to grind finding any one of these gives one a place to grind it. I'd suggest either finding some more positives or expanding one's information about mental illness.

In much plainer English: everyone commenting on Alone's blog thinks everything is all about pathological narcissism.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm not being condescending... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ginny: | Reply

I'm not being condescending at all, I don't kknow why you'd think so.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think the fact that you s... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 5:54 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I think the fact that you scoff at the idea that there are entire populations and subcultures where people like jonny are reinforced--- and that people with disabilities who have to work shit jobs and deal with crappy people have the same amount of power to avoid such people as you do-

reaks of glaring unexamined privaledge. Lucky you. Please stop making the world just a little bit worse for people who don't have the economic or social mobility priveledges to escape people like this as easily as you do by pretending our concern over people like jonny is a silly misperception.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Ginny- I don't care about l... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:00 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Ginny- I don't care about labels-- the point is someone without empathy is harmful to people around them. Whether it's their personal choice, a brain disease, or a personality disorder-- they need to be identified so that others can avoid them and understand what they're up against if they meet one in real life.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Look babe--- put a sock in ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ginny: | Reply

Look babe--- put a sock in it. I have a disability recognized by the Social Security Adminisstration. I have a psychotic disorder, diagnosed. I've been this way since I was about 25, and I have lifelong depression so severe that without 450 buproprion XR I can't evven fucking stay awake, even at work. I feel hea/vy and tired- that's psychotic depression for you. I'm not even pretty, I am overweight, although I am white. Don't put your shit on me. And I have worked very hard to be where I am at n many ways after many disadvantages--- I see a certified trauma psychologist for abuse, for God's sake. she sees it- she thinks things were so bad I might not evenn have psychosis, just bad post-traumatic reactions. Although that didn't stop me from staying in the psych system for years, no picnic in itself. Don't even talk to me about educational disadvantages. Or poverty, or growing up around drugs and alcohol and strange men and porn and everything else. When I got molested byy my brother my mother even blamed me (sttill does). I was maybe 7 years old. I know what a hard life is. You're just a presumptuous bitch. I noticed you seem to divide the world into two sides- those on your exact side, and the bad guys. Might wanna work on that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
No YOU don't call me a pres... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:18 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

No YOU don't call me a presumptuous bitch. I stand by the fact that if you can get away from guys like this it's a privaledge. I've dealt with the same fates only I am stuck dealing with dangerous men that I can't do anything to stop and people like you apologizing for them and worrying over their feefees.

I get you're a trauma survivor and this is an easy pattern to get into (been there!) but it IS enabling. You might want to examine why you're all up on caring about jonny's feefees over people who would stand up against abuse. Are you afraid of thinking your abuser(s) should be accountable? Is it scary because those of us with empathy tend to love abusers even thought they are causing harm?

I get it. But it gives them a lot more power. And jonny would eat you for dinner. He doesn't care whether you are nice about his feefees.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
My point-- pointing out peo... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 6:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

My point-- pointing out people who have no empathy and classifying them is important for human beings to identify and avoid dangerous people. Identifying the thoughts and behaviors and value systems of dangerous people is an important part of this. It's especially important because people who might have some messed up values but have some capacity left to self examine need to have a clear social response against people who have very low empathy trying to justify their dangerous behaviors and value systems.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
You are a presumptuous bitc... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 7:10 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

You are a presumptuous bitch- there, I said it TWICE. You assume you know all about me and all about Jonny based on practically nothing. But let's focus on me. Going on and on about privilege. Give me a break. It's because there's your world- the 'good' one, and the abuser's world- the 'bad' one. Empathy, you may someday figure out, is tricky business, lots of grey there, not always the clear-cut worlds you desire.
Totally presumptuous to go on about me and my privilege. I have worked full-time at such bad jobs that after stopping work at 39 I still get only $822.00 a month. I've worked hard all my life. I started work at 14 years old and have always worked. I've worked at Taco Bell, I've cleaned up shit, I've been a sex worker, done dishes, nannied other people's kids. Don't talk to me about how privileged I am or dismiss the abuse (if I recall, you did just that). *That's* not very empathic.
Your yammering on about people without empathy and how dangerous and scary they are reminds me of the zeal evinced by the Nazis for cleansing the world to give us a clean, pure, unflawed race. If I recall they did it in the name of compassion as well--- since 'undesirables' can't survive as well left to their own devices and will only drag the others down.
Presumptuous bitch.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I've done all the same kind... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 7:22 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I've done all the same kinds of work and I have not dismissed your abuse. If I recall I have not stated the total level of privaledge in your life--- only that it IS a privaledge if you aren't currently exposed to guys like jonny in your life.

I have worked nothing but shit jobs as well so I'm not sure why you're rambling on about that as if it justifies you calling me a bitch.

I have empathy for all human beings, even those who have abused others. I have empathy for my grandfather who sexually abused children, and beat the shit out of everyone until he died when my mother was in middle school and left her with his widow who was so fucked up she couldn't parent for shit and the kids ran wild and got raped and impregnated. I have compassion for the man who sexually abused me for two years as a teen and left me pregnant and talked about killing people and how dangerous he was until I had to place the child for adoption to save her from him because I couldn't find a way to get away from him. I help raise her and have to relive the complicated emotions of both loving him and the horror of how dangerous he was and that now I have to guide this child in understanding who her father was.

Trust me, I know having empathy for people who have harmed others.

I also believe we need to to a better job of identifying and preventing people who are dangerous from going around in the world harming people and thinking it's ok. I think you can have compassion without enabling and defending an abusers harmful belief system over people who are pointing out how messed up it is.

I think you're definately showing you don't care about my emotions and care about jonny's over that in a conversation like that. I do in fact care about your emotions. I DON'T think that having empathy for you or the horrible things you've been through means I need to let you call me a bitch or prioritize someone like jonny over people who get harmed by people like him.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I think it's really fucked ... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 7:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I think it's really fucked up that youa re gentle and kind to someone like jonny and then start attacking me like a raging maniac. I get that you are hurt, and I care about that, and I get defensive and intense reactions when I am hurt too so I really sympathize.

But do you not see that you are trying to hurt me, wheras despite jonny has been attacking and dismissing everyone around him you are being defending him? Why would you want to hurt my feelings for suggesting abusers not abuse people-- and suggesting you stop defending him-- but have no just vitriol for jonny who has stated he has abused people?

You think I deserve your rage because I want to STOP people from abusing each other? It's really messed up. I point this out very gently because I too know all about psychosis and PTSD and trauma responses that we can run into when discussing this and as for myself my hands shake and I sweat and my urine gets darm and I can't see straight and my back hurts and I start feeling nausiated. I know how to work with it, but I it's pretty intense so imagine these conversations may produce any number of physical or mental or emotional symptoms for you.

It's still a conversation worth having. Why would you try to hurt my feelings but be protective of jonny's?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
these posts you've been res... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 9:12 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

these posts you've been responding to most recently, left by an Anonymous -- I am not the author of any of them. they're clearly not in my style at all, I'm not sure why you thought that was me. I've already said I was finished with this discussion. The only reason I'm replying to you now is for clarification purposes.

Anytime I accidentally sign as anon I (almost) always post a followup saying it was my post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
oh please. this is an inter... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Gin's comment, by tim: | Reply

oh please. this is an internet blog comment thread. do I feel abused? not in the slightest, if anything I feel dumb for being kind of a dick to someone whose had enough of that for his life. I should know better. 'he did it first' is not much for justification.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Just to be as abundantly cl... (Below threshold)

July 23, 2012 10:28 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

Just to be as abundantly clear as possible you are right- i don't, at this point, care about your feelings, or as you called them in an earlier post, "feefees." You did it, frankly. And I do think you are both nuts and abusive. It's a fair enough assessment, more true than not, regardless of your past. And this is not a duality or dichotomous in any way; my feelings about you have no relationship to my alleged feelings for Jonny, so stop comparing the two. You don't get to live the rest of your life getting by on the basis others are supposedly meaner than you. You're absolutely terrible.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Ginny-- wha?I'm ab... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:10 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Ginny-- wha?

I'm absolutely terrible? Because I don't want to go to work and be berated by guys like this? I'm sorry but where have YOU been working that you haven't had to deal with people like this on a regular basis and that you celebrate guys like this over people like me who are "horrible" and "like Hitler" for not wanting to be abused by guys like this?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Because I don't want to be ... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:31 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Because I don't want to be stalked by a guy who need FAMILY and SUPPORT and there is no one I can call to get deranged abuse people the help they need that will stop them from putting my life in danger?

I want abusive people to get help!! SERIOUSLY! I want them to not put abuse me or put me in danger or threaten my life when I have no way of actually getting them the help them need or keeping them away from me.

I want us to have a system that provides MORE support-- and that also takes greater measures to ensure that dangerous people are required to at least put forth some effort really working through their issues and getting support. And yes, that means having a space of really genuine understanding and even empowering support about how abusive systems mess up peoples heads and how personality disoreders happen and help people rebuild a sense of integrity and what they looks like.

I care about the existance of abusive people and what they go through. I just wish this society cared about what I go through because of them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
And by the way, I don't wan... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:37 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And by the way, I don't want abusive people harmed. I think support and understanding is the way to go. But NOT while allowing them to keep hurting people! I think we need to get firmer about asking people to really work through issues that make them really harmful to others. With a lot of understanding and kindness-- but also while making it clear they can't have access to people to hurt and they need to rebuild their ability to treat people well before interacting with others.

I also think that people need family and people on their side they can trust to work through these kinds of issues and we need to come up with better ways of really helping people feel supported by safe people in the community that see them as an equal.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
There's a reason they call ... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:46 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ginny: | Reply

There's a reason they call it 'work.'

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
So why are you on the side ... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:50 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

So why are you on the side of bullies over people they hurt? Why do you want a workplace that empowers people who bully and threaten and abuse others over people who would not like to be treated like that?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I've been on your side of t... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 10:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I've been on your side of the equation arguing for greater love and acceptance of abused people who go around being hurtful to everyone around them-- because I DO understand. And I want anyone who has been abused to get extensive support and understanding.

But I no longer think it's ok to advocate in favor of people who are hurting others even if they have been abused. And I think we can put efforts into stopping abused people from carrying out abusive behavior on others while still being compassionate and offering meaningful support and understanding.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I don't think for example, ... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:05 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I don't think for example, that locking my grandfather up when he was raging at everyone BEFORE he started sexually abusing children and beating the shit out of everyone-- would be like Hitler.

In fact, what if, if he had been required to go into treatment to work on the issues that were making him lash out at everyone (whether mental health/personality disorder/biological whatever)

so many people could have been spared so much pain. Our support system is WAY behind what it could be, so requiring people go into treatment when we don't even HAVE quality treatment doesn't make a lot of sense. But I think we should work toward it. I think we can humanely and NOT like Hitler-- provide reinforcement to people who are being harmed to keep them safe- while also providing support to those that are doing the harming to work on their issues and get the help they need.

I think it is reasonable to want to live in a world where it's not assumed people who are threatening and bullying others have their freedom priveledged offer those they make suffers well being.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
You're a bully. You're just... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:12 AM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

You're a bully. You're just saccharine-coated. Probably histrionic.

http://www.uccs.edu/~faculty/fcoolidg/pdfs/PersonalityBullying.pdf

"Abstract
The psychological and neuropsychological correlates of bullying behavior were examined in a group of
41 middle school students (age range 11–15 years) and group-matched controls. The students were identified as bullies by school administrators, their teachers, and self-ratings. Parents of children in both groups
completed the Coolidge Personality and Neuropsychological Inventory, a 200-item, DSM-IV-TR aligned,
parent-as-respondent, standardized measure. It was found that bullying behavior was associated more with
DSM-IV-TR Axis I diagnoses of conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and depressive disorder than in matched controls. Bullying behavior was also correlated
more with Axis II diagnoses of passive–aggressive, histrionic, paranoid, and dependent personality disorders than in matched controls. Bullying behavior was also more correlated with measures of neuropsychological dysfunction and executive function deficits. An implication of these findings is that
traditional short-term psychotherapeutic interventions for bullying behavior may be of limited value given
the complex nature of the associated psychopathology."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I genuinely disagree.... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:16 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I genuinely disagree.

Your quotation pinpoints nothing in my behavior that demonstrates bullying behavior.

How is my request to not be abused bullying?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Do you really think that me... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:22 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Do you really think that me asserting that I don't want to be abused is an act of bullying?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I can tell your feathers ar... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:27 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I can tell your feathers are ruffled by me stating that you are quite priveledged if you haven't been stuck with a lot of abusive and dangerous people in your life.

If that is a privealege you DON'T actually have, then you needn't be offended. I truly think you are lucky and there is nothing to be ashamed of if you have been fortunate enough to not be abused or raped or bullied by people at your work.

And if you HAVE experienced that, don't you think that's a problem and not just what "work" should be like?

I'm a bully for suggesting it could be different?
Maybe your mental health wouldn't be so declined you can't work (as is mine also) if going to work didnt mean accepting abuse from other people?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
By the way, I don't think i... (Below threshold)

July 24, 2012 11:40 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

By the way, I don't think it's anyone's fault that abusive thinking we are exposed to can get stuck in our heads. It's so hard to work through. But while Ginny, I will genuinely consider your proposition that I am engaging in bullying behavior right now... I really hope you will genuinely consider that you are trying to make anyone who challenges Jonny out to be the bad guy.

Jonny lashes out at everyone and Tim calls him a narcissist.
You call tim a narcissist.
I say I think Jonny is a bully.
You say I'm a bully for saying that.

I think this is the abusive system in your head, from years of abuse and loving and accepting abusers that makes you think me saying abusive behavior should not be accetable is horrible and "like Hitlers"

I really think you're off the mark.
But then again we have both been abused and likely have perception problems about this-- so I suppose neither of us can really make a truly non biased decision about it...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
"I've been on your side of ... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 2:17 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

"I've been on your side of the equation arguing for greater love and acceptance of abused people who go around being hurtful to everyone around them-- because I DO understand. And I want anyone who has been abused to get extensive support and understanding."

"If that is a privealege you DON'T actually have, then you needn't be offended. I truly think you are lucky and there is nothing to be ashamed of if you have been fortunate enough to not be abused or raped or bullied by people at your work.

And if you HAVE experienced that, don't you think that's a problem and not just what "work" should be like?"

Stop thinking so dualistically. There are more than two options here.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Ginny never said I was a narcissist, or whatever...I can't remember exactly what she said (and I have little inclination to go back and re-read it), but her criticisms were fair enough as I recall.

You seem to be dramatising this whole discussion just a tad.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"And if you HAVE experience... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 2:30 AM | Posted by tim: | Reply

"And if you HAVE experienced that, don't you think that's a problem and not just what "work" should be like?"

Also, it occurs to me -- it's clear that you haven't actually read all of Ginny's replies to you since she has already explained that she has in fact had these experiences. Just because she came to a different conclusion does not mean that she didn't have an experience in some way similar to yours.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
these posts you've... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 6:16 AM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by jonny: | Reply

these posts you've been responding to most recently, left by an Anonymous -- I am not the author of any of them. they're clearly not in my style at all, I'm not sure why you thought that was me.

My apologies for the incorrect assumption.

I really detest anonymity actually. In some instances, it's patently required; two examples would be the doctor who writes this blog (if he wasn't anonymous, I don't think this blog would be possible) and the reason why David Cornwell writes as John le Carre.

But when getting into a benign and, in my opinion, utterly worthless and idiotic flame war; I think it's a bit Toddler-ish. But then so are flame wars.
____________

Not a single person wants to address the four issues I posted about?

Themes 1 (Media used for creepy conditioning) & 2 (Religion, State, Society, Corporations setting humans up to faceplant)

Themes 3 (Religions Imposing their emotional degradation onto the non-degraded) & 4 (Mothers transferring their emotional baggage / fears onto their children)

Or do you all just want to scream like emotional Toddlers about how your imaginary feelings (which are not _actually_ real and do not _actually_ exist) have been bruised and how that makes you feel?

Awwh poor widdle babies. Call your mommies to KISS your pain away and make you feel special again.

Keep.It.Stupid. Simple.

The Abrahamic religions' Secret control / power trick. It's called the patron system. It's very...patronising.

But then if I needed a Middle Man of Religion to intercede between me and a deity that ostensibly loves me and is all-powerful (but not powerful enough to communicate with me), I would be batshit insane as well.

Sticks and Stones can break your bones, but Words should never hurt you.

Unless you're insane.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
thanks Tim, I wasn't callin... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 10:52 AM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

thanks Tim, I wasn't calling you a narcissist.

"I'm a bully for suggesting it could be different?
Maybe your mental health wouldn't be so declined you can't work (as is mine also) if going to work didnt mean accepting abuse from other people?"

My mental health would be basically the same. The only things I can see that are major are of course my parents (not good).. And in terms of things helping, I learned to read at an early age and I've always been spiritual. That's the big stuff.

Abusive people at work... I've had a lot of abuse and a lot of maltreatment and going back to work scares me. But I don't view as some kind of 'stop the abusers' thing. I do healthcare so yeah I like managers who adequately staff and provide enough contact precautions supplies and whatnot. But call failing to do that, whether it is or is not abuse, if you call it abuse HR will see the problem as YOU, and it may be as your relationship with your boss will probably be damaged. REally, if I threw the word abuse around
easily I could potentially se it all the time, which kind of destroys the power of labeling something abuse.
But encountering 'Jonny's at my workplace, let alone "whole populations and subcultures" of them? Ah, no.

.

As far as flaming, I think it can be enormously cathartic, etc. The trick may be to keep talking until you get something out of it- not the other way around, get something out of it and then stop talking. Although I can certainly see how Alone's readers would be leaning toward that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Right so what I' saying is ... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:37 AM | Posted by anonymous: | Reply

Right so what I' saying is that I HAVE been exposed to a whole lot of jonny's, and have no recourse to protect myself from them in the world when I'm expected to interact with them like normal people.

I think people around the jonny's of the world matter too.
Tim- yes I heard Ginny's response that she has experienced abuse-- though as she just stated not to people like jonny in her workplace or peer groups on a regular basis.

So my and Ginny's exposures to people like this, appear to be different.

I still think that advocating for tolerance and gentle response to someone like jonny while telling me that I am a bully and histrionic and deserve to not be cared about because I am worse than jonny--

is just cruel and wrong.
I'm telling you I've been drug around by people like jonny since I started working food service at 16. And I think its' sad that you would put effort into understanding or advocating for someone like jonny and yet try to put me down.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
If you think that jonny sta... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:41 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

If you think that jonny stating he has abused people is an excused by the fact that he has been abused...

Then I'm not sure why you would think I am WORSE for jonny for standing up for myself when in my real life when I stand up to guys like this at work I get raped.

Yeah standing up for myself among people like this does make my brain not work very well and cause a lot of terror responses in my body and so it is hard to focus on the words of this conversation. I know for damn sure that me standing up for myself is not an act of bullying.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
My request is that people l... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:45 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

My request is that people like jonny be given a label that gives people around them the option to avoid being exposed to them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
And no, me standing up for ... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:47 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And no, me standing up for myself here is not how I treat people in real life. I try to be as kind and gentle as possible which is why I get fucked over so damn much.

However you want to define my "disorders" they do not involve abusing others (as jonny stated he has done).

I think people who abuse others should have their mental illnesses and disorders defined differently than people who suffer without deliberatly harming other people.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"You seem to be dramatising... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"You seem to be dramatising this whole discussion just a tad."

Yeah if you stuck with people like jonny as managers at your work maybe you would feel sensitive to it as well.

Yes the conversation does matter a great deal to me. I care very deeply how we talk about and handle people like jonny and how well we prevent people around them from having to just accept this shit as if it's normal.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I ALSO think that we have a... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 11:59 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I ALSO think that we have an obligation to help people with disorders of any kind-- so I am not interested in labelling people with dangerous conduct and then locking them up somewhere and treating them badly.

I just think that in offering compassion and services and support to people like jonny that we not ask everyone around people like jonny to just accept how he treats them and if people like jonny are given access to teens they can walk all over in the worlplace I think it's fucked up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I'm saying I've been sexual... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 12:07 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm saying I've been sexually abused and raped by numerous people like jonny and I'm not sure why you want to claim that I am worse than jonny for wanting to figure out how to prove I should have the right to identify someone like jonny as dangerous through the things his says and have the RIGHT to get away from him == if he is in my worlplace what am I supposed to do? If he is in my peer group what am I supposed to do? There people pick me out because I have a hard time articulating why they are dangerous or why I should have the right to get away from them or not trust them when others in my work or peer group do.

So yeah it damn well matters to me and I think that's valid.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Also, it occurs to me -- i... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 12:34 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Also, it occurs to me -- it's clear that you haven't actually read all of Ginny's replies to you since she has already explained that she has in fact had these experiences."

I apologize for reading comprehension issues. I have vision impairment and cognitive deficit that flaires up when I read anything related to abuse and the kind of shit jonny writes.

Sociopaths love that about me because once my senses are fucked and I can't think straight they can just keep going and that becomes another ammunition for the attack "See you're so pathetic you're shut down right now, why don't you stand up for yourself while I insult you see how pathetic you are"

I'm losing vision in my left eye. I have no way to stop people like this in my life. I have to wait until they leave bruises that I can prove in court and then if I take out a restraining order I have to deal with the fact that the cops come AFTER you get fucked with. If I'm still alive.

I don't see why Jonny would be given slack for his responses to trauma but you would minimize my own so cruelly.

Being dramatic.
Live my life.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
And by the way bullies love... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 12:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And by the way bullies love finding someone's cognitive deficits or intellectual struggles and using that as further fuel to dehumanize the worth of someone else.

I have noticed that among the many sociopath/narcicisst/bullies whatever you want to call them that I ahve been unfortunate enough to interact with they all tend to think emotions don't exist and that they should be able to say anything they want to you and if their words hurt you than it's your failure and that becomes more of the attack, if you hurt than it becomes fuel for them to punish you and deny your numan worth even further because disabled people don't deserve help and needing help is "abusive" thereofre anyone who has need should be punished.

I've dealt with too many people like this WITH NO ONE ON MY SIDE.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I have the terrible curse t... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 1:00 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I have the terrible curse that I smile and care about people. Just one smile. Just one inch. And they know. That you are prey. And I can't stop genuinely caring. I DO care. I know these people have been abused. I just wish they would stop. I wish that I could hide in my house forever and not have to be near these people. They get to grab me and insult me and do whatever they want and break me down however they feel like with words and then say that it's my own fault if their words break me down. I just want to be left alone. I just want them to leave me alone.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
consider the possibility th... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 7:02 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

consider the possibility that there might be something you're doing, without realising it (i.e. something unconscious), that is getting you into these situations more often. often we seek the familiar, even if it hurts us. this is not to imply that you are in any way responsible for what you've suffered. but figuring out if there's something you're doing that is contributing to the problem might be a way for you to find some kind of way out of it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Have you tried an order of ... (Below threshold)

July 25, 2012 9:24 PM | Posted by Kat: | Reply

Have you tried an order of protection/prohibiting harassment? Or talking to the National Domestic Violence Hotline?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I HAVE been expose... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 4:38 AM | Posted, in reply to anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I HAVE been exposed to a whole lot of jonny's, and have no recourse to protect myself from them in the world when I'm expected to interact with them like normal people.

Come on, how can you not realise that the problem is not your environment but rather your inability to protect yourSelf from your perception of reality? People are going to say mean things to you, when they feel they have a motive to manipulate your emotions. I have no possible motive to cause you to suffer.

How can you not realise that you need to take back control of your mind, feelings, emotions and instincts from those who you are giving the power to hurt you?

You cannot change the world. You can only change you. You seem to be a little bit confused about that.

I still think that advocating for tolerance and gentle response to someone like jonny while telling me that I am a bully and histrionic and deserve to not be cared about because I am worse than jonny--

I'm not better than you are. There is no one in this world who is superior to anyone else. But that's not a good reason to be inferior by what amounts to a delusional idea that you could (or would even want to) change the world to suit your preferences.

When you care about your Self, you won't need anyone else to care about you. You won't need their approval. You won't need anything from anyone. And once you manage to achieve that (absence of needy), you would find something remarkable:

People will want to care about you. But first, you have to care about you.

I know for damn sure that me standing up for myself is not an act of bullying.

Of course it is not an act of bullying. It is the product of imbecilic parenting. You should not stand up to bullies; they are cowards. You should not stand up to bullies for that reason. They're trying to trigger an emotional response from you so that you hand over your sanity to them (to toy with).

If you had a healthy sense of Self, you would not be affected by the childish verbal niggling. You would find something will happen then which is quite logical but often unrealised by the victims of bullying:

The bully will realise he cannot bully you; there's no motive for him to continue if you are unaffected by his emotional manipulation attempts.

However you want to define my "disorders" they do not involve abusing others (as jonny stated he has done).

I think people who abuse others should have their mental illnesses and disorders defined differently than people who suffer without deliberatly harming other people.

You seem to have an issue with tense? I do not abuse people. You are imagining I can hurt you when I have no motive to do so and I am thousands of miles away from you.

As for my disclosures of mistakes I made, it's worth noting that I did nothing illegal, every participant was willing and that is why my disclosures are valuable for someone like you. I manipulated emotional exploitability. I never made anyone ever do something they didn't want to do.

I just made them feel they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot.

You understand?

THEY CHOSE. I tricked them into feeling that way. Their parents raised them to be exploitable in that way. You're presently exploitable in that way. I'm telling you that you need to learn how to protect your Self. No one is going to protect you from the person who I used to be, because THAT'S the reason why everyone is exploitable in that way.

You've been conditioned to be exploited. Power (and I'm talking about The Powers at the top of this Pyramid Scheme of Pain) is going to exploit you unless you protect your Self.

I'm giving you the information you require to protect your Self. Stop imagining I have a motive to hurt you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I'm saying I've b... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 5:09 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I'm saying I've been sexually abused and raped by numerous people like jonny

See, because I have a healthy sense of Self, your insanely rude assertion above do not trigger emotional pain in my mind. I can protect mySelf.

The above is a criminal offence, but I do not get offended because I am sane. I understand you're in pain. But you need to stop screaming your suffering into the airwaves. You're not defending yourself because you've only imagined that I could have a motive to attack you.

You're the first offender. It's lucky for you that I don't get offended. If I did, trust me; you'd lose very badly. Which means, we'd both lose.

You don't want to keep being such an ingrate, however. It's not in your best interests. If you give me the power to make you suffer with words, you sure as hell don't want to give me a motive. Whatever you can imagine, I can imagine better. If you imagine pain, I can make you imagine pain you cannot comprehend.

So stop imagining your suffering. Or don't. Either way, you need to stop screaming so indecently. Your childhood was tragic, I understand. A few billion children have tragic childhoods; many of whom suffer from the screamers of imagined pain...like you.

There people pick me out because I have a hard time articulating why they are dangerous or why I should have the right to get away from them or not trust them when others in my work or peer group do.

No.

Firstly, I am nothing like those people. I hurt no one but the insane who imagine I could have a motive when they're simply not important enough to be so ridiculous. I'm helping you. If you're too insane to realise that, you should be humanely treated. It's not decent to permit you to scream in pain. It's not humane.

Secondly, the reason you are being bullied is because you're very confused. You need to watch what people do who are not bullied and compare and contrast with your behaviour to understand where you're going wrong. If you're talking about verbal abuse, you're literally almost always going to be in the wrong. I do not verbally abuse anyone, I merely speak Truth.

If that offends you, then that's your Proof. You'd be insane to be offended by Truth. And what's more, you'll never be able to learn how to protect your Self if you keep on imagining that those who are giving you the power to take back control, are trying to make you suffer like the bullies of your childhood / workplace.

You seem to have verbal abuse blurred with physical abuse. I have never physically assaulted a single person in my entire life. With the girls who only slept with guys who played mind games with them, I stupidly pretended to be the person they were interested in but no one in the world is that person. Every guy in the world who want to sleep with them. So they only wanted to sleep with guys who weren't interested, of which there would be 0 (zero).

With the gambling addicts, I simply played. It was wrong of me to sit at the table because it's not who I am; I do not exploit religious disparities. But then I stupidly rationalised my doing so with flawed 'logic'; specifically, "If I don't do it, someone else will.

That is 100% true. Someone else would. It's just not a excuse to shoot myself in the foot.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Sociopaths love th... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 6:21 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Sociopaths love that about me because once my senses are fucked and I can't think straight they can just keep going and that becomes another ammunition for the attack "See you're so pathetic you're shut down right now, why don't you stand up for yourself while I insult you see how pathetic you are"

They don't sound like sociopaths to me. They sound like they're trying to help you to stop being so pathetically defenceless. This is a dangerous world of sociopaths but I don't think you understand the first thing about sociopaths - it's remarkable!

Sociopaths will make you feel good in order to exploit you. They'll validate all your insane feelings. They'll tell you that you have every right to feel that way.

The horrifying (for you) Truth is that you are pathetic. There are billions of people who are pathetic. I've been pathetic for most of my life. It's not a reason to feel bad but it is 100% in your best interests to learn how not to be the victim of imagined abuse. Until they lay a finger on you, they cannot hurt you unless you hurt you. It's literally amazing how people understand this Truth.

But how are you going to not be pathetic unless people tell you the Truth?

I have to wait until they leave bruises that I can prove in court and then if I take out a restraining order I have to deal with the fact that the cops come AFTER you get fucked with.

If you actually read what I write, you'd know how I feel about the Law (it's a Protection Racket). Restraining orders are insane, by definition. You cannot deter the insane, which is a pretty good reason not to antagonise them with a restraining order that won't restrain them if they want to hurt you.

But think about what you're saying. Stop feeling and think for a change. If you could take legal action against every person you imagined was rude...this is just too ridiculous a conversation, really. It's tragic that someone did this to you.

I have a sneaking feeling I know who that would be. How close are you to your Mom? You guys speak a lot? Do you have friends who are nice to you all the time and never offend you with Truth?

Someone is exploiting you. Your inability to fathom or comprehend motive is a very big problem for you.

I have noticed that among the many sociopath/narcicisst/bullies whatever you want to call them that I ahve been unfortunate enough to interact with they all tend to think emotions don't exist and that they should be able to say anything they want to you

Your emotions are as real as you imagine them to be. Let me ask you something; Have your emotions helped you? Or have they stabbed you in the back when you needed them to watch your back for you?

If you think I'm empathy-less, you'd be very wrong. I very nearly killed myself many times because I felt so much pain, I didn't see a reason to continue. No one explained the things I'm explaining to you now. You have no idea how desperately I begged people to explain things to me, but everyone lies in this horrifying world of creeps.
__________

I was 29 and about to die when I saw something that gave me pause. Reality had changed before my eyes as my mood crashed from an artificially-inflated high (love) to an artificially-deflated low (betrayal). I was inside a nightclub and what I perceived to be reality was altered so drastically, I was initially frightened but then I was about to kick the bucket so I laughed at the fear and thought about how this could make sense.

I stopped feeling. I started thinking, instead. Beautiful people had become ugly. The house music I believed was ethereal only moments prior suddenly sounded amateurish, sloppy and terrible. And the dirt and filth, everywhere I looked there was filth I hadn't noticed. People I was convinced were having a blast suddenly all looked awkward, and tense; faking laughter, and grimacing rather than smiling freely. I was lying there thinking, "Well isn't that something. What I perceive is a product of my mood. Interesting..."

And I thought, "Has my entire life been a misperception? It must have been. Well this makes sense! This is why everyone fights, this is why everyone is insane. We all perceive only what we perceive, and not one of us perceives Reality."

I had been in love only moments prior. I had believed I was loved until Reality reached out and popped the Fantasy bubble I was living in. But I realised none of it was real. I'd just imagined all of it.

The pain of the betrayal evaporated. Nothing I had ever seen was actually Reality. The thought had literally never occurred to me.

I stood up, laughing. I no longer had to worry about what the public thought. Their opinions were no longer valid; from that point, I realised unless they were capable of speaking Truth I wouldn't be capable of valuing anything they ever said. I didn't need to impress anybody; unless they spoke Truth all the time, they were not worth impressing. I only needed to impress mySelf. For the first time since I was 5, I stopped being afraid.

I was a human child until I was 5, when my emotional development was interrupted. I was happy until I was made to be afraid by my biological mother, who had just lied to me and then gotten embarrassed when I pointed out the obvious. So I was forced to become a narcissist in a world of emotional manipulation or I'd be raped or dead like so many other children of the Children of God.

At 20, I believed it was in my best interests to be a sociopath. The girls I wanted to sleep with were only interested in sleeping with manipulators. So I manipulated. Big mistake, if you're not a sociopath (it's a mistake being a sociopath, as well). Trying to be one very nearly killed me. I was terrifyingly 'good' but it was too horrifying. I swore "Never again!

A few years later, it very nearly killed me again. I was playing poker and causing suffering which (if you feel empathy) amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. I didn't understand all of this then. All I knew was that I was miserable, and everyone was lying and pretending to be happy and I knew that almost everyone was attempting to emotionally manipulate me (but only the very best succeeded). They'd been succeeding for a decade. They were my closest friends. And some siblings.

I got away from their lying and 'feel-good' exploitation. I was miserable until I escaped overseas. But I was still a confused, emotional Toddler. At 28, I fell for a girl who was brighter than any poker player I've ever played. A brilliant mind, like nothing I'd ever seen or expect to come across again. She was a pure predator; a true sociopath with an empathy flick switch that made whatever she felt real whenever she wanted to feel it. She loved me, for real. Of course, an hour later she might be loving someone else, for real. Brilliant, but she's miserable (obviously). She's killed so many, but then she hasn't really killed them. She just no longer cared to manipulate them. And they killed themselves, in their delusion that what they shared was real.

It wasn't. They only felt that way. She made them feel that way.

She almost killed me but then she didn't really, did she? I almost killed myself, deluded into feeling I'd lost what never really existed in the first place. But then I saw the Reality of our perceived 'realities'. And I understood why this world is so insane.

I was an emotional Toddler until I was 29. And then I grew up.

This emotionally corrupted world of confused adult Toddlers & crybabies all need to grow up, STAT. Or the entire world is going to go up in flames.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
"Have you tried an order of... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 12:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Have you tried an order of protection/prohibiting harassment? Or talking to the National Domestic Violence Hotline?"

Of course. You really think orders of protection make you more safe from people like this?

Jonny, of course I understand that how you were when you manipulating, hurting, "causing others to hurt themselves" was what was done to you expressing yourself. And what they did "to themselves" in your hands was what was done to them expressing themselves.

I care about all of that. I still think that we really need to do more to ensure that people are not left at the mercy of people who want to explore just how much they can exlpoit others or "cause them to abuse themselves" as you might call it.

This is how abuse works. Many human beings are indeed very easy to manipulate. Regardless of why, that does not make it ok to manipulate them and use their own weakness to harm them.

I'm safe now other than the legal situation I am powerless against. I know now not to ever trust human beings to refrain from harming others if they get the opportunities.

It's a sad thing to know. That if you show vulnerability or have any innate tenderness or weakness that you "cause" others to turn into predators or give them the vesicle from which to find out how cruel and sadistic they can be. It still leaves me feelings that more should be done to protect people from being harmed in this way.

And it also leaves me with no desire to think well of human beings at all. Human beings VALUE a world where people can harm each other in this way and defend it. I really do think that's awful. I'm not sure why our culture doesn't want to protect the vulnerable better than we do, even though I am not part of that group as much any longer.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
And what's so funny is that... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 12:31 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And what's so funny is that we empower and support people who are miindfucking others and causing terrible suffering to people around them
'oh the people they exploit are just doing it to themselves! something innate about them (different from me who hasnt been exploited) is why that happens to those people who don't deserve to be protected from it!'
What's fascinating is that it's mostly males and women who have not been sexually abused that make up the system that empowers abusers and sexual predators over the people they harm (who do it themselves by having issues)

I don't think people with issues, whatever the issues are, who are NOT taking initiative to harm others should be thrown into the pit with a bunch of abusive people who will tear them to shreds. If that's the reality you people want to see reinfoorced and then talk about how yucky the weak of mind are for being so weak and letting themselves be exploited then that's your choice to try to create a world like that and reinforce the power of exploiters over people they harm.

I am opposed to that so we simply have a disagreement of what the world could be like or what we should work towards.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What's more there are some ... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 12:43 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

What's more there are some people with developmental issues who really can't develop into adults the same as others. I think people who are struggling to function or take care of themselves or defend themselves from predators should have help.

I don't think we should have a world where developmentally disabled who are vulnerable to abuse and cognitively impaired to understand what is happening should be thrown in with other impaired people who can't stop themselves from abusing (a condition I also don't think is their fault).

In general, I think we are failing every kid who goes through the school system with D's and F's over their heads and sense of failure and that they must accept wretched working conditions and poor treatment and not be able to value themselves. I think we have failed the entire bottom class that we teach to believe they deserve to be treated like dirt because they have a hard time with the school system. And I also think we need to help kids understand sexuality and weird urges and how to process their own feelings without harming others and how to refrain from getting entangled with people who will harm them and what to do if someone who is harmful is latching on in a way that feels dangerous and like they might hurt you or themselves if you distance at all.

Which ALSO includes making sure we have support for people who are in pain and latching on to people because they don't have good emotional regulation and aren't getting needs met from family and need genuine and reliable ongoing support to build their identity as an adult who doesn't need to lean on people. AND identify people who have legitimate obstacles to taking care of themselvse and get the the appropriate support so they don't have to lean on people who might be dangerous if they are truly disabled and need genuine help.

I think there is a lot we can do that values the humanity of people who are trying to control/harm others AND the people around them. We need to value both and we need to get better with this because currently we are really sucking at it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wish that when I was a te... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:18 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I wish that when I was a teen and with a guy who was really messed up there had been a place I knew would ACTUALLY get him help, to develop his own self understanding, integrity and ability to regulate his own behavior and value the well being of others, and to make it in the world and believe and value and forigve himself.

I know we don't know how to help young men with no role models and a bad identity, but I think we could do better both at learning how to do better at getting men like this male role models that understand, can validate, and help build a positive identity--- and also getting what we do know to actually be used by the system to help kids who are flailing with no one on their side while they build an identity from scrap because they have nothing to go on.

Of course what I realised at the end of the relationship was that I thought I was dealing with a person who needed help and couldn't find anything other than me-- but then I realized this was a person was AVERSE to help BECAUSE he liked being dark and harmful and hurting people and didn't want to feel differently or learn to treat people differently.

I still feel like that state of being was done to him-- (though I know the science is debatable on how personality is formed and the nature of free will)--

but the fact that I still think mostly people are turned this way-- means that we could find factors that alter people's personalities such that they WANT to reinforce harm to others (when I don't think this is a normal state-or at least it's something that gets resolved for most people by a healthy and trusting rearing environment)

I still think we could do more to help prevent people from winding up in these states. The fact that I care about this at all is of course a big factor in why I have been vulnerable with people who want to find out just how unconditional your love is...
"Mercy! Mercy! Ok no more unconditional love this shit is awful!"

But I still think it's a tragedy that people aren't getting the love they need in their families to develop properly and that this is a multifactorial societal problem that is VERY WORTHY of attention and efforts of our smartest minds and great resources to improve. And what's more I think trying to treat abuse/neglect/failed parenting with psychiatry is completely missing the point. (Though I actually think understanding neurobiology, endocrinology, human development and the science of how our bodies and brains develop based on different environemental factors and biomolecules that might benefit health is a worthy endeavor as well) I just think we should be using all that knowledge we have of how family dynamics, parenting beharviors, parent emotional and biological states, parent belief systems, and how SOCIETY influences parenting behaviors and well being-- we should use all this to do a lot more than shove meds at people and label children as "disordered" when they are just plain being abused/neglected/not properly cared for whether the parents are well meaning or not. We're scapegoating children by calling them the problem when the family/societal system is not actually identifying their needs and helping them get the appropriate resources/support to develop and maintain health. And of course that means figuring out how to work with parents whose behavior/biology/development has been altered and is crappy figure their shit out as well. So no matter where we start helping adults with these issues needs to be something we get better at doing.

I also think that it's pretty normal for kids who have been abused to want to act it out whether as children or adults (or both) and that we could better educate the public about what to do if they feel within themselves that they want to/or are abusing others. Having accessible trauma support-- or past child abuse/neglect support--- would probably really help with this. I think (personally experience only) males are pretty averse to reaching out for this kind of support so I feel like maybe we could do more to make such supports more desirable/user friendly for males.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And by the way, there are a... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:35 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And by the way, there are actually disabled women with issues like myself who have never been abused the way I have been.

I think mainly I was vulnerable- and yes jonny you might be happy to hear validated the teaching of the catholic church absolutely had my head prepared to accept any abuse abuse like a good little loving martyr (turn the other cheek, forgive 47 times seven or whatever the quote is, always be pacifist, never be "aggressive", state you don't think others should do harmful things nicely and then.. you know keep forgiving them over and over and hope the power of your unconditional love helps them change!!)
- and 16 working with a bunch of 20plus year olds. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. The catholic church (don't have experience with others) definatley sets people up to accept abuse. Not to mention their policy of asking people of god (priests) to refuse to report criminal activity (which has often been church policy to provide sanctuary to criminals) leaves one feeling if they are to be christlike they are to dwell among the criminal and the dangerous, loving them until they destroy you, and hope your love helps their spirit turn around.

I would advise strongly against teaching kids this crap. It is indeed, truly awful. It most definately helps absolutely no one to throw yourself to the wolves who would even themselves be spared a terrible fate to see themselves do horrible things over and over (how is that helping anyone?). It's definately an abysmal system of ethics.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"And what's more I think tr... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:43 PM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

"And what's more I think trying to treat abuse/neglect/failed parenting with psychiatry is completely missing the point."

wow- thank God there's about a billion people who disagree with you, maybe more. I mean that personally; psychiatry has helped me a great deal. I didn't list it earlier because to a large extent it was me; it was me who was persistent with asking for help and me paying the psych bills and me doing pretty much equal work with the shrinks a lot or most of the time.... if you keep trying then you get lucky eventually with psychiatry. I had some doofus shrinks but I ended up with some valuable experiences too, some invaluable ones, even. As much as people bitch about it, when it works it really works.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Unconditional love, which s... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ginny: | Reply

Unconditional love, which some people call 'love,' is the only thing that helps people change, ultimately. Just, you have to interpret the word love correctly- and that gets tricky. That's a subject for meditation, introspection, contemplation, all that stuff. Labbeling it 'unconditional love' kind of drags a bunch of issues into it that are kind of loaded.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I do still however value ha... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:50 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I do still however value having compassion for all human beings, which is likely a remnant of catholic teachings still embedded in me, but nevertheless-- despite that I think the church taught wrong methods to achieve this (of course they believe the existance of god is a certainty and if their is no god it would make sense their system of ethics makes no sense)

I do still think we should go to great lengths to help the suffering, the struggling, those in pain, the sick, the disabled. People who may not contribute much to society but have innate value by virtue of experiencing their humanity.

It's tough because without a religious system of ethics it's difficult to prove with pure logic why human beings who may have little value in ability to contribute might have innate value by virtue of their experiencing self. You kind of just need a sense of innate empathy to feel that matters. And of course when people are harming each other it further complicates things because human beings have innately interconnected and sometimes competing needs which makes it complicated to try to ensure everyone's well being and protect each other from being forced endure harm for the sake of anothers well being.

Which again is complicated because some people feel that caring for the disabled makes life worse for them-- meaning again, complex needs compete when trying to ensure everyone is cared for. Who gets stuck with the work of caring for the vulnerable and disabled and struggling? Who gets stuck with the work of making upper class life awesome while others don't get to experience that?

I still feel like if society as a whole won't look out for the downtrodden, I am happy to have done what I could with what I knew at the time (despite that what I knew was in fact wrong). I still don't think the underlying value of wanting to make sure people have what they need is wrong. It just needs to be applied safely and succesfully. Helping someone drowning by jumping in and drowing with them is not helping. That doesn't mean coming up with a safe strategedy to ACTUALLY help isn't worth doing (the underlying value of wanting to help). You just need proper training- resources(flotation device etc) to do the job succesfully. I consider us still in the developmental stage of figuring out what techniques or resources really help struggling families repair their lack of connection or inderstanding of each others needs- and ability to provide for each other in response to seeing and caring about those needs.I think we need to do better at identifying special needs parents-- who may themselvse have complex needs that if met would enable them to parent better and have deeper instincual connection and awareness of their childrens needs.

I hope at some at some point we'll look at the ways we are trying to help people now and say "WOW they didn't know WHAT they were doing back then!!" like how we look at doctors doing dangerous surgeries that harmed people and did nothing back in the middle ages.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ginny--- I think I stated I... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 1:56 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Ginny--- I think I stated I am not opposed to increasing our knowledge of how biology is affected by emotional states and vice versa. My point is that biomolecules are a very small part of the picture and that we are missing a whole lot of other aspects of how to rebuild human health and integrity and functioning expecially within a family and child development context. Namely- the poorest people who need the most comprehensive services, are the most likely to get stuck with once a month med check and very limited counseling services. To me, this is a really huge problem. We expect bootstrapping from the people who actually often have the most legitimate impairments and obstacles and need services to rebuild work and scholastic capacity to achieve more in the world to warrent better paying jobs and better working conditions and healthier identity and sense of self worth in society.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
(Not to mention I'm a fan o... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 2:02 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

(Not to mention I'm a fan of raising the minimum wage significantly at this point but I'm not an economist so I can't weigh the pros and cons of how possible that is or it's over all affect. I think it's a huge problem when people are working 40 hours a week and can't afford to provide their children a quality of life or save to take time off to spend with family or get an adequate diet or recreational activities or supplies to do activities at home or experience supportive relaxing activities and services that are good for human health (hiring help with the children when exhausted, help with cleaning or life management, massage, therapy etc).

I'm pretty sure that we have mastered the means of production sufficiently to ensure that people have access to goods. It's really not excusable that we keep a class of working human beings so out of touch with items that would improve their lives or to the very services that THEY themselves tend to provide to others but can't afford for themselvse.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Unconditional love, which ... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 2:20 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Unconditional love, which some people call 'love,' is the only thing that helps people change, ultimately"

I actually agree with you wholeheartedly. I believe unconditional love exists. The base emotion behind it is often right-- the problem is often how the intellect interperets what should be done with the innate desire to care about the well being of others simply for the sake of their experiential self.

We are often very well meaning fools and it is a tragedy that the purest of love (as in truly genuine intentions but with poor cognitive understanding of cause and effect and future oriented thinking outside the moment or ability to cognitively understand what others experience outside of how we percieve they are feeling based on our best guess) can really really harm people. That is a really awful reality. But I do agree the willingess to love others unconditionally is valuable. Like I said, I love everyone I have interacted with and I still care about their well being and that they can access what they need. I now know that *I* am not capable of being near people with issues that cause them to harm others because my issues and their issues result in awfulness.


It doesn't mean the love isn't still there-- that I don't still think that I will honor my exs request I will meet his spirit at the sunset at his death. I do care and I always have. And I still believe that his love was real underneath all of the problems as well. And that matters to me. And if caring about someone means that I need to get away from them to protect us both-- I will and have done that. Because I do care. To be honest, if it really helped another I don't mind suffering to alleviate the suffering of others. It makes my world better, it makes things better to me. It's worth it. But since OTHERS tend to want to be positive forces in the world, it hurts others to suffer on their behalf-- because innately deep down, I think most of us do care about each other even if we are blinded by intense emotions or distortions of mind that blind us from understanding and seeing each others experiences clearly or knowing or feeling able to help.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess that is why ultimat... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 2:23 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I guess that is why ultimately I still think it's worth trying to stop people from abusing others. I don't even think it serves the person doing the abusing. I think you can in fact offer true unconditional love while redirecting behavior that is harmful firmly.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's just that some of cogn... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 2:26 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It's just that some of cognitively impaired and quite tasty morsels for predatory people might need some more direct access to help to protect themselves. I also think it's fair that I just don't want to be around males because I don't want any of these dynamics to take over and there is nothing I can do if I inspire someone to want to be harmful and then they are in pain within themselves because of me.

I don't want to put anyone else through that and I just don't want to be around people because I don't want that to happen anymore. I don't want them to be hurt or me to be hurt.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jonny, you crack me up. Hav... (Below threshold)

July 26, 2012 2:27 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Jonny, you crack me up. Have you ever read A Voyage To Arcturus, by David Lindsay?

Note: I don't recommend it to anyone that's reasonably satisfied with their picture of reality as currently configured. But all the talk about REAL things brought it to mind.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Have you ever read... (Below threshold)

July 30, 2012 2:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Have you ever read A Voyage To Arcturus, by David Lindsay?

No, but upon reading some reviews it would appear that it's a deficiency I should remedy. It would seem it's some sort of sequence of allegories (each linked to a unique philosophy) that culminate in a conclusion advocating nihilism?

Two names that kept coming up in the reviews were JR Tolkien and CS Lewis; two of the filthiest creeps embraced by creeps. I never know what to make of Christian parents feigning ignorance of the existence of Propaganda, for Children which teaches children to be brave & heroic & loyal in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. It's all very sweet to depict bloody battlefields where child heroes score implausible victories over Goliaths & hordes & what-have-you; but if you 'forget' to include the statistical realities...

You'd be as creepy as those two molesters of children and right up there with the molesters of children who wrote the books (for that express purpose) which have been cobbled together to form the Holy Bible. Very holy, but not very Good.

This is a world created by imbeciles who think they're crafty Confidence Tricking other humans into giving them 'advantage', but the Secret to the Abrahamic religions' 'success' has always been measurable by the bodies of their children strewn across the battlefields of yet another war of acquisition. Iran once won a famous victory over Iraq using the Basij boys to clear minefields and deplete Iraq's ammunition reserves. Hundreds of thousands died bravely - they thought they were going to Paradise. What could motivate parents & television propaganda campaigns to lie to little boys (some as young as nine) in such a way?

It's a pretty good question.

“They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging,” an Iraqi officer complained in the summer of 1982. “You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all.

Technically, yes. In reality, no one who gives up their mind can still be classified as human. By definition, they will be used to serve an inhumane purpose.

Jonny, of course I understand that how you were when you manipulating, hurting, "causing others to hurt themselves" was what was done to you expressing yourself. And what they did "to themselves" in your hands was what was done to them expressing themselves.

Yes and no. Apart from those who have lost 100% of their minds, every human action is conducted to serve a perceived purpose or to achieve a desired result. But it's not ironic that this world is abysmal at identifying, understanding & appreciating the value of motive. Someone had a motive to make everyone suck at determining motive. If you thought about it, you could probably figure out whose (perceived) interests are served by conditioning humans not to think for themSelves.

They'll do the thinking for you. They just want you to feel...emotional turmoil, which they'll 'helpfully' urinate on your mind for you if you'll allow them the privilege.

Children are born suckers. That's because Sanity cannot see Insanity coming. It does not make a child exploitable, but then the Insane believes otherwise because...they've been made to be as confused as the children they're raising with love & fear instead of logic & reason.

Both the girls & I were victims of the creepiest Society imaginable (hint: it's very polite); but our motives were diametrically opposed. They were responding to a glut of sleaze & creepy & complimentary in the market. So they were Demanding a product that is not supplied in this world, except by gay men (who are incapable of being impressed by girls). I was merely adjusting to the Demand of the marketplace; after failing to impress the unimpressionable.

I care about all of that. I still think that we really need to do more to ensure that people are not left at the mercy of people who want to explore just how much they can exlpoit others or "cause them to abuse themselves" as you might call it.

No, I might call it correctly.

They were caused to be exploitable by their creepy / stupid parents & by their creepy / manipulative societies. Getting emotional about those who manipulate those who have been intentionally made to be emotionally insane (defined as incapable of acting in one's own best interests) is understandable but utterly redundant.

Human children aren't born insane. They've been made that way, by their exploited mothers and societies.

This is how abuse works. Many human beings are indeed very easy to manipulate. Regardless of why, that does not make it ok to manipulate them and use their own weakness to harm them.

Yes. That's why I'm talking about it instead of doing it. You seem to be confused about potential motives for disclosure. If I was still doing it, I would still be rationalising my actions away; believing (just like anyone who acts with purpose) that my actions were in my best interests.

But they were not. I had been made to be very confused about empathy. Not as confused as the girls, of course.

They didn't have any.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"I never know what to make... (Below threshold)

July 30, 2012 2:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"I never know what to make of Christian parents feigning ignorance of the existence of Propaganda, for Children which teaches children to be brave & heroic & loyal in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. It's all very sweet to depict bloody battlefields where child heroes score implausible victories over Goliaths & hordes & what-have-you; but if you 'forget' to include the statistical realities..."

two things. one,. children would invent super hero play if it did not exist. (helps themm cope w/developmental stuff among other things) two, what are we supposed to do, stop them? three (okay, I lied), are you seriously advocating telling children about other kids who get used up on battlefields? I think the standard is usually to at least wait til they ask....and give minimal answers

my mother's a Christian- sort of a de-facto pagan, but don't tell her that. when I was little religion was sort of soft and warm and involved God being in every leaf and that sort of thing. When i started reading the Bible and asked about Revelations,, my mom said it was a special book of the Bible meant for special people who could interpret it correctly. She was right. But anyway- I know you don't want kids reading the Bible, but now you're against super hero stuff too?

You know- this back and forth has me sick of the word empathy. How about sympathetic imagination for a while? Yes- I propose a change.

it is probably true that kids can maybe come up with much better, cooler games as far as super hero stuff than whatever media/toy stores/parents are foisting on them.

Girls dont have empathy?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Lewis and Tolkien were the ... (Below threshold)

July 30, 2012 2:54 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Lewis and Tolkien were the reason I picked it up (you'd definitely call me creepy and insane, with your unique usage, in capital AND bold italics), and I was quite surprised. The writing is bad, but the picture comes through chillingly in spite of that. It presents a sort of mysticism for nihilists. I doubt it's worth your time though, you strike me as a fairly satisfied with your reductive understanding of history and society, and have found a fruitful way of propagating it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
IdunnoJonny, it's a little... (Below threshold)

July 31, 2012 3:56 AM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

IdunnoJonny, it's a little odd to me exactly how much in common we have actually- as far as childhoods-not surprising *exactly*. It wouldn't have occurred to me if my shrink wouldn't have insisted I have an integrated personality (she must've looked at the wrong notes prior to session) and if I hadn't been reading about crying ingenues in the rain and thinking we all have a little crying ingenue on the inside, like an archetype, sort of. (See- I even interjected the part about crying).. So NOW, the pressure is on because what you say tells me something about me!! So talk away, please, I might learn something. Even the stupid shit i don't believe is true (Little Miss talking about how antisocial you are) means something to me, personally. Something good, something useful, in a way, something poetic. I'm listening.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
It's a sad thing t... (Below threshold)

August 1, 2012 3:31 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

It's a sad thing to know. That if you show vulnerability or have any innate tenderness or weakness that you "cause" others to turn into predators or give them the vesicle from which to find out how cruel and sadistic they can be. It still leaves me feelings that more should be done to protect people from being harmed in this way.

You become a target for creeps; that much should be a given (but it's telling that it isn't for so many who are targeted). I guess their parents wanted them to learn the hard way?

I don't think tenderness causes predatory behaviour so much as it creates predators. I dunno about raising children with emotional degradation. They're kind of tough. I've seen how fearless they are; I don't see the logic in making them addicted to an irrational illusion. It's a big bad world out there. I think the tenderising is doing the damage. I think it's a horrifying world of traumatised doing the traumatising.

I think it's about emotional degradation being transferred from exploited mother to exploited child. I think it's been happening for thousands of years.

It's just love, really. It's as sweet as you want to spin it.

Love is primarily focused on 'protecting' humans from Humanity. I don't know why anyone who isn't using it to exploit would frame it any other way. It's just another Protection Racket.

I don't know how to make the case to mothers that they are their children's worst enemy for the same reasons I don't know how to make the victims of exploitation understand that those who lie to them aren't their friends. Mothers who lie to their children. Churches that lie to their flocks. States that lie to their citizens. Everyone is lying to everyone and no one believes it's a problem?

We're products of our conditioning. We're raised to be as exploited as the exploited mothers who gave birth to us and have never - that I'm aware of - managed to answer the question I must have asked hundreds of mothers by now:

"Why are you making children of your own?"

21,000 human children die every single day. It just seems insane to make your own, unless...I mean, this line my mother used to attempt to run on me wouldn't work on an orphan.

"I gave you life. You owe me."

Until I hear a motive tendered from mothers, I'm going to be pretty sure it's about this.
________

Human predators aren't terrifying, they're just needy and insane. It's a dangerous combination but I don't see how it makes sense to traumatise children with fear purely to appease them? Mothers afraid of public opinion are impossibly more damaging to their children than the public has the capacity to be.

They raise their children to be polite. Yeah, that's perfectly logical. Teach them how to lie to appease creeps who get offended by Truth.

This world is so confused about things this simple and my using the word "creep" offends a grown man into being snide? He thinks my views are reductive? I was attacking propaganda for children. The Bible, Lord of the Rings, Twilight, the Chronicles of Narnia = all of them have important children on the battlefield, special children expressly chosen to save the day, winning heroic victories against the odds. Yeah that's just creepy. Not sure how else you could spin it?

The conditioning of children to be confused and exploitable occurs non-stop. Here's one example telling little girls how to feel (confused):

17 dot com dot my /love-life/guy-speak/on-guys-and-what-women-mean-when-they-say/

How does this back to front world make sense? I think you have to view it from a polite angle.

polite (adjective): Lying to appease creeps who have a problem with Truth. The rudest & most insulting a human can be without directly inflicting injury.

Only the offended are ever rude; they imagine their offence (or they pretend to). How can you know which is which? Not sure that question is as important as why should a child care, if they're just having fun without hurting anyone? Should a child really be taught how to lie to appease the insane?

I saw this horrendously obese mother once, waddling along behind 3 small children who were continually waiting for her to make her way across the carpark. This 3 year old toddler said what literally everyone in the world would have been thinking. He basically called out the obvious like he might say "Look, an elephant!" He said, "Look she's fat."

The obese woman burst into tears. Seriously? Is this woman in a position to raise emotionally stable children? I was horrified. But then I was horrified, for real. Traumatised by the way the horrified mother of the boy blushed with embarrassment. She started apologising to the blubbering human whale (who could not be consoled). The boy could not be persuaded to apologise. He had done nothing wrong. He didn't understand the fuss. He was a little OCD about refusing to apologise. I kind of admired him.

But I did nothing as his mother beat him to 'teach' him how to 'behave' in public. I saw all the emotional insanity get transferred from mother to child, with each psychotically violent blow & the law prevented my getting involved.

That's the lie I told myself, when I was already breaking unjust laws. As I walked past the 'offended' beast, she wore a smug smile of satisfaction across her filthy face. I very nearly did something completely out of character when I realised I could exact vengeance legally. So I did that.

I ridiculed her in front of her children. I cut her up with words. I was brutal and ruthless. She was blubbering by the time I left, but no one was around who could be emotionally manipulated into 'teaching' me a lesson. I had done nothing illegal, of course; merely expressed my unsolicited concern for her welfare. Well they're never going to make that illegal.

That would be the end of religion.

And that's the story about how I became a bully. The law got me looking for loopholes. I became a vigilante bully. I'd find bullies & bully them with superior firepower; I'm 31 and I've never thrown a punch or dodged one (my mother landed some backhands when I was being especially 'difficult' - asking questions and so forth). But I'm talking about destroying people with words. Sometimes, I got a little loose on the criteria but then I always felt guilty about it. The guilt didn't prevent me from making that mistake here and there, so I honestly don't know if my guilt was imagined or whether I imagined that I imagined it. Do anyone know how it's supposed to 'work' with imagined feelings?

This is an emotional world & everyone (including me) is basically insanely exploitable. I think I can imagine how it started going south. I dunno if there's any point, really. Like someone said, I'm just trying to work stuff out. I'm not a writer. Not sure anyone has the capacity to read, either.

But the lying to children has got to stop or this polite world of deceit is going to go up in flames sooner rather than later.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"But I'm talking about des... (Below threshold)

August 2, 2012 4:40 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"But I'm talking about destroying people with words. Sometimes, I got a little loose on the criteria but then I always felt guilty about it. The guilt didn't prevent me from making that mistake here and there, so I honestly don't know if my guilt was imagined or whether I imagined that I imagined it. Do anyone know how it's supposed to 'work' with imagined feelings?"

If you imagine you have a feeling, in my experience observing other people, you have it. Same with myself, actually. Sometimes it's kind of icky that way, I know.

the above writing particularly the end- is excellent. Not good, not good for TLP blog, not good for the internet, but much, much better than that. Excellent.

I feel guilty about *this*- I always thought Robert Frost was a bit of a hack, or rather, culture's interpretations turned him into one- but this ending reminds me of Frost's ire and Ice poem.... I guess it'd be too easy to end that way-- but maybe not.

Are you sure "go up in flames" isn't a wish of sorts? Not literal, figurative. Fire purifies and annihilates, it's a great cleaner, cleaner than ice, although I think ice might be more apt considering the coldness of mothers to their children that you have depicted.

I also liked the ending because it made me laugh out loud: "The boy could not be persuaded to apologise. He had done nothing wrong. He didn't understand the fuss. He was a little OCD about refusing to apologise. I kind of admired him." Hilarious, I love it.

Also, I think we may have had the same mother, seriously.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
oops. I meant Frost's Fire ... (Below threshold)

August 2, 2012 4:44 AM | Posted by Ginny: | Reply

oops. I meant Frost's Fire and Ice. Here's the poem, in it's entirety:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
No offense taken, Jonny. Wh... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 10:01 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

No offense taken, Jonny. What's wrong with being reductive? Do you think your picture isn't reductive? Would that mean it is false? Try to look past the pejorative connotation. That I think it's a bad thing in a worldview doesn't have any bearing on it's accuracy, so it would be insane of you to be offended by characterization, and silly to deny it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It would be highly unusual ... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 10:18 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It would be highly unusual for a normal person to not take being called reductive, insane, and now silly as an insult. God, Gabe- where are your two feet planted?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Some say the world... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 12:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.

I'm not sure very many (including myself) would concur re: the quality of my writing but I'm glad a second person can read it, at least. Only ~7.3 billion to go!

I'd give 3 limbs to be able to write like le Carre; 2 for Frost and 1 to write like Alone.

What's wrong with being reductive? Do you think your picture isn't reductive? Would that mean it is false? Try to look past the pejorative connotation. That I think it's a bad thing in a worldview doesn't have any bearing on it's accuracy, so it would be insane of you to be offended by characterization, and silly to deny it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with simplicity when complexity is not required; it's merely that "reductive" (certainly when used in the context above) has connotations that are inaccurate.

Apologies if I was guilty of doing the identical thing I accused Tim of doing earlier in this thread, and I'm glad you didn't take offence (I got a different read, is all).

I certainly almost never take offence. It's basically the calling card of insanity. It's either imagined or pretended; neither of which are valid.

The problems of this world are incredibly simple to solve, but everyone plays dumb(er) and simultaneously pretending the issues are all somehow complex. They are not. They are about as basic as issues can get.

Presently Humanity is divided up into something like 208 separated 'sovereign' slave plantations. Inside each 'sovereign' nation-state, we're divided up even further in ever-smaller concentric circles of 'trust'. We have no sane reason to trust the person in the smallest of those circles; actually, we should be suspicious of ourselves more than any other party (we lie to ourselves more than anyone else will ever have the capacity to match).

Inside these 'sovereign' nation-states, we survive lives of misery which we lie about non-stop. I think they call this phenomenon polite; fake it until you make it, (pretend to) smile and the world will (pretend to) smile with you, dreaming big and positive thinking - it's what slaves use when reality is unbearable and thinking accurately won't do). Our minds erase the trauma of our misery as time passes.

We survive lives under tyranny (but of course, many do not). Is it not 'fantastic' how the dead don't scream and the human scars blame themselves for the horrific injuries they sustained as victims of sociopaths? Our overlords insult us with outrageously patronising crap like democracy. What's wrong with democracy? Have you met...people? 95% are too stupid to be plausible and the remaining 5% of us aren't a great deal brighter than they are. I'm talking about IQ.

When it comes to EQ, 99% of the globe are literally emotional Toddlers (i.e. insane). The remaining 1% of us aren't a great deal saner; but of course everyone believes they are sane when the truth is that there is not a single human alive who is sane (with the exception of some newborns and tiny toddlers who haven't yet been corrupted).

100% of humans are conditioned from birth to be exploitable and emotionally insane. The insanity has gone viral; and it is, unfortunately, 'hereditary'.

70% of planet lives under the filthy, imbecilic, degrading heels of the three distributions of the Abrahamic religious kernel. What's the problem? They are incompatible. Only one (1) can 'win'; which means, no one can Win.

Parents are raising their children from birth to (suffer to) please. In other words, children are raised to be insane slaves who feel passionately (in lieu of sane humans who think critically). We have the IQs to destroy the planet and the EQs to make it (effectively) inevitable.

Humans are punished to 'teach' them lessons. It doesn't matter if they've done nothing wrong; they're punished anyway. It doesn't matter that justice is a religious construct of insanity; that's the illogical point. There are better ways to teach humans how to be humane; but there is no better way to condition a human to feel and act like a dog / slave than 'teaching' with violence.

Whomever controls a slice of the US$1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion USD) illicit drug trade is almost impossible to compete against, in a domestic political contest. What does this mean? In reductive terms, almost every nation on the planet is governed by warlords & gangsters (funded by the illicit drug trade). But then if you knew anything about Westphalia, you'd know this has been the case (more or less) since long before 1648 (sociopaths controlling their domestic vassals via the feudal / patron system). The Holy Roman Emperors structured everything to be how it is.

Humans are literally less than 1% of 1% of the people we should be; and would be if we weren't brainwashed and conditioned from birth to feel it's intelligent / crafty / shrewd to take 'advantage' of religious disparities (i.e. take 'advantage' of each other). If billions of humans understood the horrifying reality that has been the constructed nightmare of sociopaths for 3500 years; we'd all be worth between 10,000 to a billion times our present value.

We're running out of fresh drinking water & the guys who control the global illicit drug trade are buying up the land around those wells. What does this mean? In reductive terms, you should prepare for a life of thirst in the near future.
_________________

There are many more simple problems that no one is addressing for patently obvious reasons. But until they are addressed, everything else is superfluous and a distraction. Asserting that the above issues are reductive implies over-simplification where simplicity is inherently appropriate and sufficient.

My arguments are reductive, correct; and yet, still no one can counter them. Most cannot understand what I'm saying and I can do complexity. I played $20,000 buyin HSNL online when I was 1/5th as 'bright' as I am now. I'm merely an inept writer.

Clearly, my arguments require even more simplification. Don't you agree? The way logic works in a sane debate, the respondent either counters or accepts the logical argument put forward by the other.

But of course, this is not a sane world. And it's not remotely ironic but it is terrifying that every insane person believes they're sane and every imbecile who cannot do logic believes they can. They neither counter nor accept the logical arguments proposed; they choose Option C: Remain entrenched in their insanity.

They think they're being crafty & shrewd but they're neither shrewd, crafty nor are they even thinking at all.

That's just they way they feel.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
one unsupported, bullshit a... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 3:33 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

one unsupported, bullshit assertion after another. just because you type something in boldface does not make it "logical" or "true".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
You think you're producing ... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 3:46 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

You think you're producing arguments? No, you're explicating your first principles, which can be summed up in one line: love does not exist. I don't share your first principles. That doesn't mean we can't understand each other to some degree, but it does preclude the possibility of agreement in most matters. Logic will not help you convince me any more than it would help me convince you.

For an argument to even begin to persuade, you must first reach a point of contact between the participants. But I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue for. Religious persecution? Anarchy? Mandatory daily doses of truth serum administered by irreligious, non-hierarchical, spontaneous organizations?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
"For an argument to even be... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by ginnny: | Reply

"For an argument to even begin to persuade, you must first reach a point of contact between the participants."-Gabe

Which reminds me of a story about Albert Einstein. basically, he was in a foreign country, someone came along whose language he did not speak, they happened to be standing on a bridge looking into water, the person was intimidated (hello, it's Einstein), they couldn't talk (different languages), a fish came along, einstein said, "Fisch," the person nodded. the point being of course that it's nice to have a point of contact.

I've found in lieu of something nice, mutual hatred of something works wonders.

there's another thing Einstein said about fish or fisch. I suppose it would apply to not shutting conversation down but enabling it as well.

"Everyone is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -Albert Einstein ...

kind of uncanny. so many uncanny things happen to me associatted with this site- it's just unreal. I was just thinking about all this recently, about my abilities to communicate being not quite what i would desire. But then Gabe came along talking about reductiveness and as always, got on my nerves and

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
...gave me something else t... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 4:07 PM | Posted by ginnny: | Reply

...gave me something else to worry about. Thanks, Gabe!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
QUOTE: We have the IQs to d... (Below threshold)

August 3, 2012 10:01 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

QUOTE: We have the IQs to destroy the planet and the EQs to make it (effectively) inevitable.

shouldn't it be, EQ to destroy the planet and IQ to make it inevitable?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
one unsupported, b... (Below threshold)

August 4, 2012 10:32 AM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by jonny: | Reply

one unsupported, bullshit assertion after another. just because you type something in boldface does not make it "logical" or "true".

Tim, you cannot think logically. If you could, you would. There is nothing remotely negative about incapacity to do a thing. You could learn how to do that thing, but you won't. This is malicious insanity, but of course you are not in control of your faculties so mea culpa is an insulting construct.

My post was not an academic paper submitted for peer review (which is a convenient way to entrap a corrupted species in their corrupted state, by the way). I am making logical arguments that no one can refute but they want to keep on being insane so they refuse to accept or counter. My post was not a dissertation. You can Google the verification for the evidence; it's all in the public domain. No false claims were made.

I apologise. I forgot you don't know how to use Google. If you did, you'd Google html tags and learn how to blockquote text instead of [whatever it is that you imagine you're doing with italics that you drift in and out of, and not remotely consistently or accurately]. The only alternative is that you don't give a fuck. Is there another explanation for your incapacity to communicate?
___________

This will be my final attempt to assist you with your understanding of logic.

I'll make it easy for you. Counter the logical argument I have bolded with logic, if you can.

Power is desired by those who wish to use force to compel others to do what Power cannot persuade them to do. It's irrelevant whether violence is used; the mere existence of the threat is an applied force that precludes any and all equitable negotiation. Example: A 6'6" man covered in prison tattoos and seemingly "jonesing" for a fix (shaking, agitated and evidently distraught) accosts an old lady in an deserted carpark and tells her she needs to give him all the money in her possession. Terrified, the old lady hands over her handbag and then screams when he advances on her, in a menacing manner; causing him to flee.

Has he made a convincing argument? No. And yet, she seemingly acted of her own volition. It's a question of "free will". Did she act of her own free will? Yes, she did. Many women in her position choose to act differently, and they routinely end up in ICU. Were the negotiations conducted fairly? No. She did not choose to negotiate for the exchange of her handbag. We're going to revisit this example in the conclusion of my argument, when the police catch the (alleged) mugger.

Can you counter the logical assertion (in bold)?

Power does not exist by virtue of there being a disparity in potential capacity to use force to compel; merely being larger, stronger, faster or more intelligent than another party is of no impediment to the prospect of fair negotiation. Example: You and a six-year-old child haggle for months over the fair price you must pay to acquire a rare coin he has in his possession; before you both agree on terms and the exchange is made.

Can you counter the logical assertion?

Power exists only when there is the threat of one party's intent to exploit a disparity in capacity to their 'advantage'. It is the introduction of intent to use violence to circumvent sane & fair & mutually advantageous negotiations and/or trade that creates Power. Example: You threaten to kill his dog unless he lets you have the coin for a low price. You threaten to kill him if he squeals.

Can you counter the logical assertion?

As it is not in your own self interest to hand over Power to anyone else, when you do so it is effectively a criminal act conducted against your Self.

Can you counter the logical assertion?

It should go without saying that those who seek to acquire Power are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Can you counter the logical assertion?

As a result of hijacking control of others, Power cannot logically expect those whom they control to even be capable of controlling their own actions. Power has expressly removed their capacity to do so.

Can you counter the logical assertion?

Returning to first Example: Power uses force (armed Police) to arrest the (alleged) mugger. Violence was not required, but Power believed violence was a necessary precaution and so, sporting a swollen face (which had come into heavy contact with a cemented footpath during his arrest), a man who - in his entire life - has never actually committed a 'crime' (as defined by the Law) nor done anything 'wrong' or insane (as defined by Logic) finds himself in a hostage situation where terrorists are threatening to do insane things to him for something he has never done. He's in the dock facing criminal charges he is certain to be convicted for, which will cause him to have 'breached' the terms set by his recent parole board. They decided to release him from 'early'. He had been held against his will in a lucrative 'correctional' facility after having been charged and convicted with a 'crime' (as defined by the Law).

The parole board decided he had been 'rehabilitated' sufficiently enough to repay his non-existent 'debt' to Society for his 'crime' (growing natural plants for the sole purpose of their intrinsic and widely acknowledged therapeutic properties; he had been growing marijuana plants which can only be used for the sole purpose of pain relief). He has never been motivated by profit and his entire 'enterprise' had operated at a fiscal loss for years, unable to demand reimbursement from sufferers in pain who had no money to contribute to the costs. The Police assigned an arbitrary 6-figure 'value' to his crop of plants; as if they were going to sell them at the artificially-inflated "street" price.

He bore the majority of the costs incurred by his humanity (there is nothing more humane than relieving pain) out of his own pocket, quite willingly. He has never valued money, but as a talented architect of growing renown, he had been earning a comfortable living doing what he loved during the day whilst alleviating pain at night. Upon release from prison, as a 'felon' convicted of distributing a Class A 'Controlled' substance, he was effectively unemployable.

On his way to another job interview, he encountered two homeless children. Starving and freezing, he gave one his jacket when he noticed the other was favouring his left leg after having sustained a superficial wound which had not been treated (no health insurance for the homeless) and, as a result, had been infected and was now life-threatening. Stricken with the pain humans understand is "empathy", he begged the children to wait whilst he sought assistance. Without a car, he had initially attempted to enlist the help of some motorists in a carpark but they had no interest in hearing him out. Running out of time, he spotted a clearly affluent elderly woman and rushed over to her to explain he needed money for suffering children not 100 yards from where they stood.

She was a criminal guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. A multi-millionaire at birth (she had 'inherited' wealth by virtue of her 'lucky' birth). She had the 'right' (as defined by the Law) and the means; and so she grew up mean and miserable and 'selfish'. Caring only for herself (at the expense of others), she caused misery and suffering for anyone who came into contact with her (and they projected her suffering back onto her, as is both logical and inevitable).

As an inhumane beast capable of vindictive malice, she was (of course) a highly-regarded 'respectable' member of Society. She was a raised in the classic Catholic tradition (motivated only by fear of those who, like her, were insane enough to 'exploit' their capacity to take 'advantage' of religious disparities) and so she had every reason to imagine the distraught man was dangerous but of course, she was insane. She handed her purse to him when he only wanted money for humanitarian purposes, but when he went to give the purse back she screamed. Not wanting to cause suffering, and with a child dying in the cold, he thought it best not to remonstrate.

The children were gone. He searched for them for an hour before Power violently interrupted his search, throwing him to the ground even though he had not struggled nor given any suggestion (beyond his size and prison tattoos) that he was insane. One insane cop used a little more force than could ever be 'necessary' (he feels 'big' when he gets to 'legally' inflict pain, but he only ever does so when it's shrewd).

Concussed but able to get up, he now stands in a familiar dock which has been intentionally designed to force him to look up at the emotionally insane (angry, frustrated) representative of Power (a magistrate who craves authority) who is about to hold him "in contempt" for his refusal to defer to the insulting suggestion that anyone who uses violence & threats to 'persuade' has the moral 'right' to do so. Unlike the magistrate, he is well aware that it is not 'honourable' to attempt to legitimise "organised crime". As such, he refuses to recognise the court's 'moral' authority to try him for his humanitarian actions. Partly broken (literally & existentially), he refuses to enter a plea for non-existent 'crimes' and he refuses to validate the emotional insanity of an imbecile wearing a wig who demands to be 'respected' because he has never been able to comprehend that "respect" and "fear" are not synonymous.

He is sentenced to be [gang raped] without parole for a number of years. The sound of the gavel exacerbates the unseen bleeding, and he instinctively screams in pain. Unaware of much of anything, he's stumbling around when he spots a light and lunges towards it. He did not spot the bailiff nor did he hear the warnings [to stop the bleeding?] - in fear, the officer fires two shots. Seconds later, yet another human being (the property of Humanity, the welfare of whom it is in our Selfish interests to be concerned about) is dead.

Who is guilty of a crime (as defined by the Law)? Means, motive, opportunity are easily ascertained. The old lady, one of the arresting officers and the magistrate are murderers. The rest are guilty of fearing everything but fear itself and, as a result, are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Who is guilty of a crime (as defined by Logic)? No one. Not a single person had a clue about "free will". The only human being in this Example was violently kidnapped, held for ransom, raped, assaulted and murdered (for his 'crime' of alleviating pain).

Can you counter the logical assertions?
___________________

Human beings are insane. They cannot understand logic. They commit crimes in response to 'crimes' committed by those who are emotionally insane and incapable of acting in their own best interest. Power takes the capacity of humans to control their actions, brainwashes us when we're children with their emotional poison and then wrings it's filthy hands at the inevitable 'crimes' of passion that ensue. "Insanity plea"? Don't be ridiculous. 100% of crime is not in Humanity's best interests. Every crime of passion is provably, ridiculously insane. If you kill your teenage daughters for talking to boys, causing to you "lose face" (in your imagination), you will be asserted to be sane and guilty of a crime for which you must be 'taught' not to do again.

Everyone is insane. But Power asserts via the judicial process that 99% of crimes of passion are the actions of sane men & women. Power wants it this way. Power believes having power is shrewd.

Power is insane. It's a religious construct. Have you even read a Bible, Tim? They've printed between 4 and 8 billion copies of that 'book'. They give it to children to read. It spins them out of control.

Power cannot exist unless humans are spun out of control. That's the only way we'll ever hand over our power to Power, in order to be controlled.

As a result, the human race is the most inhumane species on the planet. We are barely human. The majority of humans cannot feel empathy. It's been conditioned out of them by this world of horror. We are a world full of terrified, insane sociopaths practising selective empathy; pretending to be humane whilst we breed children of our own when we're killing ~21,000 human children every single day (~8 million a year).

Humans cannot comprehend simple concepts. When you see a pretty girl, do you think something like: "I want to sleep with her."

I used to think something like that. But I haven't for a couple years now. Now I think something like: "She's cute. I wonder if she wants to sleep with me."

There's a pretty difference. I abandoned my biological mother when I was 5 (single most brilliant thing I've ever done). I abandoned them for real and lived on the street at 14. I was made to feel worthless by...? I used to believe it was others who made me feel worthless; but then how is that possible? You have to give others the power to assess your value, which (in this insane world) is tantamount to demanding to be cut down to (their) size. Or even lower.

In this insane world, imbeciles push others down in order to feel superior. Madness. If we all did the opposite, we'd be so many levels higher by now...we'd be in the stratosphere instead of the gutter. I fell for the Christian sleazy 'compassion' Trick. They didn't devalue me; they only had the power I gave them. I shouldn't have put my emotions up for sale.

I was rather cynical and bitter and had every right to feel that way (if I wanted to feel that way) until the day I realised I had been handing over my power to the wrong people for a very long time. You're only answerable to you. Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to manipulate you with lies.

The day I understood how every lie and every offence and every deception (which had frustrated the crap out of me for a decade & a half) was really all my 'fault', I didn't need to forgive anyone. I didn't even need to forgive myself. I have only ever wanted to be happy, I had just been tragically but intentionally made to be confused about the only intelligent way to go about pursuing what every human wants.

Everyone is merely confused.
_____

Something like 70% of girls are sexually assaulted by the age of 16. Something like 95% of both genders are violently assaulted by the age of five. We 'teach' human children to do what they're told. We do not teach human children how to be sane. Almost no one understands motive. Almost no one understands logic, as I found out when I was illogically exploiting religious disparities. I can do logic in ways you cannot comprehend, Tim; I made millions doing this (over many millions of instances). I made millions doing logic better than guys who can do logic 100 x better than the guys who can do it 100 x better than you. This is all easily verifiable; but I do not like having to prove my insanity.

I did all this when I was insane. I was creating misery in order to be happy. That's a logical fail. Sometimes my logic isn't always logical. Occasionally, it's bunk. I need logical minds to show me where the logic is bunk but you're not in the position to have a clue. I need you to improve so that you can be effective.

I offer to help you with logic. You just want to scream your drivel. That's insane. You want conflict because you lack the capacity to understand that conflict is not logical. You're an emotional cutter.

You should try to think more and feel less. The whole world should be thinking more and feeling less. Almost no one has the first clue about what it means to be humane.

Humans suffer miserably in this world of insane sociopaths and their demented traditions and self-defeating obsessions with hoarding money to inflict suffering. They do this to manufacture the Demand for what they can Supply; money (i.e. promissory notes [IOUs] that are as trustworthy as the government which promises to honour them).

The suffering in this world is not a by-product of anything. It's the endgame. Without suffering, power cannot create the illusions of value for what is inherently valueless. Without suffering, rape, starvation, misery, ignorance and death, Power cannot exist.

Humans suffer in a world of religious disparities. Everyone is exploiting...themselves. Humans suffer at seeing such insanity. It's called "empathy".

You only feel it, selectively. We both know what that means.

You think you're producing arguments? No, you're explicating your first principles, which can be summed up in one line: love does not exist.

Gabe, if you don't know how to comprehend what you're reading, then you're not in a position to assert anything. It is absolutely nonsense to suggest that I am saying love does not "exist". Define exist?

I'm saying thoughts, emotions, feelings, impulses, instincts are not tangible. They're not made of matter. They're not really real. They exist, but they are not real; you understand?

They're the product of conditioning. They are tools used to brainwash the minds of children, for the purposes of exploitation / manipulation / control. If I imagine that you have offended me, have you offended me? Yes.

It matters not whether you've done anything to me, at all. I might be offended by the (perceived) shade of your skin. What we imagine exists in our minds and in the minds of anyone capable of allowing themselves to be infected with the imaginations of others. So if I assert that you have offended me with your breathing, should you stop breathing? No.

Who gives a fuck about what the insane imagine?

Offence is a lot like love. It exists inside the minds of the insane. It is very real, but not until it spills over into action. Billions have been killed by the insanity of those who love X and kill Y or Z or A for offending them.

We are the victims of the illusions (which are not tangible but they are incredibly powerful chains) that bind us to our slavery. You are the victim of your conditioning. I was a victim of mine. You see the world through the lenses of the emotions which, by definition, distort Reality. I see the world with dirty lenses as well.

They're impossibly more clear than they used to be.

I need to find brighter Toddlers somewhere. If you are motivated by conflict, I wish you all the 'best'. But I need brighter Toddlers to criticise logical holes in my arguments. You'll have to forgive me for wanting to play a more sane game.

I'm not two years old. I used to be, but then when I was 29, I grew up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
For an argument to... (Below threshold)

August 4, 2012 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by jonny: | Reply

For an argument to even begin to persuade, you must first reach a point of contact between the participants.

No. That's a moronic thing to say.

You have persuasion confused with manipulation. I can manipulate almost anyone. I'm pretty sure I'm through with that insanity, though.

I do not get down in the gutter to patronise imbeciles. I speak truth. Whether or not you are sane or bright enough to act in your own best interests is entirely up to you.

I will not force you to see things 'my' way; I'm not your father. I will not lower myself to manipulate. I'm not your mother. This is a world choked by lies which make everyone insane and you're too dull to understand what I'm calling for?

The day you understand that universal truth is in the best interests of every single one of us, you will understand how insane your way of 'thinking' is.

I think in a different way. A truly Selfish way; but it is not 'my' point of view. I am looking through the eyes of 7.3 billion. You're looking through the eyes of 1.

But I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue for. Religious persecution? Anarchy? Mandatory daily doses of truth serum administered by irreligious, non-hierarchical, spontaneous organizations?

When you understand what I understand, you'll understand I'm not arguing for anything except you to act in your own best interests. The day you are bright enough to understand that your best interests are roughly identical to the best interests of Humanity, you will realise I'm not calling for anything except sanity.

In a sane world, no one needs to call for action. Everyone is assumed to be motivated to have fun (without hurting anybody else). The qualifier is required for you sociopaths. I know how you like it when others suffer to please you.

shouldn't it be, EQ to destroy the planet and IQ to make it inevitable?

It can probably work either way; but not really. Increased IQ doesn't make destruction inevitable. Insanity destroys. The high IQs can be used to build or to destroy.

Our high IQs gave us the capacity to reach other galaxies. They also gave us the capacity to make the entire sentiment redundant. Our EQs make the latter inevitable.

But then, emotionally insane people can grow up. I know this for a fact. This Toddler I used to know actually did this. I grew up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Who is guilty of a crime... (Below threshold)

August 4, 2012 8:28 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by tim: | Reply

Who is guilty of a crime (as defined by Logic)? No one. Not a single person had a clue about "free will". The only human being in this Example was violently kidnapped, held for ransom, raped, assaulted and murdered (for his 'crime' of alleviating pain).
Again with the martyrdom narratives. I don't accept your counterfactual, and it is dripping with narcissism. Ever read any Ayn Rand? You'd love that garbage.

Also, on a more serious note, you might do well to de-construct that narrative and ask yourself what exactly it tells you about you, since you're obviously the main character in the story. (Oh, shit, narcissism again. Oops.)

That being said, I agree with many of your criticisms, at least when it comes to late capitalist patriarchy, but your arguments lack evidence and seem to be driven by an inner emotional world that you seem to not want to understand, or make any attempt to understand. Your writing, your viewpoints, are schizoid and narcissistic, even though there is indeed a grain of truth mixed in with all of the bullshit that you write.

Power takes the capacity of humans to control their actions, brainwashes us when we're children with their emotional poison and then wrings it's filthy hands at the inevitable 'crimes' of passion that ensue.
Power is not an entity. Who or what exactly are you talking about here? You need to say or you're just spouting BS again.

In this insane world, imbeciles push others down in order to feel superior. Madness. If we all did the opposite, we'd be so many levels higher by now...we'd be in the stratosphere instead of the gutter. I fell for the Christian sleazy 'compassion' Trick. They didn't devalue me; they only had the power I gave them. I shouldn't have put my emotions up for sale.
Earlier you made mention of "it's not me, it's you", and now the "do the opposite" thing. What's with the out-of-context George Costanza-isms?

I can do logic in ways you cannot comprehend, Tim; I made millions doing this (over many millions of instances). I made millions doing logic better than guys who can do logic 100 x better than the guys who can do it 100 x better than you.
Formal logic is not everything when it comes to philosophical argumentation. It's important, yeah, but there's so much more to it than P1 + P2 = P3. If this were true, all mathematicians would also be great philosophers, but they're not. For instance, poker wouldn't get you to understand anything about *soundness* which has been my issue with your crap from the start.

As for the comparison, telling me that you're 'more logical' than me or whatever bullshit -- this is more narcissism. Downward social comparison -- one of a narcissist's favourite defense mechanisms. And if you made millions, why are you having a discussion about it on Alone's blog comments? Oops. I guess you need more than logic to get anywhere worthwhile.

I need logical minds to show me where the logic is bunk but you're not in the position to have a clue. I need you to improve so that you can be effective.
Right, so you insult me and you say you want someone else to solve your problems for you. Sounds like narcissism, like I said. It's as clear as day. Just more condescending bullshit. Also, if I'm such an idiot, why do you keep replying to my posts? Why do you engage with someone you consider to beneath your address? Is it because somewhere in there, you know you're full of shit?

Something like 70% of girls are sexually assaulted by the age of 16. Something like 95% of both genders are violently assaulted by the age of five.
I'd like to see some good statistical evidence for these assertions. I don't even doubt their validity all that much but you haven't offered any support for this claim.

And don't say "google it" -- it's your responsibility to provide support for your assertions, not mine. Again, this is narcissistic -- telling me that I'm too stupid to do your research for you. That's real cute.

I offer to help you with logic. You just want to scream your drivel.
Oh please, stop projecting. It seems like you're really getting emotionally involved here, your denials notwithstanding (in fact hinting at that very possibility). You seem vaguely angry about everything.

You want conflict because you lack the capacity to understand that conflict is not logical. You're an emotional cutter.
Nope. lol. Conflict is often logical (not even really sure what this means -- "logical" is not and never has been a stand-in for "virtuous", or whatever). When someone resists being assaulted, is it illogical of that person to engage in that resistance, to engage in that conflict with her attacker? So much for conflict not being logical (again, what does this mean? -- the word "logical" -- 'cause it seems like conflict can be logical or illogical, depending on the circumstances in question).

The suffering in this world is not a by-product of anything. It's the endgame. ...
Yes, suffering is the entire point of the system. What you're saying is hardly novel. Thanks, captain obvious. Read 'Dialectic of the Enlightenment' for t

I'm saying thoughts, emotions, feelings, impulses, instincts are not tangible. They're not made of matter. They're not really real. They exist, but they are not real; you understand?
Nor is logic made of matter. Nor is it 'really real' (what the fuck does this even mean? What's 'really real' as opposed to just 'real'? Your distinction is BS). If something exists -- it is real. The two go hand in hand. If not, you need to explain this rather problematic ontological inconsistency.

Humans cannot comprehend simple concepts. When you see a pretty girl, do you think something like: "I want to sleep with her."
I used to think something like that. But I haven't for a couple years now. Now I think something like: "She's cute. I wonder if she wants to sleep with me."
There's a pretty difference.
[sic]
The difference between those two things is absolutely infinitesimal. They both still revolve around you, and define her in terms of you. And the obvious sexual focus which remains, untouched.

I'm saying thoughts, emotions, feelings, impulses, instincts are not tangible. They're not made of matter. They're not really real. They exist, but they are not real; you understand?
This is schizoid thinking, to a T. It's false -- emotions are indeed real, whether they exist in the physical world or not. In order for something to be 'real', it does not have to exist in the physical world. Logic is just a concept, too, but you seem to be pretty convinced of its 'real realness' (again, what is this?), or you don't take issue with it lacking this property.


For an argument to even begin to persuade, you must first reach a point of contact between the participants.

No. That's a moronic thing to say.

You have persuasion confused with manipulation. I can manipulate almost anyone. I'm pretty sure I'm through with that insanity, though.
No, actually, you have it exactly backwards. To persuade someone of something if they do not have some sort of agreement with you initially, practically *requires* that you manipulate them into agreement. If there's already some common ground, such dishonesty is unnecessary.

As for "I can manipulate almost anyone" -- yeah, we're all very impressed and afraid. Oh noes.

I do not get down in the gutter to patronise imbeciles.
So what have you been doing in this comment thread? Do you regard any of your interlocutors as equals? Be honest.

I think in a different way. A truly Selfish way; but it is not 'my' point of view. I am looking through the eyes of 7.3 billion. You're looking through the eyes of 1.
This is patently ridiculous. So it's "truly Selfish" to see things through the eyes of 7.3 billion? That makes no sense. Again with the comparison, too, saying you're better than he is because of the BS you type. If I didn't know better, I'd say he touched a nerve. And,

Newsflash -- we all see the world through the eyes of 1, in principle, and that is everyone's starting point. Claiming otherwise is obviously false.

Our high IQs gave us the capacity to reach other galaxies. They also gave us the capacity to make the entire sentiment redundant.
And the two, to my mind, are all of a piece, inextricably linked. The industrial project will be its own undoing. Pop Will Eat Itself.

As for your bitching about my mis-use of html tags -- the posts are easily comprehensible if you would actually just read them. But blaming your refusal to read them on my misusing tags is an easy excuse, an easy way to dance around the issues that I've raised (virtually none of which you've actually responded to, by the way, you've mostly replied to me by just going on and on about yourself, unsolicited).

And that goes to something broader, which is that this whole narrative you've constructed is about dancing around whatever issues that you have that are where your problem actually lies.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
blah, sort of forgot one pa... (Below threshold)

August 4, 2012 8:33 PM | Posted by tim: | Reply

blah, sort of forgot one part, meant to say read "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Adorno and Horkheimer for a decent explanation of why the system is eating itself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
So... how's that third part... (Below threshold)

October 23, 2012 2:29 AM | Posted by Still Waiting: | Reply

So... how's that third part coming?

_Still waiting

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Remember I felt this to be ... (Below threshold)

October 23, 2012 4:06 AM | Posted by Trajan: | Reply

Remember I felt this to be a discussion I should weight into, but it - perhaps conveniently - slipped away.

I'd rather not talk about these topics to intimately, which obviously in itself is a good reason for doing it. So many comments. Some of you guys are very knowledgeable on this topic. I probably won't have a clue where to start.

Perhaps later today. It's nothing less than fair that I participate here, right? That's the way I see it and guess I'm not Alone in this.

Sorry for chickening out. I'll give it all to you, without filter. At least I'll try. It's easier said than done.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lately I've read about a ga... (Below threshold)

November 11, 2012 12:44 PM | Posted by Jojan: | Reply

Lately I've read about a gal named Erin seemingly work with merging business and philanthropy,

What did I see?

I saw a suggestion. Sex trafficking cause enormous suffering and is an area in need of attention. What I saw, was a suggestion, that someone like me could and should make a difference.

Am I totally imaging things here? If requested, I'll expand.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
When I was 13 I had a poste... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2012 5:22 PM | Posted, in reply to wisegirl's comment, by anonymous: | Reply

When I was 13 I had a poster of Leonardo Di Caprio on my wall I thought he was a bit of alright and he'd probably have been about 23. Your not showing the full picture...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Leo Di Carpio does not look... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2012 5:51 PM | Posted, in reply to anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Leo Di Carpio does not look like a 23 year old man. He looks like a 15 year old boy until very recently when he gained weight and grew some wrinkles. Prior to that his skin was as smooth as a baby's bottom and his flaxen hair and dimunive stature endowed him with the appearance of a pubertal boy forever.

The real question is why are you, presumably a female, advocating for these old grotesque beastly men justifying sexual abuse of female children with your silly anecdotes? Tweens all over the world prefer boys to men, that preference does not change until the girls enter puberty sufficiently (later teens) and become women themselves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I'm not trying to 'justify'... (Below threshold)

December 14, 2012 8:57 AM | Posted by anonymous: | Reply

I'm not trying to 'justify' anything I simply disagree with you. I feel my example of the Leonardo Di Caprio poster is no more 'silly' than your George Clooney one. You are using extreme examples and really only have the right to speak for yourself and some of your acquaintances.

When George Clooney was at his height (desirability wise he was an older man not far off middle age - he is not an examlple of ALL older men). Justin Bieber is now in his late teens (17? 18?) and young teenagers still find him attractive, many young teenagers have also went daft for band like the Beatles (Beatlemania?) and the Backstreet boys most of these guys were in there late teens early or early 20's. It is fairly normal for young teenage girls to find older boys/men attractive - less common to find middle aged men attractive. You are the one that is being misleading and generalizing to fit your own ideals of what the world should be not me. Fact is tastes differ and that holds as much for teenage girls as it does for women of all ages. You can only speak for yourself. I can say that when I was 13 I found guys in their later teens more attractive, that is my opinion.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Did you seriously, unironic... (Below threshold)

January 10, 2013 4:45 AM | Posted by Jeremy: | Reply

Did you seriously, unironically argue that its more societally acceptable for a man to express interest in teenage girls than the reverse? The overall reaction to those female schoolteachers having affairs with their young male students always seems to be "score," "lucky," "when were teachers like that when I was his age," etcetera. The condemnation is more an intellectualized "well, that can definitely cause problems with emotional development" rather than the frothing rage of a male pedophile.

In another article, you argue that porn featuring "MILFs" is a bad thing, and here, you (far more defensibly) imply that attraction to teenagers is a bad thing... so that really poses the question, what age of female are we allowed to be attracted to without it being worthy of condemnation? 20-29, and then after that, its bad?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
The problem with trying to ... (Below threshold)

January 15, 2013 9:30 AM | Posted by James: | Reply

The problem with trying to explain human behavior though "thousands of years of evolution" is that there is no proof that any evolution has ever actually taken place.

We gay people are just as horrified at the idea of bestiality as you straights. There is absolutely no correlation with the two, just as being a pedophile is not the same as being gay. Even when the abuser is abusing children of the same sex, it is not due to some "repressed" expression of his/her homosexuality. Molestation is about power and domination, much like adult-adult rape.

In the end, there is no evidence either way for homosexual persons being created exclusively from biological or psychological factors. It is just a great unknown, no matter how hard that is for some people to accept.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I don't mean to suck eggs b... (Below threshold)

January 27, 2013 11:38 AM | Posted, in reply to Jeremy's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I don't mean to suck eggs but you'd be stunned, just stunned, at how many guys aren't aware of this intuitively obvious biological fact (indeed, even though I was always aware of it on some level - my mother was in a sex cult after all - I'm not sure I ever consciously registered the realisation until recently); women are biologically coded to enjoy (and therefore have reason to demand / desire) sex at ~10 x the ludicrously limited biological capacity of men.

Sometimes I get the feeling the discussion I'm overhearing isn't aware of the fact. I got that feeling just now; apologies if sucking eggs.

But yall treat girls who are honest so horribly, most of you deserve to die...slow. Just something to think about whilst we wait for the effects of 5000 years of Religious acid thrown to take hold.

Hint: it's all going up in clouds; likely mushroom-shaped. Too good an end for many of you inhumane sociopaths but it will do.

It will do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"but interest in pub... (Below threshold)

March 2, 2013 3:25 AM | Posted by anonie mouse: | Reply


"but interest in pubescent boys is always and seriously whacked"

Is it? Aren't gay men attracted to pubescent boys as straight men are attracted to pubescent girls?

Why can't we have a separate name for attraction to pubescent boys, anyway?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Isn't it just obvious that ... (Below threshold)

March 6, 2013 1:34 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Isn't it just obvious that most men prefer young adolescent girls? I mean, why else would the most popular stripper theme be the school girl?

This preference for girls about 12-16 is actually exactly what evolutionary biology predicts, if the biology is understood properly. A popular argument against preferences for girls this age being normal is that they wouldn't have been at the best age for bearing offspring and would have suffered higher rates of birth problems etc.

But this argument presumes they would have got pregnant at that age which would not have generally been the case. Using modern day HG societies as a guide, the typical age of first pregnancy for a girl living in pre-historic times was probably not til about 17 due to the later age of menarche.

By attaching himself to female some time before the age of about 17 (say about 12-16), a man would position himself to be able to use all of her breeding years and get as many offspring from her as possible. So we should expect men to have a particular interest in young adolescent girls and the popularity of schoolgirls, jailbait and Lolitas in the sex industries seems to confirm this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Here's an interesting threa... (Below threshold)

March 9, 2013 7:00 PM | Posted by anon: | Reply

Here's an interesting thread about the biological basis of sexual preferences for adolescent girls.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056757943

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
this article and thread is ... (Below threshold)

March 10, 2013 7:19 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

this article and thread is completely lacking any framework for debating the actual issue: whether to classify unwanted behavior as criminal or pathological. Whether it is normal biologically or not is only one element of the classification, which also includes how sane it is to not have control over perverse desire to do something widely known to be against the rules of the society, with some sort of excuse that lust and natural instinct was too hard to fight down, or does not need to conform on some other personal moral ground. The formation of the reasoning or lack of reasoning in the specific child-lusting individual is perhaps the only useful basis of their own diagnosis because everyone breaks the law and breaks apollonion herd moralism for their own reasons, so it's a diagnosis which perhaps should be made by judges and psychiatrists on specific cases ? The search for categorical clarification of this issue in a broad sense seems fruitless because there is a large spectrum of activities repressions desires situations genders ways of life etc inside the category.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"In another article, you ar... (Below threshold)

March 10, 2013 7:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Jeremy's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"In another article, you argue that porn featuring "MILFs" is a bad thing, and here, you (far more defensibly) imply that attraction to teenagers is a bad thing... so that really poses the question, what age of female are we allowed to be attracted to without it being worthy of condemnation? 20-29, and then after that, its bad?"

this post is substantive because the author like all/most people tend to bend their moral/social judgments according to how that social conduct benefits them personally. disinterest, joy, hope, disgust, hate, are all expressions of how an issue 'bodes for me' if left un-bitched-at, if the morons out there are allowed to decide the rules themselves without your help.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
How do they know cave wome... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2013 5:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by AnonymousAno: | Reply

How do they know cave women didn't start their periods until 16?

Thats rare these days and has been for sometime - I was 11 when I started mine.

Anyway, I wish people would stop getting their knickers in a twist so much about this, most teenagers want to be treated like adults, and went treated like adults they tend to act more like adults.

Their no where near as stupid as a lot of much older people seem to think, for the most part, and, though you do get stupid teenagers, you get stupid older adults too.

I'm so over this moralizing nonsense, by people who aren't that bright themselves...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
You make some good points. ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2013 5:48 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

You make some good points.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I'm not nearly as concerned... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2013 8:12 AM | Posted, in reply to AnonymousAno's comment, by Dovahkiin: | Reply

I'm not nearly as concerned with a person's naughty bits in the discussion of sex as I am with the person's brain. There are consequences to sex that have nothing to do with pregnancy. It's a matter of being emotionally mature enough to handle sex, handle pregnancy (if it comes), the intense emotions that come from sexual activity.

While it's probably true that some kids could handle this before 16-17, I don't think a 10-12 year old could. It's also possible that some won't be ready at 25. And at any rate, for making social and cultural rules, it's probably best to go with the median age so that we aren't trying to guess if sex with a 14 year old is pedophilia based on expert testimony on just how mature that 14-year old is.

My personal best guess is that people were considered adult in the past at around 15 or so (this is when many Christian groups have confirmation and many Jewish groups have Bar/Bat Mitzvahs). My own family history holds many families that married at the ripe old age of 16. We as a culture have been artificially extending childhood to much later ages, in part because we need to keep them in school until 22 (college grads), and in part because we need immature people who will buy lots of toys and gadgets.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"we need immature people wh... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2013 9:45 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"we need immature people who will buy lots of toys and gadgets"

I think your right about that.

Though i've clearly never taken sex as seriously as some...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I hate people like you...th... (Below threshold)

March 31, 2013 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Observer's comment, by Chris Mowry: | Reply

I hate people like you...that argument is so mute and flagrantly disguised as science that it hinges on the moral capabilities of a tween with Asperger's. Yes that may seem biological in nature but it ignores why any one maybe be attracted to (weather it is legal or socially damnable or not...male or fliggin female or transgendered or furry) someone out of their respective age...even hebephiles and even *shudder pedo scum...out of other factors that may psychological, mentally ill (even meaning like a small OCD obsession to a paraphilia or psychotic break), social, spiritual or just plain random out of boredom or like *GASP* legitimate in the case of both parties because they are either exceptionally mature or irreverently immature and genuinely feel a physical connection...believe it or not it happens. Not like it matters as no one listens and is full of confirmation bias... Humans Suck! pass it on!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hello, degen monkey human! ... (Below threshold)

April 16, 2013 4:40 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Hello, degen monkey human! Hebephilia is by pathology the attraction to PUBESCENT children (neither of which is wrong...pubescent describes they have gone through puberty and are biologically sexually active; then there is the term child which is a term of social status referring to ones chronological age...not, in fact, ones mentality) so finding a pubescent child sexually attractive...is ultimately just a matter of taste...weather you like it or not advertisement agencies, people, and those under the age of 18 finding their own identity may bother to argue with you at this juntion in you existence...so! suck it up an deal the more you fight the more people will continue to fight these "social norms"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Dude!When i was 21, ... (Below threshold)

April 16, 2013 4:46 AM | Posted, in reply to K's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Dude!
When i was 21, I dated and had multiple sexual experiences with a 14 y/o....13 when i met here and deiced to wait out of fear... let me guarantee you...PUBESCENT girls even those age 14 can willfully and aggressively ( even more so considering that most 'of age' males think any form of jail bait to automatically equal jail time) insiate sexual activity! im tired of these cultural double standers...Amercia is progressively more fucked up because of the cultural norm fear of the misconception of what is prevented and abnormal...yes ther are freaks..i have seen them...but that dose not mean that we all fit the def and that those that do cannot actualize in acceptable manners.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Lol the world has a definit... (Below threshold)

August 5, 2013 10:59 PM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

Lol the world has a definition of adult 18
So when we children turn adults 17 then 18
We can no longer engage in relationships with our peers?
I was 19 she was 13 we both wanted. Guess what world.....not one of us are prostitutes or otherwise sex workers.
Oh and by the way, all it did is waste public money sending another youth to prison and created another drain on society as finding a job is now quite difficult.....in truth I find it funny that I can actually sit back and do **** and have a reason for it.
Also it created an obsession with that age group that I have only recently lost due to PTSD I know this because it was my first time and I cant remember it, my brain has blocked out the cause of so much trauma.

So all in all the UK is doing well making problems when there are none.....oops!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I've never been attracted t... (Below threshold)

August 7, 2013 1:42 AM | Posted, in reply to lozza's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I've never been attracted to girls that young but I know a hell of a lot of guys who are. To imprison someone for consensual activity is just the same old horror of Christian evil whores protecting their pathetic 'good thing' (misogyny / marriage / slavery).

They're the vilest creeps alive but they've known best how gays and girls who GIVE up what whores want to sell should DIE. They've known best how men and children should suffer to please them. They've known best how to hand over their choir boys to the priests and block out all reports from their children for 1500 years of Choir boy rape. They've known best how to slut-shame their daughters into clamping their legs shut. They're sociopaths who impose their Protection racketeering on everyone.

They're the original imposition. Sucks that your crime of having fun without hurting anyone or imposing (aka being humane) was deemed a threat to their miserable existence but they hate fun. They need misery; all leeches need suffering to leverage into [slavery].

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
oh no i didnt intend it as ... (Below threshold)

August 7, 2013 6:33 AM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

oh no i didnt intend it as fun. it was intended as a consentual relationship, a long term one at that.
so, naturally i asked her mum for permission first before we started going out and it was only when the school asked why an unidenified male was collecting her from school that her mum decided to go fruit-loop and call the police dispite knowing and being happy about me collecting her daughter from school???
she was my first love and i suppose that means she will always be my greatest.
I agree with protecting children and young people however to instantaniously deem a person adult at 18 is WRONG. There should be some close age group unpublicised law or something to acknowledge the fact that close to the change over between child and adult there will be (technically) adults in love with or possibly sexually active with children.
in a democratic country, should the laws not represent the peoples views? are we not ALL entitled to freedom?
so why are the views of some people discredited?
isnt that age related discrimination?
how would the world react if i was to stand up and say that people with downs syndrome or autism or even a brain tumor dont have the mental capacity to consent?
or that women are below men?
or that disabled people should be left until last in terms of employment? THERE WOULD BE UPROAR!

I think rather than say "welcome to England", I'd like to say "YOURE Welcome to England".
The first chance i get, I'm going to country that my unborn children wont be chastised for growing up.
I can never change my past, but i can change their future!

Oh, also for anyone whom reads this.

- Are you religious? If so, Please answer me this:

Does the Bible not set our guideline to live by and say that so long as we follow it as best we can, that we are good people?
How old is Mary when she gave birth to Christ?
How old is her partner Joseph?
Where does the Bible state -that two people that have given themselves to one another, and in the presence of God, proclaimed their never ending love(basic principal of marriage)- where does it say anything about age?
Is England not first and for the majority SUPPOSED to be a christian country? are our laws not based on those of the Bible?

All i know is that i feel injustice. If i did wrong then I will know in the days of judgement. however, i feel that i didnt do wrong in the eyes of God and that i have been mistreated by my neighbour. I must forgive them because the Bible says that we are ALL weak and that i must be forgiven for what they think i have done wrong. I will forgive them, when they have forgiven me, which is around 10 years of which they still have 8 left!

Before any atheists turn round and say im a religious nut that is justifying his actions, i implore you to recognise that which i have written.
all i have done is stated the origin of the laws in the UK and questioned why they dont follow as theyre supposed to? then given my interpretation of a book, much like you would with a science book.
as for justifying my actions, i need not go any further than say;
if pubescent children werent ready, why would they seek it?
would it be right to say to a child, youre not hungry because youre a child and do not know what you want or need?
or thirsty?

there are children in the world that are apparently not "disturbed" by beheading people, shooting people and otherwise. Whilst i dont condone any loss of life or harm i must say, i think were barking up the wrong tree here.

the only evidence to suggest that children should not be sexually active when they see fit is that some can be gullable(but then so can adults!) and that child birth is so dangerous that many children and indeed young people dont survive it, cant we counter that these days with contraception? and lastly, education, my now ex-girlfriend actually had an extremely bad attendance record when i first met her. so much so that her mum had been threatened with court action if it didnt improve. in the time i was with her her attendance had a marked improvement and she didnt get grounded once. the evidence speaks for itself here does it not?

lastly, i would like to prove the general view of children.
the judge that was at my hearings said that although the girl had consented and held to it dispite probably being embarrased at being questioned when it would have been so much easier to just say that she didnt and didnt want to talk about it, it proved that there was something there other than just a bit of fun and he said he was sure that she did consent and really mean it. he also said "It is a truism that sometimes young people need protecting from themselves".
To me, that is hard evidence of age related discrimination and is not in my mind enough reason to detain someone for 21 months.

Now i should like to ask, what good did the sentence do?
did it change my opinion? or did it just waste time and money.

now years on and im 22, i would never look twice at a girl of 13, 14 or 15 for that matter. but i have fancied a 16 or 17 year old before. when you look at the figures does that not clearly show i direct proportion.
(look up on google, ".......oh my: erotic age orientation")

There is a very clear message emerging, and i expect my full pardon and compensation of time losses and stress incurred any day now!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
wow.....what a rant! sorry ... (Below threshold)

August 7, 2013 6:35 AM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

wow.....what a rant! sorry guys

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
All i know is that... (Below threshold)

August 7, 2013 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to lozza's comment, by jonny: | Reply

All i know is that i feel injustice. If i did wrong then I will know in the days of judgement. however, i feel that i didnt do wrong in the eyes of God and that i have been mistreated by my neighbour.

Don't apologise for length. Screw the limitations of those who cannot learn how to process information.

God is the Devil. It's amazing that anyone is confused. What the whores who threw you into prison did was reverse simple values when conditioning the minds of children (to make them confused / insane / slaves).

God is good.
Whistleblowing is bad.
Deceit is nice.
Freedom is slavery.
Selfish is shameful.
Sacrifice is ideal.
Women hate sex.
Women who respect themselves are sluts.
Women who are whores are respectful.
Pride comes before a fall.
Don't think about your Self.
Love is pure.
Words hurt.
Your feelings matter.
Denial is positive.
Truth is rude.
Deceit is social.
Honesty is antisocial.
Respect authority.
Respect violence.
Respect elders.
Be ashamed of yourself.
etc etc.

But what I really want to discuss is this one:
Cute is sexy.

"Cute" was children's biological protective mechanism evolved to induce caring instincts in men. Those filthy whores looking for combative edge in their obsessive preying on [broken sons of their mothers] hijacked "cute" off children and associated it with "sexy".

This seems guaranteed to produce [your tryst, at best] and [pedophilia / child molestation at worst]. What I do not see is how blurring the emotive values of "cute" and "sexy" can produce anything else?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I don't think so. The thin... (Below threshold)

August 7, 2013 4:33 PM | Posted, in reply to lozza's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I don't think so. The thing is that kids are very easy to manipulate into 'wanting' what a grownup wants them to want. call a pluot a "dinosaur egg fruit" and little boys will tell you they love them. How hard would it be to convince the same little boy that he 'wants' to have sex with an older male? Especially if said child has no adults in his life except for the pedophile? Sandusky was able to do so quite readily by pretending to be a friend to young boys until he could convince them that "love" included letting a man insert his dick into their anus. Is that something that occurs to 10-year old boys? Not really, most of them just want to hang out and play video games and sports, they aren't yet capable of understanding the difference between love and exploitation, nor do they think that an adult is capable of exploiting them either. To say that anything an adult tricks a kid into doing is "mutual" tortures the meaning of that word -- it isn't the kid's idea, it was put there by an adult for the sole purpose of the adult getting to act out his fantasies.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
The girl in question was qu... (Below threshold)

August 8, 2013 11:54 AM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

The girl in question was questioned after a few months and was asked non leading questions. Without scanning every single one in it was concluded that the girl had admittedknowing what she wanted, what that included and that I had not pressured her to at all. Evidence I can send anyone whom disbelieves this

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Also at not point did I say... (Below threshold)

August 8, 2013 12:01 PM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

Also at not point did I say that she was pre pubescent also if you read properly you will notice the "she" implies female. Not male.

I understand what you are trying to say but just recently it has come to light that many under 16s are much more active than we first thought. A boy recently admitted activly looking for sex. Recently being today and he is not the first!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
She was convinced by that p... (Below threshold)

August 8, 2013 12:20 PM | Posted, in reply to lozza's comment, by Dovahkiin: | Reply

She was convinced by that point that it was her idea, however I don't think it was actually her idea. As I said, kids are somewhat easy to convince -- and especially the kids who don't have normal adults in their lives. Most kids are not thinking about sex, and certainly aren't walking up to adults and saying that they want sex.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"She was convinced by that ... (Below threshold)

August 8, 2013 2:45 PM | Posted by lozza: | Reply

"She was convinced by that point that it was actually her idea"
So now you are making a statement that you cant actually prove beyond all reasonable doubt? And you are infering that police methods of questioning dont get to the truth? What qualifies you to make this assumption?
Actually she had already had a sexual encounter with a boy of 17 at the age of 11 and I had had no sexual encounters. So I would question who was more sexually mature?
May I question on whos definition of normal. Normal isnt actually an acceptable term to describe a person. There are various levels of social normality, during my custody I learned about psychology in an attempt to understand what went wrong with me. I was very willing to accept that I was abnormal and thus justify my sentence. What I found it that you can say that a certain amount of people can conform to a set of rules based on their conditioning and a certain amount will not. In addition a certain amount of people will neither conform or non-conform. To say normal you would have to look at all three and decide which set of individuals where 'right'. To reach this definition a great deal of research would have to be done to find a representative sample based on random sampling (if such a thing even exists). The article above is a psychologist or trained professional attempting that research. I am merely an individual with an experience and I am am sharing my view, some people will read this and some of or all or none of these comments and maygive their views or comments. That is not to say that you or I are ' right' or even part of a social conformity that you accociate with 'normal'.

After research or theorys we can attempt to interpret data based on research and this will either verify or refute a theory.
I apologise if you have lost me. Psychology isnt an easy subject, or easy to explain. But the brain isnt simple so I can see why.

On what research do you base the statement "most kids arent thinking about sex" because the news sources all over the UK have documented evidence that shows that pubescent children are regularly talking about it, showing pictures of a very revealing nature all of their own accord? Technology giving children more independence has highlighted this but it hasnt caused it. This would otherwise just have been harder to see as children are very good at hiding things from parents when they want, to are they not?

Then the definition of adult. I truly believe that adults of 50, 40 or even 30 should not be looking twice at a 16 to 20 year old. What can they possibly have in common? One will be talking about when theyre being nagged to tidy their room and the other about their parents funeral, bills and otherwise.....but age gaps smaller can make sense for instance I knew of a few boys at 16 that like a girl that was 12, that girl would most probably would not have any urges to sex but then sometimes peoples hormones start earlier it doesnt mean that that person is not 'normal' it just means that everyone is individual and progresses slower or faster. I think what is important is that rape is rape. An individual should never ever be forced or otherwise manipulated into an activity, which brings me to my next interpretation of data.

'Certainly aren't walking up to adults and saying that they want sex' knowing that we cant define adult as such then we must use other terms like young people or teenager as these describe a rough age guideline and so I must agree with walking up to adults but I disagree with young people and teenagers which I assume you had read my posts and meant this age group, not full blown adults.
If youre looking at real life for young people and teenagers there are VERY few in my experience that are as forward as you imply. These are mostly images of the porn industry which shows people as very comfortable with jumping straight in there, porn isnt real though. Young people and teenagers are mostly more inhibited than that image.

Children and the difference between adult and child is a very grey line my opinion is different from yours. Why dont we ask children and young people what they think as a nation. Without fear of what their parents think or of being outed as different?
It could easily be implimentes in schools between certain ages with guidelines to control accuracy. Only then can we judge what protection they can possibly need. The world constantly changes and the generation before never likes what the 'youth' get up to. Yet it happens and will continue to happen regardless of what any of us think or feel.

A barrister stood up and said what everyone was thinking, freedom of speech was taken from him and he was suspended. Government with an agenda???

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
RE:"In Catholic sc... (Below threshold)

October 9, 2013 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Tyrone: | Reply

RE:

"In Catholic school they told us of a saint who was murdered when a man tried to rape her and she said she'd die before she let him do it, so he killed her."

"The rules for becoming a saint involve miracles after death, so I can't really criticize her saintliness, knowing nothing about it really. But it is one valid example, I believe, of being led to reach conclusions about self-sacrifice that are pretty extreme, and particularly in the absence of further reflection, study, and a healthful life something like that can be misused or misinterpreted with disasterous results."

*****

For others who come across this thread, I think the poster is speaking of the story of Saint Dymphna.

Ironically, Saint Dymphna is the patron saint of the mentally ill. Rather than rape, her distraught father (a king) wanted her to marry him to replace her mother...his deceased wife. When she refused he decapitated her.
https://www.natlshrinestdymphna.org/history.php

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey, Jonny. Regarding your ... (Below threshold)

October 9, 2013 8:58 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Paul: | Reply

Hey, Jonny. Regarding your statements about emotional insanity, after reading through all the comments, to use a quote you're surely familiar with, "Just like a young man, coming in for a quickie. I feel so unsatisfied..." (Teddy KGB, Rounders).

Will you share your ideas on how to specifically overcome emotional insanity? I get that it needs to be replaced by logic, but what do you suggest for how one should implement it?

Many thanks,
Paul

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Will you share you... (Below threshold)

October 10, 2013 2:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Paul's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Will you share your ideas on how to specifically overcome emotional insanity? I get that it needs to be replaced by logic, but what do you suggest for how one should implement it?

I'm far from emotionally sane. I may have been guilty of positive thinking in imagining otherwise. I'm fairly badly broken, I suspect irrevocably. I can still be manipulated to feel suffering in my imagination, which is clearly insane. I can still be controlled by external expressions of approval or disapproval, I can still be made to feel a myriad of corrupted, negative, self-defeating emotions by girls who need to degrade men.
i.imgur.com/dABrQSh.png

I cannot fully validate myself. I'm still made to suffer because I still need things I cannot afford to need (or those who exploit emotional insanity will continue to make me pay for being insane). You cannot need anything in this world of hijack. It doesn't matter what you need, if you need they will make you pay. Children are broken to make them need their mother to approve of them, but mothers will never be pleased with them...for long.
youtube.com/watch?v=s_auDCvkzXI (2 min interview I did with a broken child slave of a mother who breeds children to exploit)
i.imgur.com/KCL8V.jpg (the mother)

We don't need by chance. We were made to need so they could make us suffer (so that we'd need their illusory comfort).
i.imgur.com/Ya6wEDH.jpg

They inflict pain to induce Demand in men and children for the only product they want to Supply, approval (pain relief). To be emotionally sane is to be immune to their malicious sleaze. We all need not to need. We all need to be alone. I can't manage to protect myself for long before I'm exposing myself to their worthless malice. I'm broken. I know the path to sanity but I cannot stay on it.

Sanity is absence of need. The first step is to identify where you're weak and exploitable. That's where they'll hurt you. They'll pounce on any vulnerability and pound away until you cry uncle. Then they'll own you (or your body). You won't be good for much but slaves aren't supposed to be. Mindless leeches perceive no value in minds. They explicitly destroy minds just to wring all value out of the bodies prior to disposing of the carcasses.

So you need to be able to identify where they can manipulate you. Mike was emotionally insane, for example.

"Just like a young man, coming in for a quickie. I feel so unsatisfied..." - Teddy KGB

What need was Teddy KGB taking a stab at here? If Mike was sane, he could not have been manipulated into shooting himself in the foot. Teddy KGB went fishing, Mike swallowed the lure whole and paid the price. If you are emotionally insane / manipulatable / exploitable / needy, they will make you pay for that mistake.

You'll be made to suffer but there's no upside. They have no value, you cannot win. You will suffer until your suffering isn't worth anything. Then you're done. gg.

"It's not you. It's me." - leeches dumping a carcass
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I thought that was rather w... (Below threshold)

November 11, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by John Roberts (uk): | Reply

I thought that was rather well put and expresses my thoughts almost exactly. For me sexuality is largely a product of culture overlaying brute instinct with brute instinct (as ancient as the heavens often winning out over culture (a relatively recent invention).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just because somet... (Below threshold)

November 14, 2013 3:31 AM | Posted, in reply to JohnJ's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Just because som