How we as humans came to be

[ScoutParent]

Here you go OGE:

 

"In the earlier DSM-III-R, pedophilia was diagnosed as a disorder if "The person has acted out on these urges, or is markedly distressed by them". (Page 285, paragraph B of Diagnostic criteria for 302.20 Pedophilia). In DSM-IV, Paragraph B of the same section (Page 528) is changed to read, "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Simply acting out on the urges is no longer a basis for pedophilia being considered a disorder. If the individual is not distressed or impaired by what he is doing, then to the psychiatric community, it is healthy behavior."

 

You don't get any more mainstream in the psychiatric community than the DSM. It's the manual they use to determine all mental illnesses.

[ScoutParent]

Ed,

 

You and I are on the same sheet of music. However evolutionists (who understand what they are supporting) don't believe it is a conscious choice it is preprogrammed in the genes, period. Consciousness itself is only a series of chemical and electrical impulses in that view. It is not my view but rather the theory of evolution that puts them all in a purely genetic, biological category. Look up some of the topics I mentioned, especially the book by Peter Singer to see if what I am telling you is true.

[OldGreyEagle]

1. What does the abbreviation DSM mean?

 

2. So, the sexually predator priests of Boston were engaging in normal behavior? Is that the implication?

Very disturbing if it is.

 

And next, IF it was "normal", I did not see anyone from the Psych community trying to defend the offenders actions.

 

I guess I have a hard time seeing a talking head on CNN, CNBC,Fox, etc trying to explain how sodomizing a child is normal behavior.

[ScoutParent]

OGE:

 

It is the diagnostic statistician's manual--the reference book used by the phsychiatric community to determine if a condition is a mental disorder or not.

 

How about a scientist that won the Nobel Peace Prize explaining his behavior as normal. It's the new legacy of the evolutionary theory. It's even being proposed now by scientists that children enjoy the sex(Kinsey report) and that age of consent should be removed entirely.

[Rooster7]

Ed,

 

Homosexuality - behavior

Pedophilia & alcoholism - disease

 

We may actually disagree on something. I see all of the above as being behavior. Also, I see all three as being potentially influenced by genetics. I am particularly surprised that you listed pedophilia as a disease. Seems to me, homosexuality and pedophilia are both deviant sexual behavior. Many like to argue that homosexuality is normal. To "prove" their point, they point to studies, which suggest that genetics influenced their behavior. Interestingly, the same has been said of alcoholism, but no one argues that we should accept the behavior of an alcoholic. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that pedophilia is a disease. At least, no more than homosexuality possibly could be. Bottom line - regardless, whether or not there are physical attributes, which make one prone to these behaviors, god has given us the power to overcome our urges. We have the ability to make choices, and we should hold folks accountable for their actions.

 

Firstpusk,

 

The compliment (Firstpuck) was accidentally. Nor was any malice intended. Yet, I may have contempt for some of your ideas. As for your statement to ScoutParent - "You have been unable to provide an alternative." What makes you think evolution is so viable? Popularity and truth are not one in the same. The arguments being made by the scientific community (as ScoutParent has pointed out) are logical conclusions based on the theory of evolution. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the theory to be correct, then you must accept the logical conclusions, which it supports, no matter how obscene and/or distasteful they may be. If you refuse to accept their conclusions, then you should reexamine your support for such a theory.

[NJCubScouter]

ScoutParent, I found your quotations about pedophilia to be interesting and rather surprising, based on my own knowledge of the field. (I am an attorney who has had occasion to read numerous psychological reports regarding pedophiles, prepared for purposes of evaluating whether they are ready to be released from custody. It turns out that they almost never are, so from that point of view it would seem that the "acceptance" of pedophilia by society is extremely limited.)

 

So I did a little research on the Internet and found that your citation is out-of-date. See http://www.narth.com/docs/debatecontinues.html

and

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

 

The first site has a description of the controversy that you are talking about, and I would have to say that it is written from a point of view that is very critical of the American Psychological Association, so you'll probably like it. It explains that the DSM-IV has been replaced by the DSM-IV-TR (text revision), which restores "acting on the urge" as a sufficient basis for finding pedophilia. The second site is an excerpt from that portion of the DSM-TR-IV itself, containing the change.

 

This is all for whatever it's worth, of course. I don't think it's worth very much in the current discussion. Pedophilia, or to be more precise, sexual activity between an adult and a child, is wrong, primarily because of the inability of a child to make a valid decision to consent to it. (Which distinguishes it from homosexuality, which is not inherently wrong if its between consenting adults, because adults have the ability to consent.) As I have suggested, pedophilia is not accepted by society.

 

Plus, even if what the American Psychological Association had not changed its definition back to include "acting on the urge," what the APA says is a mental illness and what society accepts are 2 different things. Homosexuality is a perfect example. The APA removed homosexuality from the "mental illness" list in the early 70s I believe. Societal acceptance has been much slower in coming, and obviously is not here all the way (yet.) I do find it interesting though that the legislature of my state, which in theory is reflective of what the "society" in my state wants, de-criminalized homosexuality in the late 70s and outlawed discrimination against gays in the early 90s, but has enacted only harsher and harsher penalties, including criminal penalties, community notification and expanded (potentially life-long) "civil" committment, against adults who have sexual activity with children.

[OldGreyEagle]

Which Nobel Prize winner was a pediphiliac? I missed that one.

 

How long ago was the Kinsey report done anyway, I think as long as I can remember it has been referenced and I thought it was as flawed as the day is long.

 

For the record, when I was sexually molested as a child, I certainly dont remember enjoying it

[firstpusk]

"Intelligent design is how the universe and humans within it were created. This is an undeniable truth. It does not depend on your understanding or concensus. Nor does it depend on disproving your theory. You must disprove it just as you demand with your theory."

 

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.

 

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. You claim intelligent design is undeniable truth.

 

A scientific theory must explain our observations. Intelligent design simply says "God did it". End of story.

 

Tell me what are the particulars of your undeniable truth. When was the earth created, the rest of the universe, life? How was it carried out and by who? Provide me with some scientific evidence to support your assertions.

 

Intelligent design is a legal/social/theological construct used to dodge the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution.

 

You need to go read the links I provided as well as a few others. Please provide me a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Something that actually is based on scientific observation that provides some explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

[firstpusk]

"How long ago was the Kinsey report done anyway..."

 

1948 for initial publication as I recall. More followed within a few years.

[OldGreyEagle]

So how could anybody that remotely calls themself a scientist use data from 1948?

[firstpusk]

"So how could anybody that remotely calls themself a scientist use data from 1948?"

 

Simple, they call themselves creation scientists...

 

[ScoutParent]

OGE writes:

 

"So how could anybody that remotely calls themself a scientist use data from 1948?"

 

If you're referring to me (however obliquely), I never have portrayed myself as a scientist. I am a Christian, wife, mom and human being. But I did get a good laugh out of that question because scientists of great renown have been doing it for centuries. Surely you've seen scientists use or quote data and ideas learned from Aristotle, Hippocrates, Socrates, Linnaeus, Curie, Pateur, Salk, Darwin, Bell, Edison, and Einstein. I should have written that other post a little more clearly; the Kinsey report was cited by a political activist, Judith Levine, in defense of her ideas on paedophilia. The reason this report is so important in this area is because the ethics of most social scientists kept them from doing this type of research. In the research done for the original report, sexual experiments were conducted on children as young as 2 months old. Other data was taken from Nazi sexual experiments on children that was included in the report. It is a well known fact that the Kinsey Institute is a proponent of paedophilia and there are many organizations that are devoted to making it as socially acceptable as being a gay is now. One interesting concept they use is to whitewash the concept with the use of euphemisms (Animal Farm, 1984, and Anthem in reality) to gain acceptance. If you find these things unacceptable then direct your anger toward the components of our society that are causing them to become acceptable--the darwinists. Science does not nor has it ever existed within a vaccuum. Whatever developments science makes have an impact on the society involved.

 

[ScoutParent]

NJ:

 

Thanks for pointing that out--I am glad they realized the error of their ways and changed that. Now maybe they'll put the other deviants back in there too. One of the paedophile's main defenses is it is an "orientation" and not a choice. Oh as far as your ideas on consent, there are groups that are trying to get the age of consent laws changed. I understand you are a lawyer(I think everyone's heard that a few times by now) but the society we live in is expanding to include much of the world and new jersey is just a little tiny segment so I wouldn't base too much on that small of a representation.

 

The song I always liked is "This little light of mine...I'm going to let it shine"

[NJCubScouter]

Maybe it's cynicism born of thousands of debates (formal and informal) I have participated in over the years, maybe it's my legal training, but any time I see someone say that something is the "undeniable truth," I immediately question whether there is any proof or even any evidence to support it. That is certainly true with "intelligent design," which is just Genesis creationism under a fancy pseudo-scientific name.

 

I've seen it hundreds of times. Use the word "undeniable" in a legal brief, for example, and the smart judge or law clerk will scrutinize your submissions very closely to see if there is any basis to them whatsoever.

 

It's sort of similar to when I hear a televangelist or "moral advice expert" telling other people how they should live their lives and that they are going to go to Hell if they don't reform their sinful ways, or statements to that effect. The louder and more strident such a person gets, the more and sooner I expect to hear from the tearful church secretary with tales of debauchery, the prostitute with her stories of intimate likes and dislikes, or more recently, the ex-lover with Internet photos of Ms. Morals in all her glory. Talk to me too much about "family values," and I want to see how many times you have been divorced, what terminal disease your first wife had when you left her penniless, and whether your latest chickie is slightly older or slightly younger than your oldest child.

 

Like I said, call me cynical, but I've been right too many times.

[ScoutParent]

FirstPusk:

 

Here's my challenge to you:

 

We'll meet at a neutral location with a Biologist and a Theologian, and Psychologist. We'll take a test on evolution, Intelligent Design and then of course the WAIS III. Then we'll talk about comprehension and understanding levels.