Pedophila is now considered a disability in Greece.

dteowner said:
Let us consider, shall we, that even a many-times-over self-identified expert in the field states that reviewing the same subject using multiple established textbook "scientific techniques" results in conflicting answers. That leads to the conclusion that either the "science" is utter crap or the subject is so complex that we're pissing in the wind (that's a technical term) thinking we actually understand it. I'm perfectly willing to believe either option. Either option pretty well puts these haughty pronouncements from the ivory tower into the realm of "so much hot air". In the real world, you won't get too many opportunities to pull that sort of nonsense. In the real world, there are certainly areas where our understanding is limited, but you don't see too many people working in those areas making the sort of grand pronouncements that we're getting out of a psychology student.

Like that argument a little better?
Click to expand...

An improvement :)

Then again, I already know your position here.

Personally, I think there's some merit to people willing to learn actually having a better chance at learning.

But where I disagree with Jemy is with the proposition that studying is the same as wanting to learn. Too many people seem to want to study because they think it improves their image - and since I'm not concerned about my own image (well, not a lot) - it's something I have a hard time taking seriously. Of course, that's just a single example of why studying isn't necessarily what it's cracked up to be.

Not saying that's the case with Jemy - but his posting history reveals a person who has the best of intentions - but fails to realise his own lack of capacity when that realisation is at its most vital. Namely when taking the teacher position.
 
DArtagnan said:
So, let's say a random stranger shoots your loved one in the head - in your presence.

You can stop your URGE to react?
Click to expand...
Certainly you can. Not many people will. Big difference.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Jemy, by your logic, homosexuals could be considered disabled too.

EDIT: I see this was discussed on page 2 a bit.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
791
rossrjensen said:
Jemy, by your logic, homosexuals could be considered disabled too.
Click to expand...

The term does match what it was like not so many years ago.

If you think about how we progressed from there, are you suggesting calling pedophiles "disabled" is worse than allowing them to practice their sexual urges?

I assume you agree with how most of modern society deals with homosexuality now.
 
DArtagnan said:
Ok, name a single person who can stop the URGE.

I'm not saying the ACT - but the URGE.
Click to expand...
Without action, the thoughts are basically irrelevant. But I'll play along. How about a genuine pacifist, such as one might find in the Amish community? The whole concept of violent retribution would be completely alien to such a person, which would make such an urge highly unlikely.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
dteowner said:
Without action, the thoughts are basically irrelevant. But I'll play along. How about a genuine pacifist, such as one might find in the Amish community? The whole concept of violent retribution would be completely alien to such a person, which would make such an urge highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

An urge is more than just a thought. They're hardly irrelevant overall, because some manage not to act on them. That's a pretty weak claim.

I know of no such person, and I've never met a real person without urges beyond his or her control. Again, the urges - not the actions based on them.

In fact, I don't believe they exist - and if they do, it's so rare as to have no use in terms of trying to determine what's best for society as a whole.

What you're doing here, is being contrarian just to stay in the role. Try being a man and conceding this point - if something like that is even possible for you :)
 
DArtagnan said:
The term does match what it was like not so many years ago.

If you think about how we progressed from there, are you suggesting calling pedophiles "disabled" is worse than allowing them to practice their sexual urges?

I assume you agree with how most of modern society deals with homosexuality now.
Click to expand...

The main difference is having a consenting partner I suppose. Even if a pedophile has one, there is the issue of a child not having the capacity to make the right decision in such a situation.

I see no problem with allowing people to act on their urges if it does not cause harm to others. However, if it can be defined as a "mental disability", then a medication can probably be developed to fix the imbalance. Then it becomes an ethical issue.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
791
rossrjensen said:
The main difference is having a consenting partner I suppose. Even if a pedophile has one, there is the issue of a child not having the capacity to make the right decision in such a situation.
Click to expand...

Going by my own experience in life, not a lot of people have that capacity when deciding to have sex :)

Also, I tend to look at infidelity as very much like pedophelia. At least, in many cases - you willfully hurt your loved one in a significant way knowing full well the level of destruction you might bring to that person's life. You do this because of an urge. For whatever reason, most of modern society is pretty damn ok with that. Maybe not when you ask them, but when you look at their reactions to the people they know who cheat on their partners.

But society is such that if - as a child - you're molested, you have a reason to ruin the rest of your life through shame and mistrust.

I'm not sure that's how it has to be - and I'm far from sure we've gotten that from nature, but that's where we're at now.

I see no problem with allowing people to act on their urges if it does not cause harm to others. However, if it can be defined as a "mental disability", then a medication can probably be developed to fix the imbalance. Then it becomes an ethical issue.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't like the term "disabled" when dealing with what I assume is a natural sexual urge. Natural not being "good" or "accepted" - but natural none the less.

I think our challenge is to deal with these things and not feeling the need to let our emotions rule.
 
DArtagnan said:
Ok, name a single person who can stop the URGE.

I'm not saying the ACT - but the URGE.
Click to expand...

Er what? We have been saying you cant stop the urge but the act can be stopped. Which is what JemyM has been arguing against.

EDIT: Also I wouldnt get the urge because of either my medication so you can be medicateed to stop the urge.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
Damian Mahadevan said:
Er what? We have been saying you cant stop the urge but the act can be stopped. Which is what JemyM has been arguing against.

EDIT: Also I wouldnt get the urge because of either my medication so you can be medicateed to stop the urge.
Click to expand...

You're confused. Stop making baseless claims. Jemy hasn't said the act shouldn't be stopped or that it can't be stopped.

Your "urge"?

Why are you taking medication to prevent urges - when you JUST SAID we don't have to act on them?
 
DArtagnan said:
An urge is more than just a thought. They're hardly irrelevant overall, because some manage not to act on them. That's a pretty weak claim.

I know of no such person, and I've never met a real person without urges beyond his or her control. Again, the urges - not the actions based on them.

In fact, I don't believe they exist - and if they do, it's so rare as to have no use in terms of trying to determine what's best for society as a whole.

What you're doing here, is being contrarian just to stay in the role. Try being a man and conceding this point - if something like that is even possible for you :)
Click to expand...
So, your anecdotal evidence beats my anecdotal evidence because you say so? OK, clearly I've been defeated and must retire from the field with much shame.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
DArtagnan said:
You're confused. Stop making baseless claims. Jemy hasn't said the act shouldn't be stopped or that it can't be stopped.

Your "urge"?

What are you talking about now?

Are you taking medication for your sexual urges?
Click to expand...

My urge as i wouldnt react if a family member got killed next to me. And no nothing for my sexual urges.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
dteowner said:
So, your anecdotal evidence beats my anecdotal evidence because you say so? OK, clearly I've been defeated and must retire from the field with much shame.
Click to expand...

I don't need you to retreat. We both know how weak your position is here, and watching you pretend it's not is a source of amusement :)
 
Damian Mahadevan said:
My urge as i wouldnt react if a family member got killed next to me. And no nothing for my sexual urges.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you honestly believe you can be medicated out of having the urge to react in such a scenario?

Are we talking about lobotomizing drugs or something?
 
Thaurin said:
In my compulsion to Google everything that I don't know and seems interesting, I found that this is a popular myth, according to Wikipedia. :)
Click to expand...

Myth doesn't mean untrue. Myths are narratives which tells us something about reality without necessary being true themselves. Thus a movie like Lord of the Flies or V from Vendetta may tell us something about something and focusing on whether or not it's events actually happened makes us miss the point of the story.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
It's also well known that the aerodynamic principle disproves a bumblebees flight capacity, yet it allows us to fly planes.
Click to expand...

Now it's not untrue "just" because it's a myth?

Jemy, you need to understand that your words mean very, very little - if you let your desire to never be wrong get in the way.

It would go a long way if you could just admit that you didn't know what you were talking about once in a while.

Perhaps then your words would carry more weight.
 
JemyM said:
Myth doesn't mean untrue. Myths are narratives which tells us something about reality without necessary being true themselves. Thus a movie like Lord of the Flies or V from Vendetta may tell us something about something and focusing on whether or not it's events actually happened makes us miss the point of the story.
Click to expand...

I'm not really meaning to step into the fray, but I just thought I could help with the clarity as you continue your debate. Lord of the Rings and V for Vendetta hardly qualify as myths in the sense you mean them to (definition #1 or 2 of what follows).

Dictionary.com defines myth as:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

It seems to me that Thaurin was going for definitions 3-5 when he made his statement about bumblebees - invented, fictitious, false collective belief.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
791
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom