Pedophila is now considered a disability in Greece.

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...

No, that myth is UNTRUE !
Unless you'd like to throw away all the current Theories of Aerodynamics down the toilet.

JemyM said:

I know exactly what I am talking about and I have explained this in detail.

The bumblebee reference is similar to a reference to Darth Vader in a topic about evil.
The truth of the reference is unrelated to the point and the topic. The link presented above is about the origin of the tale, the aerodynamic principle still can't be used on bumblebees and it's still a practical example on how a tool can be misused or it's function misunderstood. Which in context to the DSM is all that matters.

Arguing about whether or not the example is a myth or not can only be seen as a rhetoric red herring in attempt to derail a discussion into something else in order to stop discussing what was already discussed.

What I would like to know is why it suddenly became important to you to derail the topic.

Click to expand...

Because you brought it up and can't be bothered to read a simple paragraph :

The calculations that purported to show that bumble bees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[34]

Click to expand...

It makes you seem like you have no idea what you're talking about and makes you seem disingenuous!

It helps the ivory tower sound impressive and sneak out of the occasional logical bind if they maintain non-standard definitions of common words. So, in the ivory tower, "myth" does not refer to the story, but rather the goal (communication of knowledge). Once you get your arms around that interesting twist, then "true" does not refer to the reality of the story, but rather the attainment of the goal with no relation to reality whatsoever. Pretty soon, up is down and you're obviously a dipshit if you have the poor manners to disagree. Long live the ivory tower!

Pladio said:

It makes you seem like you have no idea what you're talking about and makes you seem disingenuous!

Click to expand...

What you quoted a) proved my point perfectly and b) is consistent with what I pointed out in my initial comment about it.

The calculations that purported to show that bumble bees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils.

Ergo: Misuse or misinterpretion of a tool creates unintended consequences that is not related to the tool itself but it's user.

Myrthos said:

Yes, after they first ruled that homosexuality was a disorder and was described in previous version of the DSM as such, based on the politics and circumstances of that time. DSM describes symptoms and labels a disorder to those symptoms. It's not because it is scientifically proven that you have a disorder, it is because a group of people decided it is a disorder.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like it was decided with whiskey, laughter and a bag of dice.

The system behind DSM were created for a reason. It's purpose in DSM-IV is still to be a diagnosis manual that was inspired by how doctors diagnose their patients. There are problems, it just happens to be the best we got atm. The greatest problem if any, is that every diagnoseable condition according to DSM is believed to be a disorder by the public. That's not how psychology works. It would be like saying that if someone is allergic to cats they are sick. Everyone has "disorders" meaning there are certainly environments in which they are less adapted than the norm. Everyone can be diagnosed, there's even a diagnosis for "the rest". There's just layers for how functional a person can be. What people do not understand is that what is diagnosed is a component of a person, like the color of their hair, not the person as a whole.

Myrthos said:

DSM is intentionally vague because it is unable to define clear borders between different disorders. So a person with certain symptoms can be classified as having multiple disorders. Or the symptoms are described in such a way we are sure that everybody who really has that disorder fits in that classification, those and a whole bunch of others who do not have the disorder but just happens to have some of the symptoms. And suddenly we see an increase in children with ADHD, which is good for the pharmaceutical industry and for those children that really have ADHD, but there is doubt that all these children actually have ADHD. Rumor has it that several people in the committees revising DSM-V have financial ties to pharmaceutical industries, who's main goal is of course to help us all and not sell drugs, so that probably is not such a bad thing……

Click to expand...

Tell me why we never hear the childrens story in these conspiracy theories. We only hear about the scary big pharma who make children into drug addicts. The childrens health or whether the meds work or not is completely lost, nowhere to be seen. The bulk of the hyperbole behind these conspiracy theories actually have their roots in scientology.

ADHD is real. It's one of the most well known conditions out there which is why it was possible to medicate it in the first place. Is it right to medicate children? It's simple; change the child or change the school. If you wish to attack something here, attack the schoolsystem, the politicians behind the school system and those who argue "decrease taxes/spending" all the time. Do not attack the child for living up in a society that they aren't adapted to.

My criticism is towards your statement that something is a disorder because DSM says so. Pedophilia does exist, just like many other disorders do exist. I just have a problem with the simplicity with which DSM is seen as the bible of psychiatry.

Click to expand...

Pedophilia is a disorder because DSM say so, like a person who is 18 is an adult because the system say so. Whether or not it's the ultimate truth is beyond the point, both systems were invented with a reason and a purpose in mind.

Now from the perspective of someone who study psychology; there's a very different reason behind DSM than diagnosing disorders. A diagnosis has a second purpose; detecting people with similar traits. Imagine you have a patient with an unusual behavior. Now imagine that you can find all known patients diagnosed with the same behavior. Perhaps you now have a 100 cases. You can now compare them to eachother and verify what they have in common and what they do not have in common. Perhaps 40 are more similar to eachother and 60 are more similar to eachother, so there are two groups that used to be one.

Without the ability to diagnose, the ability to do this kind of research goes blind.

JemyM said:

What you quoted a) proved my point perfectly and b) is consistent with what I pointed out in my initial comment about it.

The calculations that purported to show that bumble bees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils.

Ergo: Misuse or misinterpretion of a tool creates unintended consequences that is not related to the tool itself but it's user.

Click to expand...

Nope, you said this:

I am not a physician, however, the bumblebee calculation as far as I know it, is an example of how to use math in the wrong way, using a mathematic tool on something which it wasn't meant for, thus ending up with the wrong result. Aerodynamics computes the flow of air on something that moves. It can be used on an airplane, but a bumblebee works in another way. A bumblebee doesn't function as a plane.

Click to expand...

Using a mathematical tool isn't the problem at all. It's the way it was used. Again, you show you do not understand anything about aerodynamics or physics. Yet, you claim you understand it.

And :

It's also well known that the aerodynamic principle disproves a bumblebees flight capacity, yet it allows us to fly planes.

Click to expand...

And here you did say that Aerodynamics disproves the flight of a bumblebee, while it clearly does NOT!

So, no what I say does not prove your point, as your point was that aerodynamics disproves the flight of bumblebees. Your point has been refuted however and you still cannot admit you were wrong!

Pladio said:

Using a mathematical tool isn't the problem at all. It's the way it was used.

Click to expand...

Which I argued all along.

Pladio said:

Again, you show you do not understand anything about aerodynamics or physics. Yet, you claim you understand it. So, no what I say does not prove your point, as your point was that aerodynamics disproves the flight of bumblebees. Your point has been refuted however and you still cannot admit you were wrong!

Click to expand...

I am not a physicist and it's not my argument, rather it's a representation of the myth. The original story claim "scientists have proven that Bumblebees can't fly", "laws of physics proves that Bumblebees can't fly" or "aerodynamics have shown that Bumblebees can't fly".

I actually looked this up years ago and read about the research. Back when the story was first told, they didn't know about insects like we do today.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/21/bumblebee-flight.html

JemyM said:

Which I argued all along.



I am not a physicist and it's not my argument, rather it's a representation of the myth. The original story claim "scientists have proven that Bumblebees can't fly", "laws of physics proves that Bumblebees can't fly" or "aerodynamics have shown that Bumblebees can't fly".

I actually looked this up years ago and read about the research. Back when the story was first told, they didn't know about insects like we do today.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/21/bumblebee-flight.html

Click to expand...

Again, you :

It's also well known that the aerodynamic principle disproves a bumblebees flight capacity, yet it allows us to fly planes.

Click to expand...

Not true. You didn't present it as a myth or it being wrong, you presented it as being fact.

So i could theoretically immigrate to Greece, have sex w/ teenage girls, and get put on disability as my reward?

What am I doing here working my ass off everyday? I'll make that sacrifice, sign me up!

@JemyM: This is rather pointless so you have your faith in the gospel of DSM and I have my lack thereof

Myrthos said:

@JemyM: This is rather pointless so you have your faith in the gospel of DSM and I have my lack thereof

Click to expand...

I do not. I just accept it's the best we got at the moment.

Pladio said:

Again, you :

It's also well known that the aerodynamic principle disproves a bumblebees flight capacity, yet it allows us to fly planes.

Click to expand...

Not true. You didn't present it as a myth or it being wrong, you presented it as being fact.

Click to expand...

Now with added smiley so the sarcasm isn't confused with fact.

xSamhainx said:

So i could theoretically immigrate to Greece, have sex w/ teenage girls, and get put on disability as my reward?

What am I doing here working my ass off everyday? I'll make that sacrifice, sign me up!

Click to expand...

Actually Sammy if you did that, your wife would make sure you had a disability!!

JemyM said:

Now with added smiley so the sarcasm isn't confused with fact.

Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. You must think we're all idiots to think you can get away with a load of bull like that. Get real.

JemyM said:

Now with added smiley so the sarcasm isn't confused with fact.

Click to expand...

So what you said several posts later was also meant as sarcasm ?

It can be used on an airplane, but a bumblebee works in another way. A bumblebee doesn't function as a plane.

Click to expand...

Tanno said:

Whatever you guys say. Whether it's scientific or theoritical, I see this pedophilia as a crime. You guys have to think of the little kids and the women who have gone through all this. For me that's a psychological attack against its victims. Have you guys thought that later in some years those little kiddos, who will grow as fine adults/teenagers, will still have that trauma since that rape?

Literally, pedophilia is considered a rape against the little kids, in my conscience.

Although, it's fine that you can have a relationship with anyone you like or love despite the age difference, but NOT TO GO THAT FAR!

Click to expand...

Pedophilia is defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Having acted on said attraction is not required.

xSamhainx said:

So i could theoretically immigrate to Greece, have sex w/ teenage girls, and get put on disability as my reward?

What am I doing here working my ass off everyday? I'll make that sacrifice, sign me up!

Click to expand...

No, that would be ephebophilia or hebephilia. Not the same as pedophilia even though everyday use tend to lump them all together.

Maybe ephebophilia and hebephilia will be put on the disability list one day too, if they aren't already

Greece should be thrown out of the EU altogether.

Jemy

It's also well known that the aerodynamic principle disproves a bumblebees flight capacity, yet it allows us to fly planes. It's also well known that democracy is flawed, yet it's the best thing we have.

Click to expand...

So, I assume one was sarcasm without a smiley - and the next was actually meant as a serious argument?

Don't you see how obvious it is to everyone that you made a mistake. It's human - get over it. Also, it was a minor mistake.

Your backtracking "sarcasm" is pretty weak. It's going to be very, very hard to take your claims seriously if you can't just admit it when you make these minor mistakes. What if you make a big blunder? Is that how your "science" works after all those years in academia?

You're basically demonstrating that appearing smart is more important to you, than being honest and being right.