Bleeding heart liberals

Ubs, PLEASE join the REAL world sometime!! Definitions are NOT arbitrary unless you want total chaos!! Accuracy in language is what makes communication possible while inaccuracies are the cause of many problems. I doubt even Jemy would agree with you here!!

Trasher is wrong.

Übereil is right and consistent with how psychology view sadism.

Corwin is also right; "Accuracy in language is what makes communication possible while inaccuracies are the cause of many problems." This is a case in which not understanding the academic understanding of the word do lead to political problems.

A common misunderstanding not held by psychology, is that actions define sexuality; A sadist is someone who hurt others for pleasure, a homosexual have sex with the same gender and a pedophile have sex with children. Another misunderstanding is that if you have a sexuality you MUST act upon that sexuality and will do so compulsory.

In psychology the sexuality is in the head, not defined by actions. It's perfectly possible to be a sadist (can't chose your sexuality) and not inflict pain. It's possible to have an "illegal" sexuality and derive pleasure from that sexuality through socially acceptable means (roleplaying, novels, comics etc) and live out your entire life to the fullest without ever breaking the law.

One misunderstanding that comes from this confusion is that women wish to be raped because rape fantasy is common. It doesn't work that way. Most people wouldn't dream about doing what they dream about doing.

Another example of the problems caused by this misunderstanding is the swedish childporn law that made even drawings/comics/cartoons prohibited because they "encourage pedophila". That includes 2640000 google-hits of "Tifa Hentai" (yeah, broke the law checking that one out for you).

There are no scientific support for such laws within psychology. Sexual fantasy is not sexual reality nor are they created by influence or removed by hiding art. If we are to make victimless sexual fantasies or thoughts criminal we create a lot of problems and solve none.

Ubereil said:

Back to language. As I said, language is entirely subjective, and definitions are arbitrary. Just because a word is defined in a certain manner doesn't mean it accurately describes the world. In fact, if a word is used to describe several different phenomenoms we have a problem. Such is the situation with sadism, as illustrated by Thrasher's comment. He might have intended to merely refer to cruel individuals (which doesn't make it all that much better, since enjoying something doesn't necesarily mean you have to impose it upon others. I don't rape women just because I take pleasure in having sex with them, for instance.) but he ended up talking about sexual sadists as well. The context simply didn't make it clear which kind of sadist he was talking about.

Click to expand...

This whole discussion is about consequences for breaking the law and the whole punishment vs. rehabilitation debacle. I can't imagine how you could possibly perceive that as sex games between two consenting adults.

Ubereil said:

The thing is, the pepole with the biggest capacity to have an accurate language on the matter, psychologists, talk of sadism merely in the sexual sense, and don't seem to use it to refer to cruel individuals at all anymore (JemyM might know more on the matter, having studied psychology and all).

Übereil

Click to expand...

But since none of us here are psychologists it doesn't really matter if "they" define the word sadism as being a big blue floating ball that constantly sings Barry Manilow songs. Thrasher gave you a definition of the word sadist. I gave 3 more collaborating definitions so let's just go with those okay?


*EDIT*
JemyM is correct in the post above this … in general. However, I'm pretty certain Thrasher wasn't speaking about the general perception of sadists (I know I wasn't). The reference was based in specific examples of assaults (sexual and non-sexual).

While I am not particularly interested in this discussion I would like to mention a logic flaw here:

The dictionary definition of sadist doesn't contradict Uebereil's view at all, as some of you seem to assume.

If for example I would define a heterosexual human male as a person who derives pleasure from having sex with women - would you then conclude that most human males are rapists, only because the definition doesn't mention that usually the act is consensual?

As JemyM said: Sexual orientation is defined by preferences and wishes, not by specific actions. If people act criminally to fulfil their wishes is a different question.

I believe there are no generalized labels to attach to someone who hurts someone and enjoy it and there are different theories within psychology about what cause this behavior.

In context I would probably start to look at how the person perceive their reality and what they believe about their victims. Most often these people are very narrowminded with extremely black & white ideas about their social environment as well as overgeneralized ideas about who's against them and who aren't. Psychological derangements may be a cause or enhance this perception but is not necessary at all (and it's possible to live with a psychological derangement one is aware of and can compensate for to work 100% in society).

Let's say someone is a victim of something and build a generalized idea about their aggressors and then begin to attack others who they perceive (falsely) are within the same group as their (real) aggressors. They can derive a sense of revenge, a sense of fulfillment and accomplishment for every victim without being sadists at all.

Kelly's Personal Construct Theory go so far as to see the way we take in and process information as the cause of psychological derangement so someone simply being too narrowminded is to be seen as a cause of concern.

Seriously? So your example of intellectual integrity is "well, if we don't like the answer we get, we'll just redefine the words so our glorious theories actually hold up" What a crock of shit. I wish I could get away with that sort of tripe on the shop floor when I'm engineering a project, but, you know, the real world doesn't care for that sort of nonsense. I'm definitely in the wrong business if y'all actually think this is OK.

What do dteowner talk about and who is he talking to?

Ubereil said:

That your justification is "hey, it says so in a dictionary" doesn't make it any better. Because guess what, the dictionary got it wrong.

Click to expand...

Ubereil said:

Well sure. But psychologists tells me I'm right. And if anyone ought to know, it would be them, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

JemyM said:

What do dteowner talk about and who is he talking to?

Click to expand...

The above line of hooey, which (as someone in the profession) I'm both surprised and disappointed that you haven't shot down. In fact, you've even supported it, although I believe you were working within a specific aspect of a specific situation so perhaps it would be inappropriate to use that as evidence of a general position. Still, a profession that's content to discard basic definitions if they contradict hypotheses strikes me as decidedly unscientific.

I read back a few pages this morning to find out what the fuzz was all about and perhaps I have go further back. I just tracked down what I believed was the starting post and wen't from there. Just now I am tired like hell and im not feeling too well either.

Just a minor correction that many people are mistaken about though. One who study psychology or studied psychology isn't a "psychologist". Psychologists focus on psychological derangements and how to diagnose and treat such conditions. I'm a student in behavioral sciences who's aim is a master's degree in psychology, specifically focusing on social psychology and cognitive psychology. I have my first degree next summer after studying nonstop for almost five years.

Corwin said:

Ubs, PLEASE join the REAL world sometime!! Definitions are NOT arbitrary unless you want total chaos!!

Click to expand...

Word definitions are contractual. In order for language to work we need a common set of rules for what means what. In that sense word definitions are not arbitrary.

(The problem is that this is all theoretical, and in practise everyone use slightly different rule sets. They tend to be quite similiar, but never identical. Which leads to mix ups.)

However, words mean what we define them to mean. There's nothing that says this this has to be referred to as a bike and this has to be referred to as a car, and if we just all agree to start referring to them the other way around then it's bikes that are involved in the most traffic accidents, not cars. In that sense word definitions are arbitrary.

Within the rule system we all use different words aren't arbitrary. But the rule system itself is. I think. This isn't exactly an easy thought to describe.

dteowner said:

Seriously? So your example of intellectual integrity is "well, if we don't like the answer we get, we'll just redefine the words so our glorious theories actually hold up" What a crock of shit. I wish I could get away with that sort of tripe on the shop floor when I'm engineering a project, but, you know, the real world doesn't care for that sort of nonsense. I'm definitely in the wrong business if y'all actually think this is OK.

Click to expand...

If it's part of the definition of earth that it's flat, what do you do when you, as a scientist, discovers that it's actually round? Do you say "ok, it appears we're not actually living on earth, we live on [insert new planet name here]". Or do you try and redefine earth so that it better reflects the new discovery that earth isn't flat? If the definition of "ship" was "an object made of wood that transports things on water", removing the "made of wood" part to better suit your theory on ships doesn't seem all that strange, does it?

What has happened with sadism is that psychologists have looked at the common definition of sadism, looked at the world, discovered that the category sadism as it's commonly defined doesn't make much sense and then they've tried to change the category sadism to better reflect reality. Why? Because categories that doesn't properly reflect reality are useless and only leads to spreading confusion.

I can't see why you consider this a scam.

(And when I talk about psychologists I talk about those active in the field of psychology, in case anyone's wondering. I use it because it's a lot easier to write than "those active in the field of psychology".)

Übereil

Ubereil said:

However, words mean what we define them to mean. There's nothing that says this this has to be referred to as a bike and this has to be referred to as a car, and if we just all agree to start referring to them the other way around then it's bikes that are involved in the most traffic accidents, not cars. In that sense word definitions are arbitrary.

Click to expand...

Even if we accept this, you're pretty well on your own so far for changing the definition of sadism, and it still strikes me as curious that the only reason this modification of basic definitions has become necessary is because your furry "nobody intends to do harm" theory took a torpedo in the hull once sadists were brought into the picture. Thing is, the group of people being referenced, whether we call them sadists (per commonly agreed defintions) or Rufus (to keep the ivory tower in business), still exist and still torpedo your theory, so the whole introduction of this defintions tangent strikes me as octopus ink.

Of course, I'll freely admit that my stance is probably colored by my less-than-impressed view of psychology in general. I've tried and tried to find the quote on more than one occasion, but evidently the joke is lost to the sands of time. I believe it went something like:
"After a multi-million dollar investment and 3 years of extensive study, we've determined with great certainty that the animal does whatever the hell it wants to."

At least all parties involved here have a great desire to meet somewhere in the middle

dartagnan said:

at least all parties involved here have a great desire to meet somewhere in the middle

Click to expand...

السلام عليكم

dteowner said:

Even if we accept this, you're pretty well on your own so far for changing the definition of sadism, and it still strikes me as curious that the only reason this modification of basic definitions has become necessary is because your furry "nobody intends to do harm" theory took a torpedo in the hull once sadists were brought into the picture.

Click to expand...

Two things.

A) Most sadists don't intend to do harm. When they do indulge in their "harmful" activity they ensure that the opposite part gets benefit equal to the harm they do them. Usually this is done by finding someone who benefits from being done harm to (IE a machocist). Thus their actions can't really be said to be harmful (if they are then medically necessary surgery is harmful).

Bringing up sadism in regard to my arguments about criminals spreads the idea that sadists actually want to hurt other pepole. Which is a misconception that, if spread, will promote unfounded hatred of sadists. That is why I'm trying to show that what you're saying is wrong. It has nothing to do with sadism underminding my theory. Because:

B) It's one thing to know that what you do will make someone else suffer, it's another to comprehend that other's suffering is undesirable. Thus these pepole don't understand that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Using "harm" as a word here is dangerous because when you use it you don't mean the same thing as when I use it. When I say "they don't understand they're doing harm" I don't mean that they don't understand that the other person suffer, I mean what I said above - they don't understand why they should care. They don't understand what's bad about other pepole suffering. You use harm in a physical sense, I use it in a moral sense. That's what's preventing you from understanding what I'm saying.

So sadism, even with your definition, doesn't really disprove my theory.

Übereil

This reminded me of a recent news from Kwa where a 12 year old kid was detained and got a record that will haunt him for the rest of his life because he kissed a classmate. He was charged with sexual assault. And found guilty.

villain of the story said:

This reminded me of a recent news from Kwa where a 12 year old kid was detained and got a record that will haunt him for the rest of his life because he kissed a classmate. He was charged with sexual assault. And found guilty.

Click to expand...

I also read about a similar story where a 16 year old boy was caught having sex with a 15 year old girl, and was thus charged with statutory rape because that was the dividing line between legal/not legal in his country/state/whatever.

Corwin said:

People who derive pleasure from having pain inflicted on them are called Masochists. The masochist says Hit me, HIT me and the sadist says NO!! Think about it,

Click to expand...

If this were Facebook, I would have liked this

Anyway, you're all wrong probably.
"Psychology" is probably just chemical and electrical processes in the brain. So the best way to go forward is to invest trillions in the research the workings of the brain. Then we can just drug people into what we want them to be

Pladio said:

Anyway, you're all wrong probably.
"Psychology" is probably just chemical and electrical processes in the brain. So the best way to go forward is to invest trillions in the research the workings of the brain. Then we can just drug people into what we want them to be

Click to expand...

That's like saying architecture is probably just sand, so let's invest trillions to research the properties of sand.

That's what's been done though. Materials Engineering is what it's called and is now used in every major building in the world.
But the better way of putting it is that architecture is putting together different types of materials to form structures for people to live and work in, so let's invest trillions into the research of these material and new composites. Then we can use that knowledge to build better structures, which will be stronger, lighter and so on.