Dear Abby Uses Column To Promote Radical Gay Agenda

Quote from Haroki:

Yes, correct or not, I'm using 2 different terms to give the same meaning.
More...

Thanks, I was unconcerned regarding "correctness", but was simply wanting to know if you were using them interchangeably.

I actually DO separate the terms "suppress" and "rehabilitate" completely. Let me explain...

We encourage people (and other animals) every day to "suppress" their wired desires for the sake of the greater good. If we encourage a 15yo buy to suppress his sexual desire and wait until he is more mature have we "rehabilitated" him? I don't think so. To me, rehabilitation means he no longer wants sex and as we know, that isn't going to happen with the teen boy very often.

I will use myself as an example:
Convicted felon on a drug manufacturing charge (marijuana). I am absolutely NOT rehabilitated -- I think our drug laws are a joke and have no moral issue whatsoever with my "crime". However, when facing a REALLY long prison sentence for a second offence, (not the 3 year one that I served) I have managed to "suppress" my desire for the easy money.

How does this relate to our topic? -- I don't believe that sexual preferences can be rehabilitated...the previously stated tiger/stripes thing. I DO know that desires can be suppressed (to do so is sometimes healthy, sometimes not).

The right says that homosexuality can be suppressed/rehabbed. The left says that pedos can be the same. I think both are right AND wrong depending on the situation.

Haroki:
>Don't compare dogs to humans, that's ridiculous.

Why it is ridiculous? -- because you say so? LOL We're talking genetic wiring here Haroki, as anyone in the medical sciences field will tell you there is incredible commonality among mammals when it comes to genetic wiring -- simple fact.

JB

JB
 
Quote from TheFinn:

Sparohok,

I think you are confusing his argument. When he says people are born "pedophiles" I think he means they are born attracted to little kids, not necessarily that they'll take action on it.

If that is what he meant, then I think he has a good point, if someone is born attracted to little kids and you say he can be reformed, then you'd have to say gays (or even heteros) could be "reformed"... that is, conditioned to change their attraction.
More...

Exactly, Sparohook is just being argumentative.
 
Quote from TheFinn:

If that is what he meant, then I think he has a good point, if someone is born attracted to little kids and you say he can be reformed, then you'd have to say gays (or even heteros) could be "reformed"... that is, conditioned to change their attraction.
More...

Oh for Christ's sake. This is ridiculous.

First of all, pedophilia is a socially unacceptable dysfunction, and as a result you have many options to "reform" it which are unnecessary and undesirable for homosexuals. Aversive conditioning, electroshock therapy, voluntary chemical castration, you name it. Some pedophiles would seek therapy like this if it were effective; few homosexuals would or should.

Second, you are simply wrong, it is entirely possible that pedophiliac urges can be reformed by psychological treatments that would not affect homosexual urges, because they are completely different phenomena.

Finally, as you yourself pointed out, you can change behavior without necessarily changing underlying attractions. Even if we agreed that pedophilia and homosexuality were both 100% genetic, it may be possible to treat some pedophiles so they are no longer a threat to society (do not act on those urges)... whereas such treatments for homosexuals would be unnecessary or even medically unethical.

Martin
 
Quote from Haroki:

Exactly, Sparohook is just being argumentative.
More...
Ha! Of course I'm being argumentative. You're wrong, so I'm arguing with you. Jeeeeeeez.

Martin
 
Quote from Turok:

Thanks, I was unconcerned regarding "correctness", but was simply wanting to know if you were using them interchangeably.

I actually DO separate the terms "suppress" and "rehabilitate" completely. Let me explain...

We encourage people (and other animals) every day to "suppress" their wired desires for the sake of the greater good. If we encourage a 15yo buy to suppress his sexual desire and wait until he is more mature have we "rehabilitated" him? I don't think so. To me, rehabilitation means he no longer wants sex and as we know, that isn't going to happen with the teen boy very often.

I will use myself as an example:
Convicted felon on a drug manufacturing charge (marijuana). I am absolutely NOT rehabilitated -- I think our drug laws are a joke and have no moral issue whatsoever with my "crime". However, when facing a REALLY long prison sentence for a second offence, (not the 3 year one that I served) I have managed to "suppress" my desire for the easy money.

How does this relate to our topic? -- I don't believe that sexual preferences can be rehabilitated...the previously stated tiger/stripes thing. I DO know that desires can be suppressed (to do so is sometimes healthy, sometimes not).

The right says that homosexuality can be suppressed/rehabbed. The left says that pedos can be the same. I think both are right AND wrong depending on the situation.

Haroki:
>Don't compare dogs to humans, that's ridiculous.

Why it is ridiculous? -- because you say so? LOL We're talking genetic wiring here Haroki, as anyone in the medical sciences field will tell you there is incredible commonality among mammals when it comes to genetic wiring -- simple fact.

JB

JB
More...

So dogs are able to make moral judgements? Are they capable of higher reasoning? The point being, pedos on 20/20 and 60 Minutes have admitted that they agree that they are morally wrong, but do what they do anyways. And LOL - dogs are a good example cuz YOU say so? Mammals and humans brains are different --- simple fact.

Ahhh, now I see why you're so gung ho here. Ok. I think your example of suppression/rehabilitation regarding your own past is ridiculous too. Would a recovering alcoholic claim that he's rehabbed if he sees no moral issue with his past activity? Ask Z if you need help with this one. Agree that you're not rehabbed. Nor do I fell the need to stick you with the stigma of needing to be rehabbed. And I truly fail to see what primitive drive you think you're suppressing. You're just doing what you need to do to stay out of jail. That's an example of higher reasoning. Remember the dogs - no higher reasoning, eh?

Go ahead and attack the religious right all you want for thinking that they can change someone. I'll have your back on that one. But here's the difference - they only OFFER to help people , if they can, who truly WANT to change their lives due to personal issues that the gay person is unable to resolve.

The left however, TELLS US that these fuckups are safe to be back out into society. Just as long as it's not in THEIR neighborhood.
 
Quote from Sparohok:

Oh for Christ's sake. This is ridiculous.

First of all, pedophilia is a socially unacceptable dysfunction, and as a result you have many options to "reform" it which are unnecessary and undesirable for homosexuals. Aversive conditioning, electroshock therapy, voluntary chemical castration, you name it. Some pedophiles would seek therapy like this if it were effective; few homosexuals would or should.

Second, you are simply wrong, it is entirely possible that pedophiliac urges can be reformed by psychological treatments that would not affect homosexual urges, because they are completely different phenomena.

Finally, as you yourself pointed out, you can change behavior without necessarily changing underlying attractions. Even if we agreed that pedophilia and homosexuality were both 100% genetic, it may be possible to treat some pedophiles so they are no longer a threat to society (do not act on those urges)... whereas such treatments for homosexuals would be unnecessary or even medically unethical.

Martin
More...

You're kidding, right?

You ARE aware that pedos have received these treatments, then gone on to offend again, right?

The problem is in the MIND.
 
Haroki:
>So dogs are able to make moral judgements?

Strawman alert. Never held nor presented the above position. Additionally, the above is not necessary so "suppress" nor "rehabilitate" in the context of this discussion.

>Are they capable of higher reasoning?
Hmmm...depends on *your* definition of the above -- (see below)

>The point being, pedos on 20/20 and 60 Minutes have
>admitted that they agree that they are morally wrong,
>but do what they do anyways.

And a great many feel it isn't morally wrong, so your point is without any great substance. Some feel it is and some feel it isn't -- so what?

>Would a recovering alcoholic claim that he's rehabbed
>if he sees no moral issue with his past activity?

Some would, some wouldn't -- I had a friend with a serious drug problem ... single guy, plenty of money -- but the drugs were keeping him from what he wanted to be. He kicked the habit cold turkey and after several years of being clean considers himself rehabilitated and able to cope with those demons. He does all this WITHOUT any moral issue with his past activity.

You really like black/white haroki, and that's just not the real world. Similar, reasonable people, can and do hold different positions on things like morals

>...you're just doing what you need to do to stay out of
>jail. That's an example of higher reasoning. Remember
>the dogs - no higher reasoning, eh?

Higher reasoning? LOL You fail miserably here Haroki -- The dog wants to bark and chase the squirrel, *needs* to bark and chase the squirrel, has been genetically *wired* to bark and chase the prey over millions of years. I can train that dog to NOT bark and NOT chase that squirrel the same way they "taught" me to stay out of the drug business -- directly through punishment and reward. Get enough speeding tickets and most of us slow down -- if that's what you call "higher reasoning", then every mammal i'm aware of has it.

>Go ahead and attack the religious right all you want
>for thinking that they can change someone. I'll have
>your back on that one. But here's the difference - they
>only OFFER to help people , if they can, who truly WANT
>to change their lives due to personal issues that the
>gay person is unable to resolve.

ROFLAO! You are soooo blind if you truly believe that the right only "OFFERS" to help. Many (not all) ridicule, threaten, browbeat, legislate, intimidate, demean, on and on. You apparently live in a very small world. You should get out more.

>The left however, TELLS US that these fuckups are
>safe to be back out into society. Just as long as it's
>not in THEIR neighborhood.

And I'll have your back on that one. I'd love for some of the "therapists" who suggest these folks be released offer to let them live in their cottage behind the family home -- that would change their tune REAL quick. LOL

JB
 
Quote from Haroki:

You ARE aware that pedos have received these treatments, then gone on to offend again, right?
More...

Some have... some haven't. So what? That has absolutely zero bearing on the correctness of any argument I have made in this thread.

Once you provide some evidence for your assumption that pedophilia and homosexuality are related, then we'll talk.

Martin
 
Quote from Turok:

Sparo, I'm interested in why you think that the sexual preference desires of the hetro, homo, pedo are different.
More...

I'm assuming they are different until proven otherwise. They are completely different behaviors, so the default assumption should be that they have different causes. Obviously if Haroki had scientific evidence for a common genetic factor then that would be a different story, but he doesn't.

Are you seriously suggesting that (let's say) sexual attraction to blondes and sexual attraction to horses have the same genetic or evolutionary cause?

If, as you claim, all sexual predilections are genetically equivalent, we can restate Haroki's argument as follows, substituting "blonde women" for "men" and "animals" for "children":

"Look at this recent study showing that there is a genetic basis for men's attraction to blonde women! Obviously, then, bestiality is untreatable."

Ridiculous isn't it?

Here's another example. You're saying all sexual preferences are equivalent. What about food preferences? When I was a kid I liked ice cream, now I don't anymore. However I don't like cilantro because of a well understood genetic factor that causes it to taste soapy. Preference for ice cream isn't the same as preference for cilantro; one is amenable to change whereas the other isn't. Just because they are both food preferences doesn't mean they are the same thing. Similarly for sexual preferences.

Martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top