Jacko Doo Doo

Quote from axeman:

A dog is not capable of voting, and a dog is not even capable
of possessing republican beliefs. Therefore a dog is
necessarily a-republican, since a-republican literally means
"lacking republican beliefs".



peace

axeman
More...

Let's replace [political term] with [religious term] and review what you said.

A dog is not capable of [thinking rationally], and a dog is not even capable of possessing [religious] beliefs. Therefore a dog is necessarily a-[atheist], since a-[atheist] literally means "lacking atheist beliefs".
 
Aaaah... now I understand your confusion.
Your error is the fact that you believe the "a" in "a-theism"
is equivalent to the logical "not" which is not the case.

The "a" in a-theism means "without", not "not". Big difference.

Atheism is "without theism", not "not theism". This was already
explained in another thread. A-sexual does not mean NOT sex.
It means without/lacking sex, or sexless.

The more specific, STRONG ATHEISM, *does* mean "not god".
STRONG ATHEISM is the belief that god DOES NOT exist.
It positively asserts this. A-theism in general, does not.

A-theism... the general definition... simply means lacking theistic belief. Or literally... without theism.
This encompasses weak atheists, and strong atheists,
both of which LACK theistic belief. The difference being
that strong atheists assert that god does not exist, and
weak atheists (ME), do not.

Theists typically confuse this.

If we translate the sentence using the true meaning of
the "a" in "a-theism", which is "without" or "lacking" we get:

A dog is not capable of [thinking rationally], and a dog is not even capable of possessing [religious] beliefs. Therefore a dog is necessarily without-[without theism], since without-[without theism] literally means "lacking lacking theist beliefs". [/B]

Which although redundant, is perfectly consistent.

peace

axeman




Let's replace [political term] with [religious term] and review what you said.

A dog is not capable of [thinking rationally], and a dog is not even capable of possessing [religious] beliefs. Therefore a dog is necessarily a-[atheist], since a-[atheist] literally means "lacking atheist beliefs".
 
Actually, you brought him forth as an offer of proof and rebuttal of my claims, so the burden of proof of his expertise in this particular case is on you, not me.

I merely pointed out that based on the information you posted, he has no mention of clinical expertise, nor recognition directly in the field of pedophilia, incest survival, or sexual abuse.

If he were called to provide expert witness testimony for the defense in this case, and he lacked sufficient expertise in the area he was commenting on, prosecution would rip him apart.

It is classically amusing that you would choose a person who appeared on MTV's Love Line as the "expert" on that show, as your "expert" to rebut "pop-psychology."

Quote from axeman:

Of course... the OMNISCIENT ART **KNOWS*** exactly
what Dr Drews specific experience is in all fields.
You assert he has NO clinical experience.

PROVE IT! Im calling you on it.

"If you can post otherwise, please do."

Ah ah ahhh..... you cant shift the burden of proof. So sorry.
YOU asserted he does NOT have clinical experience.

You can retract that statement, or go do YOUR homework
and prove YOUR assertion. Im not required to prove YOUR
assertion.



What a fricken whacko you are.

All you can do is split hairs now. The man knows his shit,
and obviously FAR better than you do.
You have ZERO qualifications. Even if Dr Drew lacked
specific clinical experience... he is STILL WAY AHEAD of your
knowledge on the subject.

Any rational person would choose his expert opinion
of your idiotic pop-psychology crap. No brainer.
Thats the point. You have given us NADA to date.


peace

axeman
More...
 
This sense of isolation is a hallmark characteristic of some subsets of sexually abusing adolescents (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Worling, 2000). Miner and Crimmens (1995) conclude that the research data "point to the primacy of isolation and poor social adjustment as distinguishing characteristics of adolescent sex offenders" (p. 9). Feeling disconnected and outside the mainstream of society may function to loosen inhibitions against socially unacceptable behavior such as committing sexual offenses. Decreased identification with social norms may also be associated with diminished empathy with others, also contributing to sexual offending behavior.
 
Clearly, you haven't a clue where the burden of proof lies.

It is true that I brought him forward as someone with more
expertise thanyou, and with a counter opinion.

However, I DID NOT make the assertion that he had NO
clinical experience with sexual abuse.

This is CLEARLY your assertion, and the burden of proof
is therefore clearly on you.

Of course you will try to weasel out of it instead of retracting
your unsupported statement.

The web page I posted did NOT mention clinical work, but
this OBVIOUSLY does not mean he lacks it.

It is classically amusing that you would choose a person who appeared on MTV's Love Line as the "expert" on that show, as your "expert" to rebut "pop-psychology

And there it is. ART attempts to discredit Dr Drew with
a poisoning the well fallacy.

Just as I PREDICTED. Soooooo very predictable :D

As if appearing on loveline somehow magically discredits
all of his accomplishments as a Dr.
Only the logically impaired could think of such nonsense.


peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:

Actually, you brought him forth as an offer of proof and rebuttal of my claims, so the burden of proof of his expertise in this particular case is on you, not me.

I merely pointed out that based on the information you posted, he has no mention of clinical expertise, nor recognition directly in the field of pedophilia, incest survival, or sexual abuse.

If he were called to provide expert witness testimony for the defense in this case, and he lacked sufficient expertise in the area he was commenting on, prosecution would rip him apart.

It is classically amusing that you would choose a person who appeared on MTV's Love Line as the "expert" on that show, as your "expert" to rebut "pop-psychology."
More...
 
Such reality distortion is also common among sex offenders. In fact, offender denial is reported by clinicians as one of the most frequent responses to confrontation and disclosure of the offense (Salter, 1988). Salter conceptualizes denial as a continuum rather than a single act, and outlines five types common in sex offenders. The prevalence of denial has been borne out in the research as well. For example, Barbaree and Cortoni (1993) found in their study of 20 youth admitted to an outpatient sexual behavior clinic, fully 40% denied having any interaction with the victim or denied that the interaction constituted a sexual offense. An additional 10 youth minimized their responsibility for the incident. Important components of most treatment programs for adolescent sexual offenders are full disclosure of the offense and the development of awareness of the impact of the experience on the victim, since these cognitive and emotional functions appear to be distorted and/or lacking in this population (Ryan, Lane, Davis, & Isaac, 1987).
 
I stumbled onto this site in my googling, and found out why perhaps the resident atheist/science practicioners are so supportive to Jacko:

Despite the popular images of boogeymen we see in the media every day, usually the intergenerational experiences of younger people are consensual. These consensual experiences can be quite positive and beneficial for the participants, regardless of their ages. In contrast, non-consensual experiences, when the wishes of the youngster are disregarded, can be very damaging. These clearly are the lessons to be drawn from many recent scientific studies of sexual experiences between men and boys. Victimologists and people who seek to regulate the sexual behavior of others have obscured and hidden these facts from the public.

The outcomes of sexual experiences between adults and younger people primarily depend upon whether the sex was consensual. Also, sexual experiences are powerfully influenced by expectations and the attitudes toward sex which have been passed on to younger people by their parents and social environment. Rigidly anti-sexual attitudes and fears can predispose anyone to harm. Boys often approach sex with great interest and enthusiasm, so that their consensual sexual experiences are not harmful.

Once sexual experiences have become known to others, secondary harm to youngsters can be induced by the inappropriate reactions of parents, police, social workers, lawyers and other adults, where no apparent harm results from the sexual contact itself.

If people are not taught to despise their bodies and fear sex, if their sexual choices are not forced on them by others, and if they are not subjected to harsh or stigmatizing reactions to their sexual choices and experiences, they will not be harmed by having sex, regardless of how old or young they are or with whom they have sex.
 
What do you think that odds are the Mark Geragos would bring in "Dr. Drew" for his "expert witness?"

Think Geragos will put up Jacko's other character witnesses on the stand? You know, Liz, or Liza?

Really, this is the best you can do to rebut my claims? Mention Dr. Drew?




Quote from axeman:

Clearly, you haven't a clue where the burden of proof lies.

It is true that I brought him forward as someone with more
expertise thanyou, and with a counter opinion.

However, I DID NOT make the assertion that he had NO
clinical experience with sexual abuse.

This is CLEARLY your assertion, and the burden of proof
is therefore clearly on you.

Of course you will try to weasel out of it instead of retracting
your unsupported statement.

The web page I posted did NOT mention clinical work, but
this OBVIOUSLY does not mean he lacks it.

It is classically amusing that you would choose a person who appeared on MTV's Love Line as the "expert" on that show, as your "expert" to rebut "pop-psychology

And there it is. ART attempts to discredit Dr Drew with
a poisoning the well fallacy.

Just as I PREDICTED. Soooooo very predictable :D

As if appearing on loveline somehow magically discredits
all of his accomplishments as a Dr.
Only the logically impaired could think of such nonsense.


peace

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