Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those damned Scientologists have been a very busy bunch, haven't they.
Try reading a book or two ... you really are quite clueless to the reality of the world you're sleep walking in.
Speaking of Clueless.....
ALL of those books, videos and websites are by SCIENTOLOGISTS! The only one I'm not sure of is Bev Eakman, who claims she isn't.
Yes Those damned Scientologists have been a very busy bunch, haven't they?
And so have you it seems.
Thomas Szasz, Thomas Roder, Bruce Wiseman. John Breeding. Peter Breggin, Ginger Breggin, Diane Klein, David Cohen are ALL Scientologists.
fightforkids.org is owned by Scientologists
outflow.net is owned by Scientologists.
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death is a museum in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA, as well as several touring exhibitions.[1] It is owned and operated by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an anti-psychiatry organization founded by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. The museum is located at 6616 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California and entry to the museum is free.[2]
In 2006, a documentary film also called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death was released on DVD by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The film is 108 minutes long ...
Bruce Wiseman from CCHR published the book Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal (Scientology's Freedom Publications, 1995), in which he portrays psychiatry as creating Adolf Hitler.[30]
The German Scientologists Thomas Roder and Volker Kubillus wrote the book Psychiatrists: the Men Behind Hitler (also published by Scientology's Freedom Publications, 1995–2001), that advances a conspiracy theory of all-powerful psychiatrists to overwhelm the world.[31]
Your apology for falsely accusing me of being a liar and a fraud and clueless is accepted.
Thanks for proving once again, that you use the Church of Scientology as a source for your anti-psychiatry conspiracy theories. But not just videos. LOTs of books too. Wow. I'm not surprised you don't live in the world of reality.
^^^^ is a picture of GNT's 'source'..... as well as the Church of Scientology of course.
The same applies to asexuals - ie: if they can do it , then they should do it.
as for heteros: if they have no valid reason for not producing their own child then they should not be allowed to adopt either.
I hope you realize that there are thousands of children that age out of the system every year. If everyone that "could" have children did, there would be even more children that never got adopted.
I can't believe he just listed his sources for his conspiracy theory views on Psychiatry.
In his effort to try to prove that I am "a liar and and overt fraud, and clueless", he PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that his sources are ALL from the Church of Scientology.
No wonder his posts come across as looney. Those pesky alien "thetans" are rotting his brain and need to be 'audited' out.
Since when did homosexuality adhere to the 'ordinary course of nature'?
How is it possible for two men or women to have a biological child together - answer: it isn't.
Now your last bit is an absolute crock of ****.
animals engaging in these acts are also deviant in the same way humans are.
If you can tell me how inserting one's penis into another's rectum can produce a child, then we may be able to make progress.
The personal opinions here people that some have that homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and adoption of children by same-sex couples are tolerable if they were just opinion.
However, the posters here want everyone to think that their opinion is the truth without providing evidence.
It is when others deem their opinion be accepted by others based off pure opinion, that we have to ask certain question. People who are against same sex marriage and same sex couples adopting children claim that the marriage is:
Wrong - Basing it on right and wrong is pure opinion. To so some people drinking alcohol is wrong (unacceptable), while to others is is right (acceptable)
Immoral - Claiming that it is immoral is also opinion. For something to be immoral it has to go against conforming to accepted standards of morality. Society hasn't made an official ruling as to whether these things are wrong.
Unnatural - This is based on a persons willfulness of remaining ignorant. To be unnatural it has to be:
1. Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial
It is well documented that the majority of species engage in homosexual acts. Therefore making it completely natural since humans are animals.
Sinful - In order for this to be vailid we it would have to be an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. Since we would need to know if divine law is real we would need to first establish that there is a god or god like entitiy. So far we have no established that there is such a being.
So to base an opinion or claim of such things as listed above, to deny same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, is to make a claim without evidence.
Those damned Scientologists have been a very busy bunch, haven't they.
NINETEEN of the TWENTY-ONE links you provided above as your 'sources', were written or owned or produced by Scientologists from the Church of Scientology.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 07-16-2012 at 01:26 PM..
Reason: Discuss topic, not poster
This is a discussion about the Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia by Fred S. Berlin, MD
excerpt:
Human beings differ in sexual makeup. Most adults are not sexually attracted to prepubescent children, but some are. Societal values can be of relevance in determining whether such a difference is considered to be a psychiatric condition. Were a society to believe that adult-child sexual interactions should not be prohibited, such a difference might not be viewed as a disorder. According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), a difference in sexual makeup can be considered a disorder when it causes interpersonal difficulty or marked distress. In contemporary society, pedophilia can do both. According to DSM-IV-TR, for a diagnosis of pedophilia, there must be both a qualitative difference in sexual makeup (i.e., sexualized urges directed toward children) and a quantitative difference (i.e., the sexualized urges must be intense).
Now, maybe you're not a very good reader .... but the language here is quite clear about the "criteria" to establish Pedophilia in the "mental disorder" category, when this "sexual difference in makeup can be considered a disorder when it causes interpersonal difficulty or marked stress". AND it also must include "intense sexual urges" for children ... not just regular urges, apparently ... how ever regular versus intense urges may be defined.
So, what I said was the absolute truth, and not a lie "Mr. I'm a human being, WTF are you". As the manual establishes the criteria, if the "pedophile" doesn't experience interpersonal difficulties or marked stress as a result of his pedophile urges, he does not meet the criteria for having a mental disorder. But even if that criteria is met, his sexual urges for children must be intense ... and I suppose that, by nature is a subjective assessment by the psychiatrist.
But as bad as that is, it's even worse .... here is the last snippet at the end of this discussion:
Finally, Blanchard has recently proposed that an option for DSM-5 may be to return to the earlier language of DSM-III, which had conceptualized pedophilia as an “erotic preference.” The term “preference” can suggest many meanings that create further difficulty. A person does not have pedophilia in the first place because it is his preference to have it, and his preference may be that he not succumb to his pedophilic urges. Including the word preference in the diagnostic criteria for a pedophilic disorder would be likely to do more to confuse than to elucidate.
So it clearly states that the DSM III had Pedophilia labeled as an "erotic preference" and not a mental disorder, and that the proposal is to do away with the DSM IV criteria, and return to the old view that it's once again not a real mental illness ... just a sexual preference, for the DSM-5
Now, this fits right in line with the efforts being made by the group B4U-ACT: B4U-ACT
They are openly lobbying to have the word "pedophilia" replaced entirely with the new, more politically correct term "Minor Attracted Persons".
Here is one little tidbit in their FAQ section:
If I seek mental health services, does that mean I’m saying that my attraction to minors is a sickness?
No. We are trying to make services available to minor-attracted people who want them to work through issues unrelated to their sexuality, to deal with society’s response to their sexual feelings, or to develop satisfying and productive lives while living within the law. We are not advocating treatment to change sexual feelings.
This group wants to decriminalize sex with minors ... is very sympathetic to pedophiles, and is actually a cooperative group of mental health professionals and pedophiles with both on their staff and Board. They don't see this attraction to minors as so much a problem as society's rather negative view of it, really. It's society that is the problem and not these deviates who want to bang children. Isn't that freaking special!
They guarantee anonymity, assuring pedophiles they will not be referred to police .... so long as the pedophile doesn't inform them of actual assault of children or the plan to assault them. They make it clear to the pedophiles what the law enforcement reporting requirements are ... which is tacitly instructing them ahead of time about what they should keep quiet about in order allow the therapists to maintain their "privacy".
So, for all the parents out there ... rest easy in knowing that the SOB who might be raping your child is being treated with the dignity and respect he deserves from the caring folks in the psychiatric community ... including their commitment to keep their identities private and unreported to law enforcement.
If only we could see a similar concern for the dignity and respect and safety of children .... be meh ... can't have everything.
Good article. Shame it doesn't support your 'argument' at all. In fact, it does the opposite, so I'm not sure why you would even use it.
Perhaps you could read it again without your Church of Scientology filter on?
You asked if my panties were in a bunch - generally only women wear panties - you know that I am a man - a man who wears panties is by defintion a crossdresser.
Defensive much?
LOL
Sometimes you all protest a little too much, ya' know?
Looking for justification, that is clearly an abuse ,on the basis of blame in any direction is proof that it is of the will to do so and not natural humanity.
Blame to justify a charrictoristic that is damaging to society as a whole and promoting baser behavior be it homosexuality or murder which animals also do to one another, there is no legidiment justification.
Both are a negitive effect and should be treated as such, and not nurchered as a goal, which this modern society now seems bent on.
I have listened to these supposed athiestic satan worshipping pagans promoting this life style and pushing it on others , which if it were natural there would be no need to push , now would there ?
And it is not just a push in a neutral position but clearly against God as though in war , and why not considdering the one they serve in secrecy.
Agreed, moral lifestyle is a push, but it is a push in a positive direction bettering mankind in every way, a way taken for granted like a spoiled child accustomed to getting his own way.
So far as mental illness goes , much of it is a choice built into a life style of attention positive or negitive and not by the mentally challanged but by training and cunning. False fears built into real fears , false illnesses built into real illnesses controled by the mind like a switch ,"something is happening I don't like and want to draw attention from it, so a behavior that is reacted, to is borne and cultured into perfection." and it works exactly like a bully taunting another person into a reaction, no different .
How many of you have faked an illness to get out of school, and it worked ?
Being successful with a lie does not justify it , but makes it all the more lethal, both for ones self in the future becomming an unreliable source , and for those that are mistakenly caught up living with them.
Lies themelves are cultured and not positive but negitive in nature,also found in animals too, never the less do you alo support lies as well ???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
