Pedophila is now considered a disability in Greece.

[JemyM]

I don't see how "the amount of studying" has anything to do with your capacity for critical thinking - and your ability to reflect upon something without a personal bias.

It's called hermeneutics. Studying is a form of optimized accumulation of experience. Experience gives more to compare something with. More to compare with improves your interpretion. Thus studying something will improve your chance to refute something within your field.

The rest of your post is mere philosophy.

 

[ToddMcF2002]

Jesus H Christ this is why we still need republicans. I cannot believe this thread and its ghastly rancid liberal enablement. Here I've got a therapy program for you, paid by the government. It involves a wall, a pack of cigs and a few volunteers.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you honestly believe you can be medicated out of having the urge to react in such a scenario?

Are we talking about lobotomizing drugs or something?

Pretty much. My meds slow my thinking down. Also as a side effect it numbs me, either that or its me.

 

[Thaurin]

Myth doesn't mean untrue. Myths are narratives which tells us something about reality without necessary being true themselves.

Not in this case, though.

More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

More on the Wikipedia page, including references.

 

[JemyM]

Now it's not untrue "just" because it's a myth?

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.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's called hermeneutics. Studying is a form of optimized accumulation of experience. Experience gives more to compare something with. More to compare with improves your interpretion. Thus studying something will improve your chance to refute something within your field.

The rest of your post is mere philosophy.

You can refute until you're blue in the face. But accumulating information and pretending it's actual knowledge is not the same as wanting to understand reality - and refuting something in that fantasy realm is pretty useless.

 

[DArtagnan]

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. Arguing about it 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.

You clearly said it was well known, and now you can't admit you were wrong.

It's important to me to point out to you why people aren't taking you seriously.

This is because I like you - based on your intentions, and if you learn honesty - you'll be able to contribute a lot more.

 

[DArtagnan]

Pretty much. My meds slow my thinking down. Also as a side effect it numbs me, either that or its me.

Again, why are you taking medication when you said we don't have to act on our urges?

Your suggestion is, then, to medicate people until they're numb - and "solving" the sexual urges problem that way?

 

[dteowner]

Studying is a form of optimized accumulation of the experience of others as viewed thru the prism of the author (generally not the same person that has the experience), and while valuable is certainly not as valuable as actually doing and having the experience first-hand.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[rossrjensen]

The truth of the reference is unrelated to the point and the topic. Arguing about it 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.

But your point is based on a false premise. I think if you insist on going in that direction you either need to just state your idea outright (and abandon your example) or find another example to help you explain it.

 

[JemyM]

More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

More on the Wikipedia page, including references.

I know that. There are much better articles that explains this in detail than wikipedia. That doesn't change my original point; not understanding how a tool is supposed to be used may lead someone to use it wrong and such misuse doesn't change the quality of the tool itself.

 

[JemyM]

You can refute until you're blue in the face. But accumulating information and pretending it's actual knowledge is not the same as wanting to understand reality - and refuting something in that fantasy realm is pretty useless.

You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[JemyM]

You clearly said it was well known, and now you can't admit you were wrong.

It is well known and it's still true.

It's important to me to point out to you why people aren't taking you seriously. This is because I like you - based on your intentions, and if you learn honesty - you'll be able to contribute a lot more.

My explanations aren't wrong, just your interpretions. This is because you haven't spent much time on hermeneutics.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Again, why are you taking medication when you said we don't have to act on our urges?

Your suggestion is, then, to medicate people until they're numb - and "solving" the sexual urges problem that way?

Because of the visions and noises? I am saying in the future we could medicate in such a way we could stop those urges without making someone numb.

 

[JemyM]

I'm not really meaning to step into the fray, but I just thought I could help with the clarity as you continue your debate. Lord of the Rings and V for Vendetta hardly qualify as myths in the sense you mean them to (definition #1 or 2 of what follows).

Dictionary.com defines myth as:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

It seems to me that Thaurin was going for definitions 3-5 when he made his statement about bumblebees - invented, fictitious, false collective belief.

And as wikipedia say; Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.

I use a definition common in fields such as anthropology and history of ideas.

Mythology is a sacred or popular narrative that tells and teaches something through a story. The purpose of the myth is that it's easier to learn and retell than mere facts and it can be used within a culture to discuss concepts and ideas with the help of accessible symbols and references.

Lord of the Flies melds many philosophical questions about the birth of a civilization into an easily digestible narrative. Books and movies play an important narrative in the modern world, thus we see as many references to 1984 (which is fiction) as we do to real world nazism and expressions such as "with great power comes great responsibility" are weaved into the ongoing and everchanging culture.

The question about these narratives thus aren't if the events portrayed by the story actually happened, but whether or not they are true in the sense that they contain a valid idea for the consumer of the tale.

Many of these tales grown out from culture over time. The Jesus myth-hypothesis is a hypothesis that the tale about Jesus is a narrative that have grown over generations within a culture. It's not to be seen as a historical event, doing so might even make us miss it's points.

If it's even relevant, the only question is whether or not the Bumblebee "myth" is an example of how to not judge DSM-IV or not.

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

The Labor Ministry said categories added to the expanded list , that also includes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists , were included for purposes of medical assessment and used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance.

Hey, what about sex addicts? Trips to the strip club could use some subsidizing!

 

[Drithius]

And here I thought Greece was broke. What's it doing expanding its entitlements program to more refuse of society?

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

It's probably cheaper than keeping them in prison.

 

[Myrthos]

It was ruled that homosexuality isn't a disorder. That doesn't make the symptoms of homosexuality go away. It was ruled that asperger syndrome is a form of autism. That doesn't change how AS functions.

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. 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……

Based on your criticism, pedophilia doesn't exist. DSM is built on symptoms. Symptoms are observations. As tools are getting better, the accuracy and reliability of such observations improve, thus we sometimes have to reorganize our findings.

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.

 

[Tanno]

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!