Homosexuals and APA seek to make Pedophilia "normal" - remove from DSM

43 views
Skip to first unread message

KDavis

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 8:53:11 PM6/11/03
to
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 11, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
"paraphilias."

Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the
Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of
the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled
"DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."

People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or
religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill,
they argued.

Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since
the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias
from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose
paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy,
Moser and Kleinplatz stated.

Participants also debated gender-identity disorder, a condition in
which a person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex.
Homosexual activists have long argued that gender identity disorder
should not be assumed to be abnormal.

"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of
homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political
astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the
paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz
wrote.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html

Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
adults.

I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
rights.

-Red Davis

€R.L. Measures

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 8:45:56 AM6/12/03
to
In article <fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>,
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote:

> Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,

> transvestism, voyeurism ...

** does this include Mormon guys who fantacize they are boning 16-yr old
Fannie Alger in the barn whilst they are copulating their old lady.?

--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address

Fool Speck

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 2:35:48 PM6/12/03
to
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...


> Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> adults.
>
> I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> rights.
>
> -Red Davis

It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
cured with psychotherapy.

This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
with in the justice system.

So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?

Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
accusations.


Steve Lowther

Val

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 4:34:55 PM6/12/03
to
> It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.
>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.
>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.
>
>
> Steve Lowther

Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. Make no mistake, that's
the type of path that people are choosing for society when they go along
with pervert agendas. It's interesting to watch the world on the path to
Gomorah. It's extremely sad and unfortunate to watch for those who know
what lies at the end of the path. I once openly questioned how my
society could devolve into open depravity as prophesied in the scripture
(scripture means Bible, not JS copyrighted fiction novels). I just
didn't think it could happen - I could see no path leading to that. What
is interesting is to see the prophesy happen in 3-D like a play with the
world as a stage. It's breathtaking to see it all coming together like
the mechanical operation of a Swiss watch.
Who could have predicted that perverts would form into groups and
gain vast political power? Who could have predicted that society would
eventually mandate that pleasure and gratification are the highest and
most majestic of ideals - that they should overrule all other
considerations. Who could have predicted that the perverts would utterly
confuse the masses with the concept of natural born perversions (God
made me this way, and so I'm proud!). Wow. It's just amazing to see.

Val

KDavis

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 7:27:18 PM6/12/03
to
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...

> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> > DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> > Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> > on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> > adults.
> >
> > I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > rights.
> >
> > -Red Davis
>
> It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.

A couple of counter-points:
1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
"not a disease"?
2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
being utterly ineffective?
3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
normal?
4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?

>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.

What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
-- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
be one of the people responsible for children being raped.

>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?

Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
be held accountable for their behavior. In fact, my observation has
been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.

>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.

Surely we can all tell that you thought your position out well before
you responded. It truly shows. Just click your heels together and
keep denying reality.

-Red Davis

>
>
> Steve Lowther

€R.L. Measures

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 8:16:37 PM6/12/03
to
In article <3EE8E3EF...@zkfs.com>, Val <v...@zkfs.com> wrote:

> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia

** So what's hell's wrong with necrophilia?

>are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will

> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. ...

** Well at least.including barns. According to Book of Mormon witness
Oliver Cowdery, Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior had coitus with Emma Smith's
16-yr old maid, Fannie Alger as Cowdery, Emma, and the prophet's other
secretary, Warren Parrish watched through a crack in the wall of the
Smith's barn. [ref: O. Cowdery letter in Huntington Library and Museum,
San Marino, CA]

John Manning

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 12:03:09 AM6/13/03
to


Can anyone here think of the word 'homophobia' without thinking of Red
Davis?

Classic examples are embodied in his apparent obsession with this topic.

He kind of reminds me of the decorated military officer in the movie
"American Beauty" who obsessively hated 'homos' and was really secretly
gay himself - and killed the guy that knew his secret.

Such is the "Christian" love from Red Davis.

John Manning

€R.L. Measures

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 8:05:58 AM6/13/03
to
In article <3EE94CFD...@terra.com.br>, John Manning
<joh...@terra.com.br> wrote:

** Bingo

Fool Speck

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 12:46:13 PM6/13/03
to
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...

> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
>
> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?

No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.

> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?

The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
about the individual practioners in the organization.

I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
enough.

I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.

The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
affected.

> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?

No.

> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?

You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
[practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?

However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
"curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
of thin air.

There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
"cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
non-existent. Today, they don't even try.

There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
be hetero.

You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that
homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.

My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
90% of the students are LDS.

There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
effeminate. It simply was not who he was.

Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.
He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
identity be changed?

Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
norm for masculine behavior.



> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
>
> What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> be one of the people responsible for children being raped.

First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)

You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.

So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
it.

As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
caught up in the net.

It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
counterweight to the social balance.

The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."

The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
"I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.

> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.

This is patently absurd.

> Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> be held accountable for their behavior.

If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?

An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
actions." (emphasis mine)

> In fact, my observation has
> been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.

Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.


Steve Lowther

Taiki

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 5:35:11 PM6/13/03
to

> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?

Not exactly. The APA is saying that pedophilia is not a disease to itself,
it MAY be a symptom, but it is not a disease unto itself.

> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?

APA hasn't. But the doctors who practice as members of the APA cure mental
illnesses all the time. It's those NARTH people I'm really wondering about.
They make baseless claims, no evidence, or any documentable procedure to
"cure" homosexuality.

> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?

No. Look at addiction. If there is a negative impact to the individual or
others, then we have a problem.

The idea

> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>

Actually, thier website, NARTH, show nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the
NARTH website causes my machine to slow down. I think this is the first
time it's actually reacted in disgust. :)

-taiki


KDavis

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 6:49:33 PM6/14/03
to
Val <v...@zkfs.com> wrote in message news:<3EE8E3EF...@zkfs.com>...

> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere.

Val,
In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) - we
were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.

I kid you not.

You are correct: Homosexuality put our society on the slipper slope
where all deviant behavior will be normalized -- lead by the perverts
who now control the APA.

BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.

-Red Davis

Mike W

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 6:58:48 PM6/14/03
to
> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...

> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis

So that's why there are so many whack-jobs out there. They're all afraid of
psychologists, assuming you reflect the average bloke's experience. I'm not
so sure about that.

Remember the intellectual left and how it fell apart when the Soviet system
crashed? The intellectual right prevailed there. Now the intellectual
right is falling apart thanks to Enron and Worldcom. Things change... don't
give up hope.

Mike


John Lemings

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 7:45:29 PM6/14/03
to
KDavis wrote:

> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis


I'm not calling into question your ab psych professor's desire for blood
with the following; what university did you attend?

KDavis

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 7:53:17 PM6/14/03
to
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > A couple of counter-points:
> > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > "not a disease"?
>
> No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.

Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
must be daft.

As to the question of defect -- are you asserting that thoughts of and
adult having sex with children is *not* a sympton of mental defect?
What next?
Is it not true that those who are engaged in pedophilia can be
described as being obssessed by it? And do not these people become
addicted to pornography, stalking children, seeking to be around them
at all times? Are they not compelled to act on their thoughts? And
are not such obsessions and compulsions text book examples of mental
illnesses?

Yes - they are. *Text book* examples -- save the way the perverts who
lead and make up the psychological community are seeking to rewrite
them for the future.

"The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."

>
> > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > being utterly ineffective?
>
> The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> about the individual practioners in the organization.

Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.


>
> I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
> part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
> either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
> enough.

The answer of how many mental illnesses have been cure is thusly: 0

The answer as to which paradigm in psychology may be effective on
individuals who are mentally ill is: anyone's guess

>
> I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.

Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
today.
Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
with undergraduate degress in silliness.

>
> The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
> abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
> affected.

The field of psychiatry's "successes" come from using chemicals on
mental patients to fry their brains and neuter their thoughts. And
you are correct -- they have not cured anything, though they do use
chemicals to fry the brains of their patients into creamed corn.

>
> > 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> > consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> > singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> > normal?
>
> No.

That is what the APA says. "Abnormal" behavior can only be such if
the thought or behavior causes harmful stress to the subject.

>
> > 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> > Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> > decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> > the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> > root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> > that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
> [practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
> Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
> illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?

The homosexuals tried to have these doctor's licenses pulled two years
ago -- as their practice is considered to be nothing less than hateful
bigotry by the homosexual activists, and the APA leadership agrees.
The APA came within a whisker of pulling their licenses. So, while
these individuals have been successful in their practices -- the APA
has officially turned a blind eye to those facts, and in fact, has
sought every turn to denounce them -- though these are the only
members who can show clinical studies where they have cured their
patients.

>
> However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> of thin air.

Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
find that you don't have a clue.

www.narth.com

>
> There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
> these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
> "cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
> in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
> motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
> non-existent. Today, they don't even try.

The reason they "don't even try" has nothing to do with where science
is in relation to this subject -- it has everything to do with not
having their license pulled by the APA, being the subject of violent
protests by homosexual activists, and being the subject of hate
conduct where activists go after their jobs and families. Just look
what homosexual activists did to Dr. James Dobson (a religion ethics
commentator), or Andy Rooney, or Anita Bryant, or Dr. Laura, or the
APA convention in 1972 where they used violence and terrorism to force
the APA to politcally vote to remove homosexual behavior from DSM II.

>
> There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
> member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
> married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
> does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
> attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
> come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
> to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
> his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
> homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
> well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
> be hetero.

This is where you have your biggest error:

Because you are *tempted* by a sin - does not mean you *are* that sin.
Period.
Chirst was tempted -- was He defined by those temptations -- or by His
resistance to those temptations?

If a person is tempted by thoughts of adultery, are they an adulterer
if they put them out of their mind and don't act upon them?

We, as human beings and children of God, are defined by how we react
to temptation -- not by the temptation itself.

>
> You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
> heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
> addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that

This is where you are wrong - again. Almost every study done on the
behavior of homosexual males has found that homosexual males have sex
with *both* men and women all the time. They *choose* to have sex
with men, they *choose* to have sex with women. Indeed, the Kinsey
Scale of 0-6 was developed to measure what frequence homosexuals have
for sexual intercourse with same or different sex partners -- and they
found that very, very, very few "homosexuals" are a "6" - that is,
they exclusively have sex with other males.

I reject the idea that a person cannot choose when and with whom they
have sex with.

Are you next going to make the argument that adultery is genetic and
immutable? That those who commit adultery can't "come clean"?

You argue nothing less then to state that the atonement of Christ is
void to sin.


> homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
> single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
> claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.

BS. I have posted mountains of evidence to the contrary. Let's start
first with you reading the NARTH website, then you can go back and
read the hundreds of posts where I have posted the clinical studies,
research papers, and scientific findings that *all* have concluded
that homosexuality is not innate nor immutable. Are you really
stating you have never read by debunk posts of LeVay and Hammer, two
homosexual militants who tweaked their data in order to alledge they
had found the link showing homosexuality was immutable -- and were
forced upon peer review to admit that their studies were in error, and
indeed, all evidence to the contrary shows that homosexuality *is*
strongly influenced by environment?

Will you next claim the sky is not blue?

>
> My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
> whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
> 90% of the students are LDS.
>
> There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
> likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
> teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
> mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
> with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
> effeminate. It simply was not who he was.

Effeminate does not equal homosexual. Though, homosexual activists
who are seeking "questioning youth" would love to get their paws on
this kid and screw up his mind. Quantify for us "effeminate". You
can't.

I have found that kids fit into the peer groups that "accept" them -
and they will do all kinds of stupid things -- including sexual
behavior and drug use -- in order to fit in somewhere, with someone.

>
> Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
> Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
> I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
> large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.

Has this kid been molested? You don't know that he hasn't. I have
seen kids question their sexual identity who have been molested, I
have seen kids act out various ways to rebel against their parents, I
have seen kids act out in self-destructive behavior due to mental
illness, and I have seen kids behave the way they were expected to
behave -- be it good, bad, or ugly.


> He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> identity be changed?

How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.

I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.

>
> Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> norm for masculine behavior.

They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
speech defect.

On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)

>
> > > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > > with in the justice system.
> >
> > What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> > said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> > behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> > terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> > illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> > say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> > sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> > most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> > normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> > their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> > intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> > -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> > few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> > be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
>
> First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)
>
> You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that

I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
removed it...."

Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
literally held a bomb at their head.

Here, people with those little letters behind their names agree:

"Cracks in the floodgates have been appearing regarding pedophilia as
well. Emboldened by the APA's acceptance of homosexuality as a valid
lifestyle, advocates of adult-child sex are making cautious forays
into the scholarly literature. Once again, this move is shrewdly
calculated, with the expectation that society in general will follow
the lead of the "high priests" of the scientific community."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm


> is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
> your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
> terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
> seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
> position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
> offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.

Nope. Those are some facts. Though this site is associate with
Regent University's Law Review, it has some great source material for
you that documents the actions of homosexual activists and their
attacks on the APA:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.PDF


>
> So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
> homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
> more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
> People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
> who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
> it.

The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
-- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
that's right -- you do it *all* the time.

>
> As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
> simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
> legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
> behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
> This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
> caught up in the net.

That's probably what Rome and Greece said. They rose to power and
influence, then homosexuality became common place - then pedophilia -
then each society collapsed. Why do you think that collapsed? I
think it was for this simple reason: a society that cannot draw a
distinction between right and wrong and protect its children cannot
sustain order within itself, and collapses under its own wickedness.

>
> It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> counterweight to the social balance.

It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
defend it vigorously.

>
> The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."

Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.

>
> The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.

A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
children".

I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.

I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
on facts accordingly.

However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
conjecture as what it is.

>
> > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
>
> This is patently absurd.

Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
are begging at the local traffic signal.

>
> > Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> > certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> > be held accountable for their behavior.
>
> If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?

Insanity is a condition which implies the inability to know right and
wrong or make legitimate decisions. There are literally millions of
people who are mentally ill -- who are not insane.

>
> An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
> insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
> excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
> criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
> mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
> actions." (emphasis mine)

Go read WestLaw cases. It's not that simple. They do not simply
argue that they were simply mentally ill - but that such mental
illness diminshed their capacity to the point they did not know right
from wrong.

>
> > In fact, my observation has
> > been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> > of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> > changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> > mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> > who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> > chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> > wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
>
> Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
> there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
> wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
> choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
> degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
> spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
> constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
> illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.

There you go again. I am not angry, I do not hate, but I certainly
call homosexuality for what it is: a perversion.

A perversion that is now being used to open the door for the wholesale
rape of our children.

-Red Davis

>
>
> Steve Lowther

Nathan Packer

unread,
Jun 14, 2003, 8:25:19 PM6/14/03
to

My goodness, you mean I missed this from Red. How did Red surmise all
this? But then this is Red.

Red's thinking:

The rumor is that my psychology professor was a lesbian and drank
blood
Psychologists make up the APA
Therefore, the APA is made up of lesbian vampires.

Red claims to have graduated from Texas A&M and says that it is a top
university. Hey with lesbian vampire professors, it sounds like an
interesting skool to attend.

Maybe someone should inform the dean of the school of engineering that
Red is displaying some third rate thinking and is besmearching the
good school's reputation.

KDavis

unread,
Jun 15, 2003, 2:05:34 PM6/15/03
to
John Lemings <lmng...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<3EEBB399...@netscape.net>...

Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
psychology arena.

Some things she took pleasure in forcing us to study: The "Brothers
of Pain" in Houston, Texas who liked to "mummyfy" a member and abuse
them -- said she, such behavior is "normal" as long as all involved
feel good about it. Our text book seconded that notion. "Golden
showers" (urination on others), and how refereshing they can be - and
such is normal as long as all involved feel good about it. I already
told you about rape being normal. She also went into S&M -and how
that is normal. Again - the APA has embraced and is emphasizing the
notion that "normal" is simply defined as to whether or not it makes
you feel good when you engage in such thoughts or behavior.

BTW, she almost always wore all black, and wore this pendant with a
weird symbol on it most of the time. She also got into witchcraft.
Again, this is the rank and file of the APA today.

My experience has been that whenever you find one freak like this --
it took a committee of freaks to hire them, and you have a whole nest
of freaks to contend with. Look at any psychology departemnt on any
campus (even BYUs) and you will find that they are nuts. No wonder
they can't find a cure.


-Red Davis

Taiki

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 2:59:58 AM6/16/03
to

> Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
> university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
> her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
> even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
> psychology arena.
>

Can you provide a name and year in which you attended?

-taiki


Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 9:16:57 AM6/16/03
to
"KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Val <v...@zkfs.com> wrote in message news:<3EE8E3EF...@zkfs.com>...
> > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its snip

> Val,
> In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) -

Gee, Red, they must have changed the Texas A&M psychology courses since you
were there. Now there are no 400 level abnormal psych classes.

we
> were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.

You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no such
stance.


snip

>
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>

What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.


--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell, 1928


Fool Speck

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 2:57:41 PM6/16/03
to
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > > cured with psychotherapy.
> > >
> > > A couple of counter-points:
> > > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > > "not a disease"?
> >
> > No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> > defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
>
> Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
> behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
> should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
> must be daft.

No, you are just not thinking. We are not talking about the entire
scope of normal and acceptable thought or behavior. We are talking
about mental illnesses. Not all abnormal or unacceptable thought or
behavior is caused by mental illnesses. Antisocial behavior has other
causes.

> > > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > > being utterly ineffective?
> >
> > The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> > professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> > about the individual practioners in the organization.
>
> Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
> direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
> define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
> are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.

So what was my assumption? The APA has never attempted to cure any
diseases. It is a professional organization. You said nothing to
contradict in your reply.



> > I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> > back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> > involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> > attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> > mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> > psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
>
> Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
> today.
> Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
> with undergraduate degress in silliness.

Ooops, sorry. I left you an opening for a bit of meanness and of
course you took advantage of it. Sometimes I forget not to tempt your
"predatory" nature.

> > However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> > "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> > of thin air.
>
> Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
> find that you don't have a clue.

A religious, anti-homosexual website with an obvious agenda is the
best you can do?



> > He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> > social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> > very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> > could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> > superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> > in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> > identity be changed?
>
> How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
> Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
> does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.
>
> I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.

Absolutely. The power of the placebo effect should never be
underestimated, nor denegrated. Faith harnessess that very well. But
so do other modalities.

> > Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> > think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> > live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> > norm for masculine behavior.
>
> They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
> hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
> teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
> the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
> the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
> decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
> say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
> difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
> national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
> speech defect.

I am the kid that got beaten up for sticking up for the kid with the
speech impediment. I am a sucker for underdog causes. I guess that
is the liberal bleeding heart in me. Interesting that were
circumstances a little different, that I would have been the one sent
to the office for fighting instead of you.

It is unfortunate that had you lived in another part of the country,
your impediment would have been masked by a regional accent. At least
you would not have been tormented by the bullying.

I respect the fact you have made yourself vulnerable to ridicule here
by revealing that about yourself, so I will not take advantage of it.
However, Red, they are simply nowhere the same.

You are equating your overcoming speech and hearing impediments with
someone who overcame homosexuality. Not being able to distinguish
what other people can and one's feeling of attraction to whichever sex
he is attracted to are apples and orange marmelade.

The very basis of our disagreement is whether or not homosexuality is
innate. You state it is absolutely is not, and I say as far as I can
tell, it probably is, according to the experience that I have had in
talking to people who are homosexual. Of all the homosexuals that I
have talked to, including those who wished they were not, not one of
them has correlated the way you say they feel. I am in the position
of believing the sum total of this experience or you.

It's like deciding who to believe, a paraplegic describing how being
wheel chair bound feels or you.

So who should I believe?

> On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
> heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)

Naw. Particularly since ignorance is not something one unlearns
anymore than one can pour out the empty space in a glass. But I
recognize here that you are being facetious. I appreciate the humor.



> > You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> > a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
>
> I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
> Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
> behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
> removed it...."
>
> Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
> support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
> literally held a bomb at their head.

I think you mean "figuratively", not "literally", unless there was an
actual explosive involved. You do have a propensity, Red, for
hyperbole so what you write is suspect. I would like to see what you
say happened written from a neutral perspective.

> The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
> hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
> bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
> -- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
> the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
> or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
> that's right -- you do it *all* the time.

When the shoe fits, Red. You have displayed an appalling amount of
hatred on ARM. You seem to be the only one not aware of this.

> > It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> > innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> > perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> > counterweight to the social balance.
>
> It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
> defend it vigorously.

Your opinions are consistently knee-jerk group think. You do not
present a blend of independent thought. Whenever a group of people,
be they conservative or liberal, all agree with little variation, you
can bet very few are doing any independent thinking. To paraphrase
Emerson:

Mindless consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds.



> > The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> > antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> > invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> > edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> > me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
>
> Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.

And still you fail to recognize not only your own hyperbole, but my
"I-won't-join-in-your-persecution" stance as being pro-gay. That in
itself speaks volumes.

> > The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> > Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> > people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> > "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> > using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> > are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> > people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
>
> A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
> demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
> children".

Seig Heil!



> I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
> angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.

<sigh> Time to look up "ad hominem", Red.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from
them
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that
happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan

> I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
> hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
> have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
> point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
> on facts accordingly.

Of course, Red.



> However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
> admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
> argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
> conjecture as what it is.

So you go from a smug statement of posting what you "know to be true"
to a blatant misrepresentation, "(you admit having done no research,
and being ignorant on this subject)". This speaks more eloquently to
the truth than all your claims of implied infallibility.

> > > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> > >
> > > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
> >
> > This is patently absurd.
>
> Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
> are begging at the local traffic signal.

You seem to delight shooting yourself in the foot with these inane
statements, Red.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle
is
contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer, British
philosopher

Steve Lowther

"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will
speak."
- Shakespeare

cham

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 8:32:03 PM6/16/03
to
> Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html

A quote apropos of these assertions from the American Psychiatric
Association itself mentioned in the "CNS" piece"

"In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said."

and then this-which makes the news non-news: "Dr. Darrel A. Regier,
director of research for the APA, said there were 'no plans and there
is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias
(n.b. where pedophilia is classed) from their consideration as
legitimate mental disorders.'"

However most of the CNS article is anti-APA filled with thunder and
lightining by Drs. Soccarides, Nicolosi, and A. Dean Byrd, vice
president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
University of Utah, (he condemned the debate).

And that perhaps is what this is all about--

chuck

cham

unread,
Jun 16, 2003, 11:27:23 PM6/16/03
to
> Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
> transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
>
> Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
> "paraphilias."

Part of what isn't included in this quote is about the APA's actual
position on this issue:

"'In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."(http://www.psych.org/public_info/pedfacts2.pdf for the
fact sheet)

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said.'"

and this which sort of puts the rest of the opinions on their head:

"Dr. Darrel A. Regier, director of research for the APA, said there
were "no plans and there is no process set up that would lead to the

removal of the paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate
mental disorders..."


Other experts quoted about the possibility of APA action include
Soccarides,& Nicossi. "A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National


Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a

clinical professor of medicine at the University of Utah, condemned
the debate. Taking the paraphilias out of the DSM without research
would have negative consequences, he said."

So is APA really doing what these folks said they were going to do,
i.e. removing the parphilias.

Not according to APA's director. 'Tis APA's most vocal critics who
made the claim, as near as I can tell. No queers in the closet- in
fact the article from a news service that has gone out of its way to
attack APA that indicates it is the lack of queer voices that makes it
highly unlikely. Chuck

concernedmd

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 1:06:12 PM6/17/03
to
caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message news:<88e74498.0306...@posting.google.com>...


This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
without the consent of the author.

The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
disorder.

The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.

cham

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 10:29:49 PM6/17/03
to
concern...@yahoo.com (concernedmd) wrote in message news:<b1a88caa.03061...@posting.google.com>...

> caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message news:<88e74498.0306...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> > > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > > rights.
> > >
> > > -Red Davis
>
>
> This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
> far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
> did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
> talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
> agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
> panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
> an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
> without the consent of the author.
>
> The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> disorder.
>
> The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
> not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.

thanks for the clarification. The article did include a brief opposing
view (a nod to journalism?) but mostly looked like a non-story. I
didn't realize it was a complete propaganda piece. sorta slow of me
-duh.
Chuck

KDavis

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 11:09:51 PM6/17/03
to
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bckg0a$j0obl$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...

> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Val <v...@zkfs.com> wrote in message news:<3EE8E3EF...@zkfs.com>...
> > > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its snip
>
> > Val,
> > In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) -
>
> Gee, Red, they must have changed the Texas A&M psychology courses since you
> were there. Now there are no 400 level abnormal psych classes.

My mistake, I went back and reviewed my transcript - and it was a 300
level class, Psych 306.

>
>
>
> we
> > were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> > abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
>
> You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no such
> stance.

Really? Well, according to the rest of the world of psychology:

"The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm

You do have access to the DSM IV, yes?

>
>
> snip
>
> >
> > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> >
>
> What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.

I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
But I will desribe her for you:

About medium height, long black hair, about mid-30's, always wore
black clothes, wore glasses - one big nut. As I thought back to those
days -- I remembered these details:

A. She opened the semester with a discussion about the Salem Witch
Trials - go figure.
B. She was *always* late to class
C. She was a strong believer in Freud - again, go figure.

-Red Davis

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 9:21:46 AM6/18/03
to

As a matter of fact, I do. You are not citing the APA above, you are
quoting a right-wing religious interpretation of what the APA says. Why not
go to the source? Perhaps because you will be roundly boxed about the ears.


>
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> > >
> >
> > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
>
> I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.

Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit. Find
me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
again a laughingstock.


snip description of plenty of women walking the streets.

KDavis

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 9:25:31 PM6/18/03
to
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcpp1b$loheh$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
[snip]

> > > > were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> > > > abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
> > >
> > > You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no
> such
> > > stance.
> >
> > Really? Well, according to the rest of the world of psychology:
> >
> > "The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
> > from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
> > perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
> > feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."
> > http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm
> >
> > You do have access to the DSM IV, yes?
>
> As a matter of fact, I do. You are not citing the APA above, you are
> quoting a right-wing religious interpretation of what the APA says. Why not
> go to the source? Perhaps because you will be roundly boxed about the ears.

Well, then get out your gloves, reference the DSM IV - and box my
ears. I did notice you laid claim to having the DSM-IV handy -- yet
not boxin was forth coming. Why? Well, it's because you must have
read it and noted you were wrong.

Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
-- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,

Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
(perhaps even phantom persons you made up).

Do you mind if I school you?

"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
orientation could be placed in this category."
(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html

"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
society."
(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf

So, how many college courses in abnormal psychology do I need to quote
from before you learn? Are you a slow learner and I need to quote
more?

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> >
> > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
>
> Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit. Find
> me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> again a laughingstock.

Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
contact.

BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:

"What I did learn in my psychology classes is that psychology can't
cure
anything. That they diagnose illnesses in fads. One decade multiple
personalities is the fad (though such has been documented almost
exclusively
one one single psychologist), the next decade its ADS. One decade
they use
what is populary called "electric shock treatment", the next decade
they
use reversion therapy.

Another thing that I learned is that psychologists, as a rule (with
some few
exceptions) are pretty *weird* people. I think that it is a classic
case
of the nuts in control of the nut house. My abnormal psycho professor
was
a "vampire". I kid you not. She dressed in all black, dyed her hair
deep
black, went to vampire socials, and particpated in vampire rituals.
The girl
who set in front of me turned to me and my friend and said, "She's a
vampire"
about the second week of class. I said, "Yes, I have heard that she
grades
very, very hard". She said, "No, I mean a real vampire". and
explained about
some things that had went on the previous semester. I am never one
for
spreading rumor, so I raised my hand and asked, "Are you a vampire?
What does
it mean to you, the description "vampire""? (Such would also give the
prof
a chance to end such rumors if they were untrue). She said, "Yes, I
am a
vampire...." and explained some of her beliefs."

Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory -- or I am
telling the truth. :-O

-Red Davis

KDavis

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 9:34:16 PM6/18/03
to
caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message news:<88e74498.03061...@posting.google.com>...

> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> > By Lawrence Morahan
> > CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> > June 11, 2003
> >
> > (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> > decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> > American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> > in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> > upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
>
> A quote apropos of these assertions from the American Psychiatric
> Association itself mentioned in the "CNS" piece"
>
> "In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
> and immoral."
>
> "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
> criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
> socially acceptable behavior," the APA said."

Except for the fact that the APA *is* discussing considering whether
it is a normal behavior. And this is not the first time. In previous
years the APA has dicussed whether or not pedophilia should be
formally recognized as a "sexual orientation" [now think of all those
laws that protect 'sexual orientation' that are on the books], they
have publised the papers by researchers in the Netherlands that found
that kids are not "harmed" by having sex with adults - and even went
further to state that such were positive experiences -- thus the taboo
should be removed.

Here, a review:

Letter by David A Mrazek, MD in response to Bauserman concerning
the Sandfort/Netherland study.

"Bauserman has reviewed my critique of the work of Theo Sandfort as
well as a
critique by Finkelhor and one by Masters and Johnson.
Unfortunately, his review is based more on emotion than reason.
Sandfort's
study is methodologically weak based on inherent sample bias, demand
characteristics of the questions, and unchecked bias of the
interviewers.
While generalizability of these results is acknowledged to be
completely
unwarranted, such generalizations are made despite the author's stated
disclaimer. Sandfort reported that selected young boys did describe
enjoying
sex with adult men, but such an assertion could have been made based
on a
series of self reports. In some ways, this is a good way to describe
this
'study' which is the compilation of solicited testimonials. These
points
were all made succinctly in my original one page review of Sandfort's
book
and remain valid criticisms.

The ethical problems of this study are particularly disturbing.
The basic question is whether appropriate human subject safeguards
were a part
of this research. This question must be addressed concretely in
proposing any
research in the U.S. Research involving children requires particularly
scrupulous attention to human subject concerns.

In this study, the researchers joined with the members of the National
Pedophile Workshops to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners'
of its
members. Both this study and the National Pedophile Workshops were
financially supported by the Netherlands Association for Sexual
Reform. There
is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern.
However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically
motivated to
'reform' legislation. Specific risks that are not even acknowledged in
the
book include contracting sexually transmitted diseases, legal
prosecution,
and breached confidentiality leading to peer discrimination and family
disruptions. These researchers knowingly colluded with the
perpetuation of
secret illegal activity. External review of their activities was
minimal.
Possible negative consequences of their course of action were
minimized
despite the reality that some of these boys were as young as eleven
years of
age. In this majority of cases, these boys' parents were unaware of
these
sexual activities with adult men, and the researchers contributed to
this
deception by their actions. These ethical concerns lead to the crux of
the
matter. Even if this study was methodologically sound, which it
certainly is
not, on moral grounds alone such 'research' cannot be sanctioned.

Children are not developmentally prepared to enter into sexual
relationshpis
on an informed and equal basis with adults. It is a basic
responsibility of
society to protect children and foster their development. These
children were
not adequately protected."

>
> and then this-which makes the news non-news: "Dr. Darrel A. Regier,
> director of research for the APA, said there were 'no plans and there
> is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias
> (n.b. where pedophilia is classed) from their consideration as
> legitimate mental disorders.'"
>
> However most of the CNS article is anti-APA filled with thunder and
> lightining by Drs. Soccarides, Nicolosi, and A. Dean Byrd, vice
> president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of
> Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
> University of Utah, (he condemned the debate).
>
> And that perhaps is what this is all about--

What this is all about is the camel getting its nose under the door to
normalize pedophilia and sex between adults and children.

No legitimate group would even discuss this issue. The APA is
concentrating on this issue.

-Red Davis

KDavis

unread,
Jun 18, 2003, 9:38:17 PM6/18/03
to
concern...@yahoo.com (concernedmd) wrote in message news:<b1a88caa.03061...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]

For Lea Paulson:

>
> The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> disorder.

Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.

Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!

Wake-up, McFly!

Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
bed?

-Red Davis

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 9:08:42 AM6/19/03
to
"KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...

Tell me the page on which the quote appears, Red. I'm not so proud I won't
admit error. I happen to know you lifted the quote from a secondary
religious source. So consider yourself boxed.


>
> Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,

So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.

>
> Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).

Like your phantom engineering accolades?

>
> Do you mind if I school you?

I am reasonably sure you can't teach anyone anything. You are so full of
hate and misinformation to buttress your hate that you have made yourself
and the church for which you are a missionary every day look foolish.

>
> > > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor.
This
> > > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the
APA.

snip


> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> > >
> > > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
> >
> > Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit.
Find
> > me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> > again a laughingstock.
>
> Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
> white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
> them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
> college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
> research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
> contact.

The ones who I found exceptional in some form I do in fact remember. Why
don't you call the department and find out her name?


>
> BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:

So what?


snip

> Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory

-- or I am
> telling the truth. :-O
>
> -Red Davis


Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who makes up
stories to substantiate his position.

--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell, 1928

> >
> >

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 9:09:10 AM6/19/03
to

"KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message
news:<88e74498.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message
news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> > > By Lawrence Morahan
> > > CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> > > June 11, 2003
> > >
>

Oh yes. Christian news. Not too slanted.

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 9:10:00 AM6/19/03
to
"KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> concern...@yahoo.com (concernedmd) wrote in message
news:<b1a88caa.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
>
> For Lea Paulson:
>

That's Lee

> >
> > The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> > diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> > pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > disorder.

>
> Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
> that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.
>
> Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
> retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
> convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!
>
> Wake-up, McFly!
>
> Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
> bed?
>
> -Red Davis
>

Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know it.

dangerous 1

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 12:45:11 PM6/19/03
to

Lee Paulson wrote:

I think one would be on pretty firm ground to NOT believe a single thing Red has
ever claimed about himself, his education, his "daddy" or his standing in the
engineering field. I'm not so sure he is even an adult. He doesn't act like
one.

D1

KDavis

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 8:59:39 PM6/19/03
to
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcsckr$mabo1$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...

Boxed in? I have supplied references from several sources --
including the DSM IV itself, and other Abnormal Psych courses that
teach such.

What part of the reference to the DSM-IV didn't you understand?

>
>
> >
> > Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> > class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> > not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> > individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> > -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> > that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> > the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
>
> So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.

What part of "straight out of the textbook" didn't you understand?

>
> >
> > Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> > official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> > uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> > (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
>
> Like your phantom engineering accolades?

Yes, right, just a figment of my imagination. Given my friends and
family read my posts -- I don't think so.

>
> >
> > Do you mind if I school you?
>
> I am reasonably sure you can't teach anyone anything. You are so full of
> hate and misinformation to buttress your hate that you have made yourself
> and the church for which you are a missionary every day look foolish.

[WARNING: adult content]

Ah, yes, the old and worn out argument that only those who accept as
normal the behavior of a man placing his penis in another man's anus
are caring, loving, and compassionate people. Let's not forge they
also stick their fist up there too.

And not just that, in order to be truly loving and compassionate, a
person must elevate anal intercourse between perverts to be nothing
less then the equal of marriage and family.

But, don't stop there -- we must also be willing to allow these
sexually deviant people to teach our children about their sick
behaviors in the hopes that they can induce "questioning youth" to
experiment with aberrant sexual behavior, to let homosexuals be
Scoutmasters to our young sons and take them on overnight campouts,
and to champion the rights of adult homosexuals to have sex with
children.

Ah, if only Red could be such a loving person and accept homosexual
behavior as normal -- in spite of homosexual behavior's consequences
to the individuals involved and to society as a whole. How hateful
Red must be to remind us that 600,000 Americans have died from
HIV/AIDS who were infected by homosexual behavior. How bigoted Red
must be to remind us that homosexuals founded the North American
Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), that several homosexual/pedophile
groups were members of the International Lesbian and Gay Assocication
(ILGA), and that homosexuals are disproportionately represented within
the known pedophile group by a a number that is 15-20 times greater
than their incidence in the general population.

Can't Red just let 2% of the population completely redefine normalcy,
the family, and acceptable sexual behavior through missinformation,
deceit, and political terrorism? Can't Red see it in his heart to let
the homophiles continue to lie and send out dissinformation that
feigns homosexuals are "born that way", make up "10%" of the
population, and are not any more promiscuious (though a typical
homosexual has over 300 different sexual partners) then others, and
that homosexuals surely are not mentally or emotionally ill (despite
that the overwhelming scientic evidence suggests they are)?

That Red guy, what a homophobic bigot. Can't he see the beauty of
Sodom and Gommarrah? Ancient Rome and Greece? San Francisco's sex
clubs?

Red is one mixed up dude!

:-O

>
> >
> > > > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor.
> This
> > > > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the
> APA.
>
> snip
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > > > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
> > >
> > > Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit.
> Find
> > > me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> > > again a laughingstock.
> >
> > Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
> > white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
> > them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
> > college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
> > research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
> > contact.
>
> The ones who I found exceptional in some form I do in fact remember. Why
> don't you call the department and find out her name?
> >
> > BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
>
> So what?

Well, 4 years ago I posted the same basic decription, the same basic
facts, describing the same psychology class. Consistent testimony is
a sign of truth. Or, do you think that I went back and refreshed
myself up on that previous post before I posted a description of the
class a few weeks ago - just in case it might be helpful?


>
>
> snip
>
> > Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory
>
> -- or I am
> > telling the truth. :-O
> >
> > -Red Davis
>
>
> Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who makes up
> stories to substantiate his position.

Well, given you have not been able to prove anywhere or anything that
I have lied about -- I would say that your judgement above is rather
hateful and bigoted. What would you say?

-Red Davis

KDavis

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 9:09:06 PM6/19/03
to
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcscn9$mlmhm$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...

Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
rape?

Said the *defender* of the APA: "rapists (of adults) are not presumed


to be mentally ill".

Now, what did I explicitly state was taught in my Abnormal Psychology
class, directly from the textbook? That the APA's position is that
"rape" is not an abnormal behavior if the rapist feels good about it!

Now, let me ask you this question: If the definition of "normal" and
"abnormal" is based primarily on how the person engaging in the
behavior views it (i.e., they either feel good about it, or they are
distressed by it) -- please differentiate for us what would be the
difference between a person who rapes an adult - and a person who
rapes a child -- if both rapists feel good about it?

Answer: not one damn thing. And that is exactly why the APA *must*
take the next step and vote that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
The effort to remove pedophilia off the list of disorders dates back
to the mid 1970's. Slowly but surely they are moving in that
direction. They have research (done by homosexuals) that has
determined that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation", they have
research (done by homosexuals) that has reported that children are not
injured by having sex with adults, and now they have research (done by
homosexuals) that pedophilia is not a mental illness.

And the beat of the homosexual drum to rape our children goes on.

-Red Davis

cham

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 1:24:27 AM6/20/03
to
> concern...@yahoo.com (concernedmd) wrote in message news:<b1a88caa.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
>
> For Lea Paulson:
>
> >
> > The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> > diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> > pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > disorder.
>
> Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
> that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.
>
> Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
> retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
> convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!

But Red, your headline on this thread indicates that the APA was
considering removing something different. That, it turns out, is not
true. It's a made up issue, made up by the right wing press. There
isn't a process in place, nor revisions being considered according to
the APA spokesman. The poster concernedMD sounded like an informed,
Edward R. Murrow type of report...It's not clear anyone quoted in the
article (nor the reporter) even attended. except the APA spokesman.

The logic of the CNS article & your comment to Lee Paulson seems to
go something like this-I attend a professional conference and say "I
think we ought to stop publishing research on the QWERTY keyboard,.
I'm on a panel or making a presentation, or maybe just answering a
question, or asserting my opinion from the panel ..that means whatever
group sponsors the conference is "considering" banning such research?

Nope, that's not how organizations work.( I've been involved in a
couple a national orgs. & know something of standards setting ) The
premise of teh article shows an alarmy headline. ( I noticed my
misspellings, but sorta like them)

It looks like someone might have (perhaps in a discussion or question
period? which tends to have people saying all sorts of things-even in
professional meetings) said something about violent sex offenders. But
I wasn't there, so I really don't know.

I'd hate to see some of the things I've said in national and
international panel discussions be considered as policy directons or
actual implementations for the organzations !

There isn't any evidence the spokesperson was lying about the APA
reconsidering parafilia definitions in DSM, just inuenendo and
dissimilation from Nicolosi, Saccarides and the guy from NARTH. thus
the headline and yours.

So the question really is what's the agenda of the article? hmm.
wonder what that could be? Discredit the APA perhaps? I wonder why?

Perhaps because there is no real evidence supporting those outcomes of
reparative therapy which those quoted champion?

Old tactic, paint whomever you consider your enemy with enough garbage
and maybe someone will believe you-I think the previous Bush had
something to do with bringing that tactic to the national stage.
Willie Horton wasn't it?

>
> Wake-up, McFly!

wake up? snore.

>
> Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
> bed?


Regularly-
>
> -Red Davis

Hey Red-you do keep the old pot a' boilin'. How's the weather in Aggie
land? We are having some wierd stuff in the east.

Lest anyone be in doubt, I am homo (not just a homophile) and over
50. Its no secret I disagree strongly with most of your assumptions,
.. I'll try to be logical and cool answering, but I may get into
hyperbole -Ill try not to. And since you've spent so much time on
gathering your ammo, I may be much slower responding. I've read most
of your posts and will respond to some later.

Didn't you once post a lengthy article on all queers die at 40-or was
that 50?-I must be an anomaly -It was evidence derived from examining
obits in the Advocate if I remember correctly. I hope you know what
the problem was methodologically with that?

Do you know the Christian Reconstructionists?

You might want to look at them if you don't; The movement is the
theological godfather for most of the ideological/political/research
groups, think tanks, etc. coming out of the extreme right on all
things they consider unchristian. but democratic it ain't and the
future they are working toward is pretty terrifying (with some
implications for believing LDS-)

cheers
Chuck-formerly of LSU.

Taiki

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 2:16:38 AM6/20/03
to
> Boxed in? I have supplied references from several sources --
> including the DSM IV itself, and other Abnormal Psych courses that
> teach such.
>
> What part of the reference to the DSM-IV didn't you understand?

What refrence? The only refrence here is one made by orthodoxy today, and
orthodoxy today uses a REALLY misleading quote.

"...clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational,
or other important areas of functioning. " Could mean ANYTHING. Either
they're intellectually dishonest, or they made a mistake. Given that I do
not have a copy to review, I can only consider this highly misleading.
Quotes should be able to stand alone. Boxed.

-taiki

cham

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 2:28:31 AM6/20/03
to

Try reading that paragraph again Red:


> > > > Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > > > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > > > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > > > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > > > presumed to be mentally ill.

This was NOT a psychiatrist speaking.

and then this

The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > > > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > > > disorder.

Clear?
you cannot infer from those sentences anything that you did infer.
Neither the newspost you cited at the beginning of this thread nor the
paragaph above supports your position about anything the APA "must"
do. Its fiction. They aren't considering re-defining. they are not
re-writing DSM at the moment. We have that even in the original
post,your post, from the APA spokesperson direct. That's a better
source than what you think or what niccolosi and soccarides opine. you
always consider the source in your posts on mormon history. try it
here.

Many gays are raising children, and would be as angry as you are if
their children were harmed. I would have been ready to kill if that
had happened.
Chuck

> >
> -Red Davis

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 8:37:41 AM6/20/03
to

The page number in the DSM, Red. The direct quote from the APA. Come on,
you're world reknowned. You know what a primary source is.


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> > > class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> > > not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> > > individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> > > -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> > > that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> > > the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
> >
> > So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.
>
> What part of "straight out of the textbook" didn't you understand?

What text, Red? Oh, I know. You can't remember. You had many texts in
college. Hey! Why don't you CALL Texas A&M and ask who taught the course
in 19xx when you were there? Then you'd have the name of the instructor and
you could call and ask for the name of the text.

You do remember how to research a topic, don't you?

Or, if you like, I will be at Texas A&M next month. I could stop in and
ask. Give me the year you took the course, Red.


>
> >
> > >
> > > Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> > > official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> > > uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> > > (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
> >
> > Like your phantom engineering accolades?
>
> Yes, right, just a figment of my imagination. Given my friends and
> family read my posts -- I don't think so.

What are they, Red? Those accolades, not your friends and family.

>
> >
h.
snip Red's strawman

> > >
> > > BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
> >
> > So what?
>
> Well, 4 years ago I posted the same basic decription, the same basic
> facts, describing the same psychology class. Consistent testimony is
> a sign of truth.

OH MY GOSH! Then all the anti-Mormons are speaking the truth! And Darrick
Evenson speaks the truth! And L. Ron Hubbard spoke the truth!


> >
> > Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who
makes up
> > stories to substantiate his position.
>
> Well, given you have not been able to prove anywhere or anything that
> I have lied about -- I would say that your judgement above is rather
> hateful and bigoted. What would you say?
>

You have yet to prove anything you say. You just post your right-wing
public misinformation and refuse to read the actual material or post it.

You are going to be mighty disappointed when your children grow up.
Assuming your children aren't in the same category as your engineernig
accolades, that is.

Lee Paulson

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 8:41:09 AM6/20/03
to

Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.

You're a very, very sick man, Red.

snip weaseling.

KDavis

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 7:16:09 PM6/20/03
to
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...

> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]

> > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> it.
> >
> > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > rape?
> >
>
> Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.

Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
you to argue against?

I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.

The "third person" mentioned above is a person who posted in an
attempt to defend the APA that admitted that this body of lunatics
defines the act of rape as "normal" if the rapist is not distressed by
their behavior.

The APA does not seek to address nor understand what abnormal thoughts
and processes would lead a person to commit such a heinous act of
violence on another person. Instead, they have stated as
psychological fact, that the thought process that lead the person to
commit the rape are normal -- as long as they were happy thoughts.
The fact that the act of rape is a violent act recognized as criminal
behavior has nothing to do with defining thoughts or behavior as
normal -- according to the APA.

Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
not the finding of the doctor.

"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
orientation could be placed in this category."
(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html

"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
society."
(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf

Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
teaches? That these two courses lie?

>
> You're a very, very sick man, Red.

Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
you when the facts are not on your side.

You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
are.

Now, back to the American Pervert Association (APA)'s decision to open
the door to removing pedophilia from their list of disorders. Let's
recount their history:

1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders as
written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of violent
protests by homosexual activists. Not a single study or research
paper was presented in order to suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to
remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.

2. In conjunction with that direction of thought - that homosexual
behavior is not abnormal, they have redefined normal as any behavior
which the person engaging in the behavior feels good about, and does
not present an immediate threat of life or danger to their health (the
health of the individual engaging in the behavior).

3. To embrace their new definition of normal -- they have defined the
act of rape as "normal" if the rapist feels good about it.

Now:

Homosexuals claim they are "born that way" - pedophiles also claim
they are "born that way".

Homosexuals claim their behavior is a "sexual orientation" --
pedophiles also claim their condition is a "sexual orientation".

Homosexuals claim their behavior makes them feel good -- pedophiles
also make the claim.

What is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia with
respect to the APA's definition of "normal"?

Answer: not one damn thing. Thus, they are either going to have to
throw homosexuality back on the DSM-IV as a disorder, or they are
going to have to remove pedophilia. The momentum and the push is to
remove pedophilia.

As I have stated -- they have already accepted and reviewed studies
conducted by homosexuals that asserted that children are not harmed by
sex with adults, that pedophilia is an orientation -- and now -- that
pedophilia should be removed from the list of disorders as it is
nothing more than a twin of homosexuality.


>
> snip weaseling.

Now, respond with some facts, can you?

-Red Davis

Nathan Packer

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:59:54 PM6/20/03
to

You never did take an Abnormal Psychology class. You are just making
this up. Give us the textbook name and ISBN. Tell us the name of the
teacher.

>
>Now, let me ask you this question: If the definition of "normal" and
>"abnormal" is based primarily on how the person engaging in the
>behavior views it (i.e., they either feel good about it, or they are
>distressed by it) -- please differentiate for us what would be the
>difference between a person who rapes an adult - and a person who
>rapes a child -- if both rapists feel good about it?
>
>Answer: not one damn thing. And that is exactly why the APA *must*
>take the next step and vote that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
>The effort to remove pedophilia off the list of disorders dates back
>to the mid 1970's. Slowly but surely they are moving in that
>direction. They have research (done by homosexuals) that has
>determined that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation", they have
>research (done by homosexuals) that has reported that children are not
>injured by having sex with adults, and now they have research (done by
>homosexuals) that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
>
>And the beat of the homosexual drum to rape our children goes on.

The beat of Red's anal drum goes on, and Red is fixated on rape and
anal intercouse, and anal intercourse, and anal intercourse and
"Warning Adult Content" and anal intercourse, and HIV and HIV and
pedophilia, and on and on and on. He is fixated. Anal intercourse
consumes him. Child rape is in his head constantly. He will tell us
how it consumes him. Again, and Again. Anal, Anal, Anal...

Messing with your mind Red. Another large company just awarded
benefits to a domestic partner. Ahhhhhh. The voices, the pain. Now,
tell us again....

Nathan Packer

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 11:36:26 PM6/20/03
to
On 20 Jun 2003 16:16:09 -0700, kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote:

>"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
>> it.
>> >
>> > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
>> > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
>> > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
>> > rape?
>> >
>>
>> Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
>> have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
>
>Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
>you to argue against?

Your drivel is so easy to cut. If we missed anything (missed
anything?) we could always pick up your tirade in another post.


>
>I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
>this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
>remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.

And you can state in again and again - anally intercoursed, of course
>
[snip, snip, snip]


>
>Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
>other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
>APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
>not the finding of the doctor.

Neither of your quoted material says that normal is defined by the
perception of the patient. Red you liar.

>
>"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
>constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
>appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
>person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
>orientation could be placed in this category."
>(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
>http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html

If you are going to quote, you really should do it properly. I would
think that a mighty engineer could quote without using ellipsis to
change the meaning and intent of the lecture notes
I thought you took the abnormal psych course at that august
institution in Texas. But, you really didn't take a course did you.

>
>"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
>sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
>functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
>pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
>an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
>event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
>society."
>(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
>http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
>

OK little man. Just how does this quote get you worked up?


>Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
>teaches? That these two courses lie?

Why no Red. We don't know from lying textbook or what the APA teaches.
All we know for absolute surety is that YOU lie.


>
>>
>> You're a very, very sick man, Red.
>
>Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
>know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
>you when the facts are not on your side.

There you go again. Nobody has to pound the table to work themselves
up to show you to be a liar. See I called you a prevaricator and never
once pounded on the table. It is just to easy.


>
>You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
>speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
>are.


[snip] I snipped the remainder of your rant, Red. I saw no need to
retain this drivel when almost every post or yours has the same.

cham

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 1:02:23 PM6/21/03
to
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>...

> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> it.
> > >
> > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > rape?
NON-APA member cited.

> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.

"logic" cut-creating a strawman and attacking it..

> Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> you to argue against?
>>
> >

> > snip weaseling.
>
> Now, respond with some facts, can you?

Red asks for facts. How about one of the poster boys of the extreme
religious right on the solution to the homosexual problem, Paul
Cameron (you all remember his "studies" ?

"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of
homosexuals."
Dr. Paul Cameron, a "scientist" often quoted by religious right groups
(see below),speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action
Conference according to an interview with former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop. (in about as many places on the web as some of the
anti-gay stuff)--must be true huh?? I've yet to figure out where this
was actually written down, I haven't been able to find the Koop
interview. If anyone has a solid source, I'd like to see it-- but,
like I said, must be true--its all over the web.

So what's the agenda in extreme right circles and the endless attempt
to take what people didn't say and create a straw-man position to
attack, as the original "news" report did on this thread? (sort of
like the debating stance taken above)...the post on what the APA might
be -surely IS up to, is typical of right wing logic ala Cameron. Take
this example :

"It was on May 3, 1982, that he (Paul Cameron) really hit stride,
telling an audience at the University of Nebraska Lutheran Chapel:
"Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a four-year-old boy who has had
his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway [mall] in a
restroom with a homosexual act."

Cameron's statement prompted an uproar in the city; police, however,
had no record of such an incident. Cameron finally acknowledged that
it was only a rumor, but he argued it "could have happened." The
Lincoln Star blasted Cameron as irresponsible but noted that the
damage to the gay-rights movement was done, saying, "The seed is
planted, recantation to the contrary."
http://www.10percent.org/facts_cameron_smile1.html-apparently
originally published in the NY times (has NY Times copyright on the
posted article) If someone really really wants, they can check NYTIMES
site search engine for date of original.

the original source of many of the inflamatory claims about gays
seems to be this same Paul Cameron (he is dead, but his son carries on
the good work)
Cameron claimed variously:
Out of all the mass-murders in the US over the past seventeen years,
homosexuals killed at least 68% of the victims.
Homosexuals perpetrate between a third and a half of all recorded
child molestations.
37% of homosexuals engage in sado-masochism.
29% of homosexuals urinate on their partners.
17% ingest human feces.
The average life span of a homosexual is 39 years; fewer than 2%
survive to the age of 65.

the source of this list is a queer web source
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html
but you've all seen most of these claims here on ARM. I could cite
similar posts here-though they don't always trace the source.

Cameron was one of the founders of the FRI so called Family Research
Insitute, which is still alive, promoting hatred and rage. This stuff
has been discredited repeatedly. (and answered repeatedly on ARM)

for real help in addressing the problem of child molestation, one of
the books often recommended is "Identifying Child Molesters:
Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by Recognizing the Patterns of the
Offenders"by Carla van Dam, PhD Clinical and Forensic Psychologist,
State of Washington. Oprah Winfrey has recommended it. Its published
by Haworth press.

"The first book of its kind, this book PROVIDES READERS WITH A
DETAILED UNDERSTANDING of the history and impact of child sexual
abuse. . . . Dr. van Dam provides a glimpse into our failure to
confront child abuse in an effective manner and does an excellent job
of helping lay people understand the 組rooming' tactics that offenders
use on children and adults. . . . OFFERS PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO
IDENTIFY AND CONFRONT CHILD MOLESTERS." The Oprah Show Web Site
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020426_g.jhtml

Exceprts from the first 20 pages or so are available at:
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/2082.pdf


Chuck
Lest we forget:

"Of course, not all homosexuals are pedophiles,indeed the majority are
not."
Red Davis

From: smar...@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: There is life on the Red Planet
Date: 1999/04/12
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7es696%242ae%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

> -Red Davis

Bob

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 11:32:29 PM6/21/03
to
In article <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> > it.
> > >
> > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > rape?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
>

Gosh Kevin, I come back and find you up to old tricks again.

> Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> you to argue against?

My,.. pot kettle black. Your messages have been masterpieces of
'selective response' for years.


>
> I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
> this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
> remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.

And you have provided no proof that this is indeed the case. In fact,
all evidence indicates they are doing no such thing.


>
> The "third person" mentioned above is a person who posted in an
> attempt to defend the APA that admitted that this body of lunatics
> defines the act of rape as "normal" if the rapist is not distressed by
> their behavior.

"normal"? You mean not a psychological pathology?

Real slow Kevin, criminal activity can exist without there necessarily
being psychological pathology associated with it. It actually seems
odd to me that you are supporting such a contention, what with your
history.


>
> The APA does not seek to address nor understand what abnormal thoughts
> and processes would lead a person to commit such a heinous act of
> violence on another person. Instead, they have stated as
> psychological fact, that the thought process that lead the person to
> commit the rape are normal -- as long as they were happy thoughts.

Show of hands here that think this is about 20 rounds of 'telegraph'
way from what the APA really does contend?

> The fact that the act of rape is a violent act recognized as criminal
> behavior has nothing to do with defining thoughts or behavior as
> normal -- according to the APA.

You state the obvious Kevin. You again seem to be saying that criminal
activity MUST be the result of psychological pathology. Is this really
what you think? You really can't think of a situation where someone
without psychological pathology could commit a nonconsenual sex act
with someone else?

Again, the notion that all criminal activity is based on 'illness'
seems to be 180 degrees away from the POV I'd have thought you'd
support.


>
> Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
> other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
> APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
> not the finding of the doctor.
>
> "It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
> constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
> appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
> person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
> orientation could be placed in this category."
> (Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
> http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html
>
> "DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
> sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
> functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
> pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
> an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
> event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
> society."
> (Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
> http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
>
> Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
> teaches? That these two courses lie?

No it just seems that you are still confusing lack of mental disorder
with 'legal', ethical' and 'moral'. All areas that the psychological
sciences don't deal with.

> > You're a very, very sick man, Red.
>
> Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
> know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
> you when the facts are not on your side.

Oh Kevin, you personally attack so many people it is again difficult to
understand your complaints when its turned around. And in this
situation YOU are the liberal - at least in your seeming support for
the idea that all criminal activity is the result of psychological
pathology.


>
> You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
> speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
> are.

<yawn> so you are all equally intolerant. Level playing field, next...


>
> Now, back to the American Pervert

Gosh, really working at having an adult conversation here, aren't you
Kevin?

> Association (APA)'s decision to open
> the door to removing pedophilia from their list of disorders. Let's
> recount their history:
>
> 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders as
> written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of violent
> protests by homosexual activists.

Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.

> Not a single study or research
> paper was presented in order to suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to
> remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.

Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that? Typical
misdirection on your part. There were though many studies that showed
that there was no intrinsic mental pathology associated with
homosexuality. You aren't trying imply this body was unaware of these
studies, are you?

> 2. In conjunction with that direction of thought

i.e., as I now try and lead you down the primrose path....

> - that homosexual
> behavior is not abnormal, they have redefined normal as any behavior
> which the person engaging in the behavior feels good about, and does
> not present an immediate threat of life or danger to their health (the
> health of the individual engaging in the behavior).

Ergo, to whit, end of proof. Of course your interpretation of what is
happening has no correlation with reality, but that's never stopped you
in the past, has it?

> 3. To embrace their new definition of normal -- they have defined the
> act of rape as "normal" if the rapist feels good about it.
>
> Now:
>
> Homosexuals claim they are "born that way" - pedophiles also claim
> they are "born that way".
>
> Homosexuals claim their behavior is a "sexual orientation" --
> pedophiles also claim their condition is a "sexual orientation".
>
> Homosexuals claim their behavior makes them feel good -- pedophiles
> also make the claim.
>
> What is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia with
> respect to the APA's definition of "normal"?

You realize you could substitute the word 'heterosexual' for
'homosexual' and be asking the very same question, yes?

Kevin, how can you not recognize your statements as transparent
demagoguery?

>
> Answer: not one damn thing. Thus, they are either going to have to
> throw homosexuality back on the DSM-IV as a disorder, or they are
> going to have to remove pedophilia. The momentum and the push is to
> remove pedophilia.


>
> As I have stated -- they have already accepted and reviewed studies
> conducted by homosexuals that asserted that children are not harmed by
> sex with adults

Yes, you are sure all sex researchers are homosexual. We all know that
<sigh>

Of course you misrepresent what the studies did find - that not ALL
children are psychologically harmed by sex with adults. i.e. is every
child who has sex with an adult been traumatized and damaged by this
contact? All the study found was that not all were, that's it.

This is hardly a shock - not all victims of other criminal acts are
psychologically harmed either. That doesn't make the criminal act any
more ethical, or moral, or legal. But it does mean that psychological
workers evaluating the victims of such activities need to determine
both qualitatively and quantitatively the extent of the injury.

> , that pedophilia is an orientation -- and now -- that
> pedophilia should be removed from the list of disorders as it is
> nothing more than a twin of homosexuality.

And heterosexuality. Or just about any other activity you would care
to mention. Your primrose path is way too wide Kevin, it could be used
to make ANYTHING a 'slippery slope' to embracing pedophilia.

That you chooses to only paint homosexuality with this broadbrush is
more telling about your 'mental order' than anything else. As usual.
I guess in this particular instance its NOT nice to know that
somethings never change.

€R.L. Measures

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 8:41:32 AM6/22/03
to
In article <bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>, <no....@4me.com wrote:

> In article <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > [snip]
> > > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and
you know
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > > rape?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
> >
>
> Gosh Kevin, I come back and find you up to old tricks again.
>
> > Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> > you to argue against?
>
> My,.. pot kettle black. Your messages have been masterpieces of
> 'selective response' for years.
>

€ for Red, this is SOP.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address

KDavis

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 4:21:06 PM6/29/03