Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Apology for gay therapy
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Lance
May 21, 2012, 10:08:27 AM5/21/12
to
Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy
May 19th, 2012 in Psychology & Psychiatry
(AP) -- A prominent retired psychiatrist is apologizing to the gay
community for a decade-old study that concluded some gay people can go
straight through what's called reparative therapy.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, formerly of Columbia University, now says he no
longer believes his work showed that.
For the study, Spitzer had interviewed 200 people who'd claimed some
degree of change. The "fatal flaw" is that there is no way to judge
the credibility of their accounts, Spitzer says in a letter he
submitted last month to a journal that published his work in 2003.
The work made headlines when he presented it at a 2001 meeting of the
American Psychiatric Association. One reason for the attention was
that Spitzer had played a leading role 30 years before in removing
homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the association's
diagnostic manual.
Spitzer's study was attacked by critics who questioned the reliability
of the accounts from the people he interviewed. At the time, Spitzer
acknowledged that he had no proof their stories were accurate, but
said several aspects of their accounts suggested their statements
could not be dismissed out of hand.
Now he says his reasoning was wrong, and that "there was no way to
determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid," he wrote in
a letter to the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer,
who lives in Princeton, N.J., sent a copy to The Associated Press
after a reporter interviewed him about his change of heart.
"I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making
unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy," Spitzer wrote.
"I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy
undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that
I had proven that reparative therapy works with some `highly
motivated' individuals."
©2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
"Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy." May 19th, 2012.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-gay-therapy.html
May 19th, 2012 in Psychology & Psychiatry
(AP) -- A prominent retired psychiatrist is apologizing to the gay
community for a decade-old study that concluded some gay people can go
straight through what's called reparative therapy.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, formerly of Columbia University, now says he no
longer believes his work showed that.
For the study, Spitzer had interviewed 200 people who'd claimed some
degree of change. The "fatal flaw" is that there is no way to judge
the credibility of their accounts, Spitzer says in a letter he
submitted last month to a journal that published his work in 2003.
The work made headlines when he presented it at a 2001 meeting of the
American Psychiatric Association. One reason for the attention was
that Spitzer had played a leading role 30 years before in removing
homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the association's
diagnostic manual.
Spitzer's study was attacked by critics who questioned the reliability
of the accounts from the people he interviewed. At the time, Spitzer
acknowledged that he had no proof their stories were accurate, but
said several aspects of their accounts suggested their statements
could not be dismissed out of hand.
Now he says his reasoning was wrong, and that "there was no way to
determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid," he wrote in
a letter to the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer,
who lives in Princeton, N.J., sent a copy to The Associated Press
after a reporter interviewed him about his change of heart.
"I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making
unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy," Spitzer wrote.
"I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy
undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that
I had proven that reparative therapy works with some `highly
motivated' individuals."
©2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
"Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy." May 19th, 2012.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-gay-therapy.html
M Winther
May 21, 2012, 11:53:37 AM5/21/12
to
Luckily he didn't apologize for all the other research that has been
done on conversion therapy of young homosexuals. Nicolosi, Byrd &
Potts, 'Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual
Orientation' (1997) presents a research with 882 patients. The
conversion success was 33%. Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in
Perspective (1979), accounts for a research (with follow-up) in which
67 persons partook. The success rate was at least 43.2%. Irving
Bieber et al., Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male
homosexuals (1962), accounts for a success rate of 27% to exclusive
heterosexuality, verified in a follow-up study several years later.
106 homosexuals/bisexuals took part. There are other results that
point in the same direction.
M. Winther
"Lance" <lanc...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:e33ee44d-9da1-485f...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
done on conversion therapy of young homosexuals. Nicolosi, Byrd &
Potts, 'Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual
Orientation' (1997) presents a research with 882 patients. The
conversion success was 33%. Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in
Perspective (1979), accounts for a research (with follow-up) in which
67 persons partook. The success rate was at least 43.2%. Irving
Bieber et al., Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male
homosexuals (1962), accounts for a success rate of 27% to exclusive
heterosexuality, verified in a follow-up study several years later.
106 homosexuals/bisexuals took part. There are other results that
point in the same direction.
M. Winther
"Lance" <lanc...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:e33ee44d-9da1-485f...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Lance
May 21, 2012, 7:40:49 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 5:53 pm, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> Luckily he didn't apologize for all the other research that has been
> done on conversion therapy of young homosexuals. Nicolosi, Byrd &
> Potts, 'Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual
> Orientation' (1997) presents a research with 882 patients. The
> conversion success was 33%. Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in
> Perspective (1979), accounts for a research (with follow-up) in which
> 67 persons partook. The success rate was at least 43.2%. Irving
> Bieber et al., Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male
> homosexuals (1962), accounts for a success rate of 27% to exclusive
> heterosexuality, verified in a follow-up study several years later.
> 106 homosexuals/bisexuals took part. There are other results that
> point in the same direction.
>
> M. Winther
>
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:e33ee44d-9da1-485f...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> Luckily he didn't apologize for all the other research that has been
> done on conversion therapy of young homosexuals. Nicolosi, Byrd &
> Potts, 'Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual
> Orientation' (1997) presents a research with 882 patients. The
> conversion success was 33%. Masters & Johnson, Homosexuality in
> Perspective (1979), accounts for a research (with follow-up) in which
> 67 persons partook. The success rate was at least 43.2%. Irving
> Bieber et al., Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male
> homosexuals (1962), accounts for a success rate of 27% to exclusive
> heterosexuality, verified in a follow-up study several years later.
> 106 homosexuals/bisexuals took part. There are other results that
> point in the same direction.
>
> M. Winther
>
Desire is not a stable thing at the best of times. In a testing and
anxious situation such as reparative therapy desire is likely to
fade.
Homosexuality is most likely an end point on a continuum. If you start
your reparative therapy on someone who is relatively close to the
heterosexual end of the continuum then it is not hard to see that that
person could function as a heterosexual. But that doesn't mean you
could similarly succeed with someone at the extreme end of the
continuum.
Further more desire is hard to observe directly so you more or less
have to rely on what the participants in your therapy tell you. And
these participants can lie to you or deceive themselves, making their
self-reports unreliable evidence.
My memory is that meta-analysis of reparative therapy studies suggests
that there is almost no success if the follow up studies extend over
more than three years.
There is also evidence that those who take part in reparative therapy
and don't change may commit suicide or otherwise harm themselves
making the entire genre of therapy rather unethical.
In studies of weight loss the researchers have sometimes switched
around the target of the study, and tried to see if they could get
naturally very thin people to put on weight (it turns out that it is
just as hard for a narurally thin person to put on weight as for a fat
person to lose weight). One could ask, if reparative therapy really
works, then it should be possible to find some heterosexual volunteers
who would like to be gay for a period and who could be successfully
converted using the same techniques. as far as I know, there is no
such evidence. If you find this suggestion terrible then one needs to
ask if you are not yourself subject to wishful thinking in that you
think homosexuality immoral and that moralising is the basis for your
beliefs rather than any scientific evidence.
Finally, homosexuality has been widely documented amongst other
mammals. I believe it can be very problematic amongst sheep (as a
former participant in this group, Peter Ashby documented). If sexual
orientation is the result of human choices then why does it occur in
other mammals?
Lance
Dave Smith
May 21, 2012, 8:40:09 PM5/21/12
to
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
M Winther
May 22, 2012, 12:15:26 AM5/22/12
to
"Lance" <lanc...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:0ea50d5e-0eb6-40f4...@v10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> not
>> be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
>>
>> "Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy." May 19th,
>> 2012.http:>medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-gay-therapy.html
>> be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
>>
>> "Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy." May 19th,
*exclusively* homosexual. Their conversion was verified in a follow-up
study several years later. After Bieber's study, figures steadily
improved. Mayerson & Lief (Psychoterapy of Homosexuals. In Marmor, J.
(ed.), Sexual Inversion, p.302 (1965)) account for a study in which 19
*exclusive* homosexuals were converted to exclusive heterosexuality.
In a follow-up approximately 4.5 years later, 22% remained in an
heterosexual relationship.
How do you explain such things? Are these results fabricated? How come
people just throw scientific results out of the window, these days? Is
it simply because the results are inopportune? Are we just now
experiencing an overthrow of the scientific paradigm?
Homosexual intercourse is extremely uncommon among mammals. Sexual
penetration does not occur. I haven't heard of a single case. The
bonobos are supposed to represent homosexual behaviour, but they are
really "shaking hands" (like Dustin Hoffman in the The Graduate
(1967)). Dogs can do the same when they are elated and want to
exprtess their primitive sense of love. They can start to "copulate"
the human baby, to the owner's embarrassment. But this does not
represent homosexuality, even though they belong to the same sex. No
penetration occurs, and the dog isn't really sexually excited. It's
just that the feelings are related and thus the sexual behaviour is
triggered. Animals cannot express themselves as easily as us, so they
resort to whatever primitive way of expression they have.
Bonobos are always very worried that should become outcasts. They are
very cruel animals that resort to mobbing. They throw feces at
specatators and keepers at zoo, so they cannot keep them at zoo. They
are obscene and extremely nasty. That's why every bonobo always runs
around psedo-copulating with everybody else, to remain on friendly
terms with them. Buit this is like shaking hands. They are extremely
afraid that they should become victims of mobbing and expatriated,
which is an important motif also in human coteries.
Mats Winther
Garret K
May 22, 2012, 1:55:42 AM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 11:15 pm, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0ea50d5e-0eb6-40f4...@v10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
In the old days, gay men often married women to conceal their
orientation, or at least demonstrate that were trying to play by the
traditional "rules" to escape imprisonment or persecution (an
unmarried or childless man is still automatically regarded as
homosexual in Mexico, barring legitimate religious celibacy). This
degree of self-discipline demonstrated by gay males in the past could
be what many contemporary conversions are dependent upon. The less
self-disciplined and non-theist individuals, of course, lack the
incentive to develop this pseudo-hetero trait in the current climate
of tolerance and activist ideology, and thereby are more apt to go
bonkers under Mormon re-programming attempts.
Plus, it would be a ludicrous escape from contingent reality into
total a priori dogma to assert that all homosexuals (100%) are born
that way yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Who knows what the actual
percentage of the "acquired preference" members is or how it could
even be diagnosed reliably, but that would be the other faction that
might be amenable to conversion attempts. A drug addict endures hell
and destruction of his/her life for the sake of an acquired craving,
so the pre-packaged mantra of "Why would I endure this for any other
reason than that I was born this way?", as if there are no other
examples of people wallowing in a chosen combo of misery/pleasure, is
often just agenda BS. "Born that way" is likely applicable to most
homosexuals, but not all.
> Homosexual intercourse is extremely uncommon among mammals. Sexual
> penetration does not occur. I haven't heard of a single case. The
> bonobos are supposed to represent homosexual behaviour, but they are
> really "shaking hands" (like Dustin Hoffman in the The Graduate
> (1967)). Dogs can do the same when they are elated and want to
> exprtess their primitive sense of love. They can start to "copulate"
> the human baby, to the owner's embarrassment. But this does not
> represent homosexuality, even though they belong to the same sex. No
> penetration occurs, and the dog isn't really sexually excited. It's
> just that the feelings are related and thus the sexual behaviour is
> triggered. Animals cannot express themselves as easily as us, so they
> resort to whatever primitive way of expression they have.
>
> Bonobos are always very worried that should become outcasts. They are
> very cruel animals that resort to mobbing. They throw feces at
> specatators and keepers at zoo, so they cannot keep them at zoo. They
> are obscene and extremely nasty. That's why every bonobo always runs
> around psedo-copulating with everybody else, to remain on friendly
> terms with them. Buit this is like shaking hands. They are extremely
> afraid that they should become victims of mobbing and expatriated,
> which is an important motif also in human coteries.
>
> Mats Winther
Animals are cruel to each other and engage in various behaviors that
civilized humans have distanced themselves from, at least formally. So
evidence of homosexuality in animals (it's natural) doesn't amount to
squat, anyway, in the end. We don't accept everything "that's
natural", since much of it is pretty barbaric. Defenders are better-
off sticking to stuff like:
"But they're a nice couple, the ones that live by me. I don't notice
any bizarre behavior, make-up, or apparel. I don't see them
participating in an open relationship with 500 different sex partners
a year, or performing oral-sex in the front yard or mooning the
passing street traffic, or having blindfolded AIDS parties to see who
the lucky chap will be this time, etc. There's a heterosexual goth
couple down the block that I'm more apt to see such from. Besides, I
think those kinds of rare things, when they occur, have more to do
with them being males rather than their homosexuality. Straight men
would be more uninhibited and crazy-acting too if they didn't have
women keeping them in line. Blah, blah, blah...."
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0ea50d5e-0eb6-40f4...@v10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
orientation, or at least demonstrate that were trying to play by the
traditional "rules" to escape imprisonment or persecution (an
unmarried or childless man is still automatically regarded as
homosexual in Mexico, barring legitimate religious celibacy). This
degree of self-discipline demonstrated by gay males in the past could
be what many contemporary conversions are dependent upon. The less
self-disciplined and non-theist individuals, of course, lack the
incentive to develop this pseudo-hetero trait in the current climate
of tolerance and activist ideology, and thereby are more apt to go
bonkers under Mormon re-programming attempts.
Plus, it would be a ludicrous escape from contingent reality into
total a priori dogma to assert that all homosexuals (100%) are born
that way yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Who knows what the actual
percentage of the "acquired preference" members is or how it could
even be diagnosed reliably, but that would be the other faction that
might be amenable to conversion attempts. A drug addict endures hell
and destruction of his/her life for the sake of an acquired craving,
so the pre-packaged mantra of "Why would I endure this for any other
reason than that I was born this way?", as if there are no other
examples of people wallowing in a chosen combo of misery/pleasure, is
often just agenda BS. "Born that way" is likely applicable to most
homosexuals, but not all.
> Homosexual intercourse is extremely uncommon among mammals. Sexual
> penetration does not occur. I haven't heard of a single case. The
> bonobos are supposed to represent homosexual behaviour, but they are
> really "shaking hands" (like Dustin Hoffman in the The Graduate
> (1967)). Dogs can do the same when they are elated and want to
> exprtess their primitive sense of love. They can start to "copulate"
> the human baby, to the owner's embarrassment. But this does not
> represent homosexuality, even though they belong to the same sex. No
> penetration occurs, and the dog isn't really sexually excited. It's
> just that the feelings are related and thus the sexual behaviour is
> triggered. Animals cannot express themselves as easily as us, so they
> resort to whatever primitive way of expression they have.
>
> Bonobos are always very worried that should become outcasts. They are
> very cruel animals that resort to mobbing. They throw feces at
> specatators and keepers at zoo, so they cannot keep them at zoo. They
> are obscene and extremely nasty. That's why every bonobo always runs
> around psedo-copulating with everybody else, to remain on friendly
> terms with them. Buit this is like shaking hands. They are extremely
> afraid that they should become victims of mobbing and expatriated,
> which is an important motif also in human coteries.
>
> Mats Winther
civilized humans have distanced themselves from, at least formally. So
evidence of homosexuality in animals (it's natural) doesn't amount to
squat, anyway, in the end. We don't accept everything "that's
natural", since much of it is pretty barbaric. Defenders are better-
off sticking to stuff like:
"But they're a nice couple, the ones that live by me. I don't notice
any bizarre behavior, make-up, or apparel. I don't see them
participating in an open relationship with 500 different sex partners
a year, or performing oral-sex in the front yard or mooning the
passing street traffic, or having blindfolded AIDS parties to see who
the lucky chap will be this time, etc. There's a heterosexual goth
couple down the block that I'm more apt to see such from. Besides, I
think those kinds of rare things, when they occur, have more to do
with them being males rather than their homosexuality. Straight men
would be more uninhibited and crazy-acting too if they didn't have
women keeping them in line. Blah, blah, blah...."
M Winther
May 22, 2012, 2:07:01 AM5/22/12
to
"Garret K" <hg...@v.gg> skrev i meddelandet
news:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
This is true. Homosexual couples have alwas been formally accepted as
long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis they
tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals on
the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
Mats
news:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis they
tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals on
the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
Mats
M Winther
May 22, 2012, 2:08:32 AM5/22/12
to
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:4fbb12f1$0$3802$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
By the way, this is an amusing example of notoriously copulating dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwi1blPO8k
Mats
news:4fbb12f1$0$3802$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwi1blPO8k
Mats
Dave Smith
May 22, 2012, 5:27:35 AM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:15:26 AM UTC+1, M Winther wrote:
> ...................
But were the studies methodologically sound? How impartial were the experimenters, how were subjects recruited, were there control groups, how were "conversions" (a telling term) measured, were possible harmful effects investigated, etc.?
Dave Smith
> ...................
> Facts are facts. In Bieber's study 19% of the converted were
> *exclusively* homosexual. Their conversion was verified in a follow-up
> study several years later. After Bieber's study, figures steadily
> improved. Mayerson & Lief (Psychoterapy of Homosexuals. In Marmor, J.
> (ed.), Sexual Inversion, p.302 (1965)) account for a study in which 19
> *exclusive* homosexuals were converted to exclusive heterosexuality.
> In a follow-up approximately 4.5 years later, 22% remained in an
> heterosexual relationship.
>
> How do you explain such things? Are these results fabricated? How come
> people just throw scientific results out of the window, these days? Is
> it simply because the results are inopportune? Are we just now
> experiencing an overthrow of the scientific paradigm?
> ..................
> *exclusively* homosexual. Their conversion was verified in a follow-up
> study several years later. After Bieber's study, figures steadily
> improved. Mayerson & Lief (Psychoterapy of Homosexuals. In Marmor, J.
> (ed.), Sexual Inversion, p.302 (1965)) account for a study in which 19
> *exclusive* homosexuals were converted to exclusive heterosexuality.
> In a follow-up approximately 4.5 years later, 22% remained in an
> heterosexual relationship.
>
> How do you explain such things? Are these results fabricated? How come
> people just throw scientific results out of the window, these days? Is
> it simply because the results are inopportune? Are we just now
> experiencing an overthrow of the scientific paradigm?
But were the studies methodologically sound? How impartial were the experimenters, how were subjects recruited, were there control groups, how were "conversions" (a telling term) measured, were possible harmful effects investigated, etc.?
Dave Smith
Lance
May 22, 2012, 4:21:45 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 6:15 am, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0ea50d5e-0eb6-40f4...@v10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
These studies have been reviewed and they used poor methods.
>
> How do you explain such things? Are these results fabricated? How come
> people just throw scientific results out of the window, these days? Is
> it simply because the results are inopportune? Are we just now
> experiencing an overthrow of the scientific paradigm?
Scientific findings are often reviewed. What planet are you living on?
>
> Homosexual intercourse is extremely uncommon among mammals. Sexual
> penetration does not occur. I haven't heard of a single case. The
> bonobos are supposed to represent homosexual behaviour, but they are
> really "shaking hands" (like Dustin Hoffman in the The Graduate
> (1967)). Dogs can do the same when they are elated and want to
> exprtess their primitive sense of love. They can start to "copulate"
> the human baby, to the owner's embarrassment. But this does not
> represent homosexuality, even though they belong to the same sex. No
> penetration occurs, and the dog isn't really sexually excited. It's
> just that the feelings are related and thus the sexual behaviour is
> triggered. Animals cannot express themselves as easily as us, so they
> resort to whatever primitive way of expression they have.
see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Homosexuality-A-Biosocial-Perspective/dp/0521145147/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homosexual-Behaviour-Animals-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0521182301/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337717974&sr=1-8
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0ea50d5e-0eb6-40f4...@v10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> How do you explain such things? Are these results fabricated? How come
> people just throw scientific results out of the window, these days? Is
> it simply because the results are inopportune? Are we just now
> experiencing an overthrow of the scientific paradigm?
>
> Homosexual intercourse is extremely uncommon among mammals. Sexual
> penetration does not occur. I haven't heard of a single case. The
> bonobos are supposed to represent homosexual behaviour, but they are
> really "shaking hands" (like Dustin Hoffman in the The Graduate
> (1967)). Dogs can do the same when they are elated and want to
> exprtess their primitive sense of love. They can start to "copulate"
> the human baby, to the owner's embarrassment. But this does not
> represent homosexuality, even though they belong to the same sex. No
> penetration occurs, and the dog isn't really sexually excited. It's
> just that the feelings are related and thus the sexual behaviour is
> triggered. Animals cannot express themselves as easily as us, so they
> resort to whatever primitive way of expression they have.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Homosexuality-A-Biosocial-Perspective/dp/0521145147/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homosexual-Behaviour-Animals-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0521182301/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337717974&sr=1-8
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c
Lance
May 22, 2012, 4:32:39 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 8:07 am, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> "Garret K" <h...@v.gg> skrev i meddelandetnews:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is true. Homosexual couples have alwas been formally accepted as
> long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis they
> tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals on
> the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
> homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
>
> Mats
Were homosexuals really scapegoats in ancient Greece? Were they/Are
really despised in Japan in the past and today?
Lance
> "Garret K" <h...@v.gg> skrev i meddelandetnews:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is true. Homosexual couples have alwas been formally accepted as
> long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis they
> tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals on
> the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
> homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
>
> Mats
really despised in Japan in the past and today?
Lance
Dave Smith
May 22, 2012, 5:46:29 PM5/22/12
to
http://www.channel4.com/news/gay-cure-therapist-loses-appeal-against-suspension
M Winther
May 23, 2012, 2:00:40 AM5/23/12
to
news:0fe99f55-891f-4278...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
In fact, scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially
pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such
relationships were not widely practised by the common people (demos).
One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed
at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common
people's dislike for male homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
Common people look down on homosexuality. They look down on anything
that diverts from "normalcy".
M. Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such
relationships were not widely practised by the common people (demos).
One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed
at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common
people's dislike for male homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
Common people look down on homosexuality. They look down on anything
that diverts from "normalcy".
M. Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
Garret K
May 26, 2012, 12:23:11 PM5/26/12
to
On May 23, 1:00 am, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0fe99f55-891f-4278...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
research. Human sciences are notoriously suspect in regard to whatever
they're spitting-out in any particular era; far more contingent than
the physical sciences, with the popular political-social ideologies of
the times affecting the interpretations of data. Wavering back and
forth -- what's regarded as warranted in one decade switches to BS in
another, they are the exemplar of scientific conclusions being
perpetually open to being revised and discarded by the future.
On top of that, what could be more insane in nominalism context than
the concrete human occurrences a person actually encounters being
subjugated to a generalization outputted by lab investigations or
statistical endeavors? "No, no, what you experienced doesn't fit in
with the concept we've devised that this or that social group or type-
personality conforms to." Science is incrementally wedging its head up
its own brand of abstract arse, echoing the past metaphysical excesses
in philosophy and religion. Today's fleeting result/fact (tomorrow's
bullshit), is displayed before the crowds as time-enduring dogma that
should be genuflected to, rather than it being bitch-slapped and
kicked like a discount male whore by gangbangers to see just how tough
it is against scrutiny from outside of the esoteric club that spawned
it.
> "Lance" <lanceg...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:0fe99f55-891f-4278...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 8:07 am, "M Winther" <m...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Garret K" <h...@v.gg> skrev i
> > meddelandetnews:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> This is true. Homosexual couples have alwas been formally accepted
> >> as
> >> long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis
> >> they
> >> tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals
> >> on
> >> the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
> >> homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
>
> >> Mats
> >Were homosexuals really scapegoats in ancient Greece? Were they/Are
> >really despised in Japan in the past and today?
>
> >Lance
>
> In fact, scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially
> pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such
> relationships were not widely practised by the common people (demos).
> One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed
> at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common
> people's dislike for male homosexuality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Garret K" <h...@v.gg> skrev i
> > meddelandetnews:5ee8a303-caf1-4111...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> This is true. Homosexual couples have alwas been formally accepted
> >> as
> >> long as they have been discrete. But, when society is in crisis
> >> they
> >> tend to become scapegoats. People are only accepting of homosexuals
> >> on
> >> the surface. Behind the mask, most people are contemptuous of
> >> homosexuals. I think it has to do with scapegoat psychology.
>
> >> Mats
> >Were homosexuals really scapegoats in ancient Greece? Were they/Are
> >really despised in Japan in the past and today?
>
> >Lance
>
> In fact, scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially
> pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such
> relationships were not widely practised by the common people (demos).
> One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed
> at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common
>
> Common people look down on homosexuality. They look down on anything
> that diverts from "normalcy".
>
> M. Wintherhttp://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
There is too much reverence in this thread for both past and current
> Common people look down on homosexuality. They look down on anything
> that diverts from "normalcy".
>
> M. Wintherhttp://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
research. Human sciences are notoriously suspect in regard to whatever
they're spitting-out in any particular era; far more contingent than
the physical sciences, with the popular political-social ideologies of
the times affecting the interpretations of data. Wavering back and
forth -- what's regarded as warranted in one decade switches to BS in
another, they are the exemplar of scientific conclusions being
perpetually open to being revised and discarded by the future.
On top of that, what could be more insane in nominalism context than
the concrete human occurrences a person actually encounters being
subjugated to a generalization outputted by lab investigations or
statistical endeavors? "No, no, what you experienced doesn't fit in
with the concept we've devised that this or that social group or type-
personality conforms to." Science is incrementally wedging its head up
its own brand of abstract arse, echoing the past metaphysical excesses
in philosophy and religion. Today's fleeting result/fact (tomorrow's
bullshit), is displayed before the crowds as time-enduring dogma that
should be genuflected to, rather than it being bitch-slapped and
kicked like a discount male whore by gangbangers to see just how tough
it is against scrutiny from outside of the esoteric club that spawned
it.
Lance
May 26, 2012, 9:14:36 PM5/26/12
to
group!
My take is somewhat different. I think that when the human sciences
are successful we absorb their successes as obvious, thinking of them
as things we always knew (even when we did not). I think Duncan Watts
wrote a book developing this line of argument...
Anyway,
Lance
Dave Smith
May 27, 2012, 4:53:11 AM5/27/12
to
Quote of the day in the 'i' newspaper yesterday, from Arthur C Clarke:
"In the long run, there are no secrets in science. The universe will not co-operate in a cover-up."
Dave Smith
Garret K
May 28, 2012, 12:51:56 PM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 3:53 am, Dave Smith <davidelliottsm...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
So you're on the side of: "Today's fleeting result/fact (tomorrow's
talk that he can't hang onto recent memory long enough to remember
what he's hissing and pissing in response to? What'cha gone do next,
prude, launch a crusade against offensive language on the usenet? LOL
> Quote of the day in the 'i' newspaper yesterday, from Arthur C Clarke:
>
> "In the long run, there are no secrets in science. The universe will not co-operate in a cover-up."
>
> Dave Smith
In the long run there is more change, and what is found to work or be
warranted for the latest sequence of nows (one world being replaced by
a slightly different one, etc). The only place a past exists is in
environmental records and human memory, which are themselves part of
the changing, dynamic, incrementally ever-altering process. The only
place a future exists is in the anticipations, speculations,
extrapolations of thought and calculation. The content of science is
mutable, it is not a replacement for the perpetual-enduring dogma of
Sky Daddy that you lost upon growing-up to be an atheist. That empty
space should remain vacant, or at least try stuffing a concrete object
into it for a change instead of new abstract ones, if the void is
unsatisfactory.
wrote:
bullshit), is displayed before the crowds as time-enduring dogma that
should be genuflected to"
Or are you just a confused snob who is so easily distracted by 'hood
should be genuflected to"
talk that he can't hang onto recent memory long enough to remember
what he's hissing and pissing in response to? What'cha gone do next,
prude, launch a crusade against offensive language on the usenet? LOL
> Quote of the day in the 'i' newspaper yesterday, from Arthur C Clarke:
>
> "In the long run, there are no secrets in science. The universe will not co-operate in a cover-up."
>
> Dave Smith
warranted for the latest sequence of nows (one world being replaced by
a slightly different one, etc). The only place a past exists is in
environmental records and human memory, which are themselves part of
the changing, dynamic, incrementally ever-altering process. The only
place a future exists is in the anticipations, speculations,
extrapolations of thought and calculation. The content of science is
mutable, it is not a replacement for the perpetual-enduring dogma of
Sky Daddy that you lost upon growing-up to be an atheist. That empty
space should remain vacant, or at least try stuffing a concrete object
into it for a change instead of new abstract ones, if the void is
unsatisfactory.
Lance
May 28, 2012, 4:38:02 PM5/28/12
to
you are.
We have discussed the tensed view of time that you seem to be so keen
on - but the arguments for it conflict with those of physics and I
suspect that whilst our experience is largely that of a sequence of
nows, this really an illusion.
The content of science is not really mutable. There are a number of
reasons for saying this despite the fact that one theories do change
as science progresses. One is that the basic experiments give the same
results. Refraction, gravity, inertia, the occurrence of inflation
after the government has printed money without any corresponding
increase in goods and services, all of these are the same today as
they were yesterday and as they will be tomorrow. Secondly scientific
theories are connected spirally rather than linearly. Knowledge of
telescopes depends on knowledge of optics, and suddenly claiming that
optics is not true will cause the collapse of astronomy, etc. This is
true even in the human sciences. Knowledge of infant perception
initially depended on earlier discoveries about habituation which
Fantz exploited to create the Fantz box. Alternate ways of getting
knowledge about infant perception thus not only support Fantz's
findings but indirectly, the truth of habituation as a process. So
theories in science tend to change by showing earlier theories to be
special cases and offering more general insights. Theories of vision
will include older insights into object constancy and the effects of
habituation. So though science changes it is much less a rejection of
all earlier modes than you make out.
Lance
Garret K
May 29, 2012, 1:48:21 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 3:38 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You sound like a teenager trying to prove how adult and sophisticated
> you are.
You sound like somebody who's been living his whole life in one of
> You sound like a teenager trying to prove how adult and sophisticated
> you are.
those sheltered religious cult/communities that has an aversion to the
wicked ways of the outside world, apart from their also having a
disdain for its technology. That your strings could be yanked by
figurative expressions that are embarrassingly tame compared to actual
street-talk, or even the kind of conversations transpiring between
fifty-plus year old men in unmoderated usenet groups since the Eternal
September began, or the gratuitious romps common in television
programming and movies, speaks volumes as to who's either lacking
experience here or residing in some idealized fairyland park.
> We have discussed the tensed view of time that you seem to be so keen
> on - but the arguments for it conflict with those of physics and I
> suspect that whilst our experience is largely that of a sequence of
> nows, this really an illusion.
of mathematical models. If the cosmos behaves "as if", then it's due
to the conceptual scheme having a forceful entity-hood, rather than
just how the cosmos tends to reliably behave currently. There's
centuries of apologetic arguments and constructs carried on by theist
rationalists for other invisible hubba-bubba, too. Haven't seen that
reasoning manifest its inferred God, angels, demons, heaven, etc, yet
either. Gone on any time-travel excursions lately to prove the
dinosaurs and their era are still around? Received any visits from
super-advanced civilisations of the future? Any of those tracks of
particle collisions spelled-out "turn octa-left in Higher Dimension X"
to watch a primordial Earth barren of life or see the the Sun expanded
into a red giant?
A block-universe or whatever proposed spatiotemporal structure would
debunk evolution, since we and our era would then have always existed,
only appearing to have gradually emerged from other life-forms from
the perspective of this posited subjective, illusionary flux, the
deceptive "time flow". So even if scientists in other fields accepted
some of the whackier abstract realism of physicists, it would just
point out that even theories or beliefs currently held in high esteem
(like evolution) can be revised, assimilated by another paradigm, or
kicked to the curb altogether by the developments of continuing change
(which includes concocting new theories or old ones that finally
receive popularity). Any inadequate imagination on our part for
conceiving how "this current prized explanation or understanding of so-
and-so could ever be replaced or discarded" doesn't equate to the
process of change, the world of experience itself, being so limited by
such human inadequacy. Again, even our bloody memories and the
environmental records themselves are not something outside of or
secure from the alterations of one moment being annihilated and
replaced by another.
I'm a non-theist not because of personal dogma that it is impossible
for a miracle-producing Jesus to start popping-up from everybody's
commodes someday, but because I don't hold such a bizarre possibility
to be a condition that would endure forever, if it happened. The
scientific community would scramble to explain it by modifying their
naturalism and jumping on board with their own version of "we're all
living in a generated virtual reality", and some prankster agency in
the higher universe is modifying nature's laws or allowing it to be
intruded upon by other rules, or the damn whatever that is generating
the VR has become defective. It's a theory that I'd probably support
as warranted for that era, but without clinging to the notion that it
was absolute truth, that it literally substantiated the rationalist's
fetish for an ultimate knowledge or an ultimate realm. But instead
only applicable here today (or that era), eventually fading in a
tomorrow yet to be, by either change of conditions/memory or another
interpretation / theory kicking a former one aside. It may be
comforting to some to have unconditioned and perpetual truth holding
their hands (many atheists apparently also need a substitute Sky
Daddy), but it's more power-play BS of one sub-culture over another
that I can do without literally buying into.
> The content of science is not really mutable.
an a priori definition of science immune to the contingencies of
experience. I'm also aware that any specific definition or formal
understanding of science is invented by people, and not directly
delivered by some overarching natural order free of interpretations.
Nature in general also being defined by groups of people as non-
conscious, devoid of planning, interest, and intelligence, so as to
deliver such un-revisable commandments about itself or science to
begin with. An additional irony being that philosophers, and
occasionally theoretical scientists playing the role, invent such more
often than working scientists, who just borrow the former's epistemic
formulations to tell laymen what science is. "Don't bother me with
such crap. I'm a busy lab scientist trying to solve #### or gather new
data about ####, go ask new side-career as public relations mediator
Neil deGrasse Tyson, successor to Carl Sagan, what the hell conceived
framework it is that all scientists are relentlessly adhering to."
Lance
May 29, 2012, 7:23:30 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 7:48 pm, Garret K <h...@v.gg> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:38 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You sound like a teenager trying to prove how adult and sophisticated
> > you are.
>
> You sound like somebody who's been living his whole life in one of
> those sheltered religious cult/communities that has an aversion to the
> wicked ways of the outside world, apart from their also having a
> disdain for its technology. That your strings could be yanked by
> figurative expressions that are embarrassingly tame compared to actual
> street-talk, or even the kind of conversations transpiring between
> fifty-plus year old men in unmoderated usenet groups since the Eternal
> September began, or the gratuitious romps common in television
> programming and movies, speaks volumes as to who's either lacking
> experience here or residing in some idealized fairyland park.
OOO! So you hang around with the really tough guys and can show what a
> On May 28, 3:38 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You sound like a teenager trying to prove how adult and sophisticated
> > you are.
>
> You sound like somebody who's been living his whole life in one of
> those sheltered religious cult/communities that has an aversion to the
> wicked ways of the outside world, apart from their also having a
> disdain for its technology. That your strings could be yanked by
> figurative expressions that are embarrassingly tame compared to actual
> street-talk, or even the kind of conversations transpiring between
> fifty-plus year old men in unmoderated usenet groups since the Eternal
> September began, or the gratuitious romps common in television
> programming and movies, speaks volumes as to who's either lacking
> experience here or residing in some idealized fairyland park.
big dick you've got! Oh Wow!
>
> > We have discussed the tensed view of time that you seem to be so keen
> > on - but the arguments for it conflict with those of physics and I
> > suspect that whilst our experience is largely that of a sequence of
> > nows, this really an illusion.
>
> Oh, here we go. The metaphysical babble, the transcendent reification
> of mathematical models. If the cosmos behaves "as if", then it's due
> to the conceptual scheme having a forceful entity-hood, rather than
> just how the cosmos tends to reliably behave currently. There's
> centuries of apologetic arguments and constructs carried on by theist
> rationalists for other invisible hubba-bubba, too. Haven't seen that
> reasoning manifest its inferred God, angels, demons, heaven, etc, yet
> either. Gone on any time-travel excursions lately to prove the
> dinosaurs and their era are still around? Received any visits from
> super-advanced civilisations of the future? Any of those tracks of
> particle collisions spelled-out "turn octa-left in Higher Dimension X"
> to watch a primordial Earth barren of life or see the the Sun expanded
> into a red giant?
>
treating time as a continuous variable must be false because we have
not seen any dinosaurs hanging around lately. Wow. And wowee again!
> A block-universe or whatever proposed spatiotemporal structure would
> debunk evolution, since we and our era would then have always existed,
> only appearing to have gradually emerged from other life-forms from
> the perspective of this posited subjective, illusionary flux, the
> deceptive "time flow". So even if scientists in other fields accepted
> some of the whackier abstract realism of physicists, it would just
> point out that even theories or beliefs currently held in high esteem
> (like evolution) can be revised, assimilated by another paradigm, or
> kicked to the curb altogether by the developments of continuing change
> (which includes concocting new theories or old ones that finally
> receive popularity). Any inadequate imagination on our part for
> conceiving how "this current prized explanation or understanding of so-
> and-so could ever be replaced or discarded" doesn't equate to the
> process of change, the world of experience itself, being so limited by
> such human inadequacy. Again, even our bloody memories and the
> environmental records themselves are not something outside of or
> secure from the alterations of one moment being annihilated and
> replaced by another.
>
perhaps you should stay out of the kitchen.
> I'm a non-theist not because of personal dogma that it is impossible
> for a miracle-producing Jesus to start popping-up from everybody's
> commodes someday, but because I don't hold such a bizarre possibility
> to be a condition that would endure forever, if it happened. The
> scientific community would scramble to explain it by modifying their
> naturalism and jumping on board with their own version of "we're all
> living in a generated virtual reality", and some prankster agency in
> the higher universe is modifying nature's laws or allowing it to be
> intruded upon by other rules, or the damn whatever that is generating
> the VR has become defective. It's a theory that I'd probably support
> as warranted for that era, but without clinging to the notion that it
> was absolute truth, that it literally substantiated the rationalist's
> fetish for an ultimate knowledge or an ultimate realm. But instead
> only applicable here today (or that era), eventually fading in a
> tomorrow yet to be, by either change of conditions/memory or another
> interpretation / theory kicking a former one aside. It may be
> comforting to some to have unconditioned and perpetual truth holding
> their hands (many atheists apparently also need a substitute Sky
> Daddy), but it's more power-play BS of one sub-culture over another
> that I can do without literally buying into.
>
> > The content of science is not really mutable.
>
> Yes, I'm fully aware that you and DS need a substitute Sky Daddy, or
> an a priori definition of science immune to the contingencies of
> experience. I'm also aware that any specific definition or formal
> understanding of science is invented by people, and not directly
> delivered by some overarching natural order free of interpretations.
> Nature in general also being defined by groups of people as non-
> conscious, devoid of planning, interest, and intelligence, so as to
> deliver such un-revisable commandments about itself or science to
> begin with. An additional irony being that philosophers, and
> occasionally theoretical scientists playing the role, invent such more
> often than working scientists, who just borrow the former's epistemic
> formulations to tell laymen what science is. "Don't bother me with
> such crap. I'm a busy lab scientist trying to solve #### or gather new
> data about ####, go ask new side-career as public relations mediator
> Neil deGrasse Tyson, successor to Carl Sagan, what the hell conceived
> framework it is that all scientists are relentlessly adhering to."
you can't stand the debate without despairing. Or perhaps you are
just showing how big your dick is by bragging that you know how "real"
scientists behave. Oh I agree you've got a big dick. You are perhaps
the biggest dick I've come across in a while.
Lance
Lance
May 30, 2012, 9:05:11 AM5/30/12
to
ay of your points at all convincing.
Lance
Peter Brooks
May 30, 2012, 11:42:45 AM5/30/12
to
in "The Life of Brian" called 'Bigus Dickus'.
Garret K
Jun 3, 2012, 12:46:04 PM6/3/12
to
On May 29, 6:23 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh I agree you've got a big dick. You are perhaps
> the biggest dick I've come across in a while.
>
> Lance
Thank you. I like the snug feel of your tight mouth, too. And I've
> Oh I agree you've got a big dick. You are perhaps
> the biggest dick I've come across in a while.
>
> Lance
never seen such a glass jaw. All it required was dropping a "bitch-
slap" and a "male whore" to lure you out of your pretentious facade
and be exposed as an old lady enduring menopause. Please, continue to
thrash about in rage-disoriented manner. If his disappearance has any
significance, at least Dave Smith had the discernment to realize the
cheese he was nibbling on. Welcome our newest trial-period member,
fellow colleagues of the Cesspool Brotherhood: Lance!
0 new messages