Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Fuck me in the ass by Nathaniel Blytheham - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:56:28 EST ID:y/KSUhC1 No.196476 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414961788410.jpg -(23222 B, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23222
I am stuck in a shitty group project focused around the psychological test known as the Personality Assessment Inventory created by Dr. Leslie Morey. I am to decide which theory of personality this test was created upon. Without finding any articles which give me the slightest of hint, the best I can come up with is George Kelly's Personal Construct Theory. Are there any Psychology experts in da house which can tell me if I'm headed in the right direction?

wELCOME by Emma Subblebetch - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:15:02 EST ID:PjhOfiHm No.196143 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413245702490.jpg -(54659 B, 413x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 54659
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Edwin Seshmotch - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:24:10 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196387 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Every philosopher does so to sort out their own bullshit. Don't be rough against people not smart enough to hide it well. Everyone started that way.
Basil Fuzzlelock - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:54:05 EST ID:3nku9Ht1 No.196389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It's a board riddled with drugged up pseudo philosophers
To be fair actual philosophers aren't a whole lot different
Nigel Nambleshaw - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:51:06 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.196391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the only negative aspects i see in your description, are your described contributions to the board.
Fanny Bladgenudge - Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:48:37 EST ID:wOGRThFe No.196434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is fun.
Hugh Hettingtark - Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:04:19 EST ID:1/ozUx3L No.196438 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Logic by Nicholas Fuckingshit - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:00:57 EST ID:OK4Q7yBl No.196284 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414015257527.jpg -(177796 B, 523x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 177796
I'm an enthusiast regarding these things but time and time again I have made a complete fool of my self when in a discussion, the word logic is thrown around one too many times. It's as if I'm supposed to have some intuitive insight into what words conceived by the subjective interpretation of people are and that I should 'just know' what it means when the context is ever so dynamic and the term seemingly so flexible. This expectation is so lurid in those engaged in discussion as well that I'm often called autistic when I persist on the definitional subject.

Can anybody elucidate on what 'logic' entails regarding its usage in philosophy in general and in some particular cases as well? I'm fascinated, but I'd really like some resourceful articles or discussions regarding its elemental and fundamental nature rather than the trite examples of transitivity and things like that. I'm hoping your perspicacious insight stemming from your eruditeness or individual episdomological drive can clarify things for me.
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Walter Lightdock - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:57:42 EST ID:UCaZDJOn No.196402 Ignore Report Quick Reply
speak up, use your words
Syllogism - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:05:39 EST ID:DWBYVmhI No.196407 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>you can adopt the idea that a thing can't be neither true nor false
>this level is optional

Found the intuitionist


yeah statements don't change in truth value. The statement, "all squares are parallelograms," cannot be rendered false, nor can the statement, "all triangles are pentagons," ever be rendered true - without redefining what any of those particular words mean - and this surety allows us to concern ourselves with structure and validity. But even redefining words doesn't change truth value either. The reason is a bit of a mouthful. I can get into it if you want.
Nicholas Sogglefield - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:06:29 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.196415 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196407 Please do.
Ebenezer Bunwill - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:08:43 EST ID:4BN2R/X9 No.196416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>believing that a thing can't be both true and false.

I used to believe this until I started learning about poetics and theoretical physics.
Syllogism - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:29:48 EST ID:DWBYVmhI No.196425 Ignore Report Quick Reply

OK, let's put a statement on the board and then write it symbolically as a proposition. You are a bachelor if and only if you are unmarried. B ↔ U.

Say society starts using the word bachelor in the exact opposite sense it does now. That would suggest that B ↔ U is now false, right? But not quite.

Take note of how David mentioned, if it changes, it's a variable. The word bachelor, and everything it has described, and will describe, is acting as a variable. B ↔ U is essentially a time capsule. Think of observing the limit of a term in calculus. It's essentially an analysis of what's going on at a particular point, given a particular variable. B carries the concept of what it means to be a bachelor, from that particular moment in time in which "B" was constructed. This new concept of bachelor, isn't the same B. Hell it's the opposite, ¬B, and when we put ¬B in, surprise surprise, we're getting ¬U, which is exactly what the statement B ↔ U would dictate.

Now granted, the statement B ↔ U isn't going to be of very much use to this brave new world where we refer to married men as bachelors. It's essentially a logical artifact, describing circumstances which no longer exist. But it's truth value remains the same, even if society has discarded it.

Propositional logic eventually evolved into first order logic, which has methods for describing a set with a unary relationship. These are called predicates. The formalism from the beginning might be reconstructed as P∃x Bx ↔ U, which could then represent, "At some point in time there existed a definition for the word, 'Bachelor,' that is identical to the definition of unmarried." It's a little clearer how this statement's truth value is impervious to change.

Politics by Graham Nemmlechodge - Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:48:49 EST ID:Q/pl9moQ No.195894 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1411134529222.jpg -(35084 B, 460x276) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 35084
How do you justify not being politically active? I mean, I've been here some time, and most of you guys don't strike me as the politically active, militant type. Don't you guys feel responsible for doing everything in your hands to change the world? Why should someone else make that effort? What good is philosophy if you're just discussing if being is being or rather non-being?
19 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Sammlewag - Sat, 11 Oct 2014 06:29:43 EST ID:XY8kuvRh No.196128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>How do you justify not being politically active?

Why do I need to justify it?
Thomas Huffingmed - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:34:39 EST ID:EIa1CtJP No.196141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It depends on how the term 'politics' is defined. More than often enough, we all hear the word and think of politics as something entirely disconnected from daily life, and social conditions; we think of an exclusive engagement that is centralized and left to the professionals, the activists, politicians, NGOs,lobbyists, and so forth. The reality is, it isn't about becoming or being 'politically active' it is about challenging the limitations and barriers constructed to the core of our daily lives enforced by systems of limited power.

There is no 'elite class' of activist approach that should be seen as relevant OP. This assumes there are actors, 'fighting for' people, above all else. This in itself reinforces the systems of power. There is no disconnecting daily life from the system; it is rotten to the core and has an impact on anything from the way we labor, to the way we interact in personal relationships. Providing, and sharing tools to shift these interactions on every scale, whether it be resisting the authoritarians with the guns, or the authoritarians in our head is what needs to be done; not becoming politically active and engaging in Democracy. Democracy is not liberation; Democracy is not freedom. It is the same despotic civilization painted as an enlightened free agreement. The reality of it is as savage and brutal as ever, with even more manipulation than the old feudal kings. The communal nature of humanity has been eroded to a far extent; even in feudalism, people were working for themselves, and crafted to provide directly for their neighborhoods; communes were natural among peasants. Now everyone is a competitor and a commodity whether it be the woman in the office viewing everyone in the workplace as a competitor for the next big 'social position' or the poor man on the street willing to shoot another poor man down for status, and control over a minor illicit market. Let's stop talking about being politically active, and begin talking about the struggle that already continues in daily life for every individual, every community, and every ecosystem. There is an inherent existence of opposing forces in our society; It is a social war.
Jenny Blinnerridge - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:14:24 EST ID:46n3Ds/A No.196243 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/pss/ in a post
Sophie Dummerhood - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:07:49 EST ID:FnLSIj6V No.196381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why would I want the world to change?
I know nothing (including this), and so I cannot decide what the world is like, and what to change in which direction.
Matilda Shakeshit - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:24:13 EST ID:71H9owF5 No.196421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the only solution is having a situation in which people are bored enough to actually do something, or otherwise some kind of communication platform which allows for direction communication between randomly selected citizens and the governing body, thus allowing for the percolation of unbiased ideas into the mainstream thoughtbody.

with such a platform people could find something to agree upon in an efficient manner and have the governing body vote on the spot instead of waiting for a shitfuckwhatarewedoingholyshitsomebodydosomethingbeforeitypetoomanycharactesohfuckitneverstopsfuckfuckfuckfuck amount of time.

Why Bother With Emotions? by malneirophrenia !/Hh2q0WCjk - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:03:33 EST ID:nSFNdZvo No.196248 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413831813718.gif -(20589 B, 1212x1038) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20589
The question recently came up in conversation, a question inquiring as to whether or not emotions are worth identifying and then processing, being "dealt with" or "handled." Admittedly, I drew a blank, being caught up in what was, in itself, quite an emotional situation. I faltered, unable to give a straight answer or even think rationally, at all. It was as though I was temporarily blocked off from my ability to reason, to draw on any of my prior knowledge and studies. I began to sweat and shake. It was almost as if my emotional state had a powerful and direct effect both my physical and mental states . . .

So, why bother with emotions?

To begin to answer this question, we must first consider an individual as having several domains which make up their entire being, the health of each of these individual domains constituting one's overall health. I have made a simple diagram in order to illustrate this concept. If any one of these six domains are weakened, suppressed, damaged, have their importance under-emphasized, have their importance over-emphasized or are otherwise disturbed, the balance of the entire star is upset and every other domain suffers equivalently as a result of the one or more domains suppression, damange, underdevelopment or over-development, disturbance, whatever the case may be. For example, when we are physically unhealthy - whether we are stricken by acute illness, chronic pain or are even simply overweight - our mental, emotional and social health also suffer in obvious ways as a result of that: our thoughts begin to revolve around our physical ailments and we may become self-defeating and overly critical of ourselves; we feel badly about our physical conditions, feeling depressed, scared, lonely, frustrated and angry as a result of them; our social lives decline simply as a result of decreased mobility, independent capability and the fact that physical ailments generally make other people uncomfortable. These are sparse and very basic examples, but the point stands that balance between all six domains must be maintained in order to achieve overall health within all six domains. We cannot pick and choose between them, we cannot omit any of them or specia…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
25 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigger Sidgemere - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:13:14 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.196353 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You know, I think you just dropped a serious nugget of wisdom for all of us, including OP. Philosophizing really is a form of venting, isn't it? It's always made me feel better, making sense of things. I suppose it's possible that's a big part of the core reason humans philosophize.

Dude, not only does that look wrong/pointless, but it has like zero description. The entirety of spiritual, emotional and personal health doesn't compute. I mean, personal? Isn't that how you'd define the entire spectrum? Spiritual and Emotional? Spirituality is just a subcategory of human psychology, and emotions are the exhibitions of feelings, so I can't say I see how those even apply to health.

I mean, obviously there's physical and mental health, but is there really more than just that? I want to say 5 of your categories fall into the simple term 'mental health' while one falls into 'physical health'. But, doesn't that seem like it's overly-focused on the mental?
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:09:30 EST ID:BVMklPf1 No.196354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hey don't look at me, I was simply balancing OP's set for him. Spiritual across from Physical with physiacl as the abse because everything's based in physics. Social across from personal (obviously) but with social higher up because how you treat others should be upheld higher than your personal gains. I could honestly switch the positions of mental and emotional though and not have a problem. I think this thing OIp provided us with is just a subjective puzzle though, order it around until it fits how YOU see the world.
George Geffinggold - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:18:18 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.196362 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1414480698608.jpg -(474933 B, 1270x985) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 474933
>>196342 Although not the same, Koco's color wheel idea reminds me of this starwheel centered around intent, will, focus, and determination.
Ian Buzzlock - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:31:50 EST ID:XRAdQQUp No.196404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That picture was clearly drawn with psychedelic help.
Matilda Shakeshit - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:17:55 EST ID:71H9owF5 No.196420 Ignore Report Quick Reply

remove personal and social to replace with self-acceptence.

someone could have a life entirely surrounded with other people or in total solitude and still be happy.

Logic by Nathaniel Hodgesteck - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:09:16 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.196229 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413742156981.jpg -(74068 B, 418x467) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74068
In a logical formula: ¬A ∨ ¬B
How does one figure out which is more likely to be false: A or B? Does one need to use probabilistic logic to determine that?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Syllogism - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:52:57 EST ID:vpvhFt6E No.196247 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413827577478.png -(5298 B, 800x187) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5298

deal but you still owe me that rimjob from last time. i'm starting to feel underappreciated here.

>How does one figure out which is more likely to be false: A or B?
The truth of A and B are independent of one another. Without an identity neither operand are under any obligation to be either true or false.

>Does one need to use probabilistic logic to determine that?
No just assign a premise to each operand and the truth of those premises will dictate the outcome. i included the truth table for your particular proposition b/c why not.

My body is ready David.


That commutative property tho.
Isabella Turveystone - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:32:27 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.196255 Ignore Report Quick Reply

But, if B is false then the expression is true and if B is true, then the expression is true if A is false. Therefore, the expression can be rewritten as ~B v (B ^ ~A). So clearly, B is the more important term.
Nell Humblespear - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:07:29 EST ID:Ahbnco9i No.196351 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In an algebraic formula: 2x + y^2
How does one figure out which is more likely to be the biggest: x or y? Does one need to use probability to determine that?
Esther Sodgedit - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:51:31 EST ID:C6QsteKY No.196383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can somebody tell me what this symbol " ¬ " means?
Syllogism - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:53:11 EST ID:DWBYVmhI No.196388 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It's a symbol for negation i.e. ¬Q is, "not Q."

Hypocrisy by Jenny Babberlutch - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:42:41 EST ID:KeT+1erb No.196374 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414546961425.jpg -(92408 B, 789x398) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 92408
Should we all just be hypocrites?
Edwin Seshmotch - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:30:12 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Aren't we already?

we are too particular about 'the bathroom' by Basil Dartstone - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:33:25 EST ID:4DJQkMXz No.196327 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
10.jpg -(80085 B, 666x69) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 80085
I piss in my kitchen sink when I need to go to the bathroom. Partly because the bathroom is located on another floor of the house, but also because it isn't dirty at all. Nothing spatters and a quick wipe up with a paper towel for extra measure leaves the sink CLEANER than it was before I pissed in it.

People are trained to be disgusted by waste products from an early age, poop is 'yucky', etc. They learn to fear what comes out of their own bodies, and to behave in irrational ways around waste products. A cultural OCD.
22 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Fongerstone - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:08:46 EST ID:KeT+1erb No.196359 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That looks stupid.
Betsy Mallycocke - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:09:06 EST ID:2Yx8SOnF No.196360 Ignore Report Quick Reply
See a doctor
Whitey Bammertuck - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:55:26 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.196361 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You're PISSING. With a BONER. Who's going to see you? Do you not take precautions to keep other dudes from watching you piss?
Molly Battingsidge - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:56:25 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm an exhibitionist. So no, I don't.
Cedric Billingfield - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:16:50 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196364 Ignore Report Quick Reply

AHahhaha he's not the guy who brought the boner up, that's me.
You have a point, I never thought about solving it by sitting down. Hell, until recently I was convinced that I was strange that I couldn't start to take a crap without pissing first. My lavatorial creativity is lacking.

Kant by Isabella Sobberhood - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 02:57:02 EST ID:oMT6pyKv No.196271 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413961022903.jpg -(53256 B, 630x444) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53256
What did Kant mean by Forms of Intuition and Categories of Experience?
Molly Cronkinhack - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:36:43 EST ID:XRAdQQUp No.196347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think they're kinda like the axioms for human thought. They're what allow us to make synthetic a priori statements (such as those in mathematics).
Sophie Dummerhood - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:02:41 EST ID:FnLSIj6V No.196380 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i have no idea, and everyone else is just guessing, too.
also about picture: a goal is a thing

Popper by Isabella Sobberhood - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 02:59:41 EST ID:oMT6pyKv No.196272 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413961181903.jpg -(86349 B, 600x769) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86349
According to Popper, how do we determine which theories are "truer"?

For example:
>conjecture A: vaccine A won't kill you. Evidence: None
>conjecture B: vaccine B won't kill you. Evidence: Numerous studies

How do we, according to Popper, determine that the vaccine B is safer than vaccine A? As far as I know, he rejected the notion that some conjectures can be truer than others, and that conjectures can only be proven false.
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shit Bardbanks - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:41:42 EST ID:S6jz9OtD No.196283 Ignore Report Quick Reply
More certain, from our perspective, but it doesn't mean "more true".
Barnaby Cogglestark - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:45:30 EST ID:dtnI5Fnu No.196285 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Maybe the point is that that's the best we can do
Syllogism - Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:27:48 EST ID:HeRkYJIq No.196287 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>According to Popper, how do we determine which theories are "truer"?

According to Popper we don't. As Shit Bardbanks was saying, there's no such thing as, "more true," T and F are binary. The solution to this situation would be to employ something that was called abductive reasoning. It followed the structure of:

>P is sufficient, but not necessary, for Q.

In this framework, P would be evidence, and Q would be, "doesn't kill you." Vaccine B entails P, while A does not, which gives it the leg up in the eyes of abductive validation. Probabilistic logic would later come along as a means of formalising the entailment of P in A or B and for expressing truth value as a probability, but that framework didn't arise until after Popper's passing.
Sidney Navingkod - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:34:56 EST ID:S6he6NfA No.196305 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's called the scientific method. Claims based on documented and repeatable evidence are truer (though not exactly "true"), specifically because they are documented and repeatable. If something has happened already, and can be made to happen again by a duplication of the original circumstances, it is more likely to be within the realm of possibility than something that is claimed /will/ happen without any such prior evidence.
Alice Fimmlenidge - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:02:49 EST ID:McimSD/A No.196332 Ignore Report Quick Reply

there's very little that can be proven true in terms of rational knowledge

Learning materials by Charles Nizzlebury - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:56:59 EST ID:oMT6pyKv No.196325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414195019627.jpg -(582952 B, 3968x2976) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 582952
Any good science books or leaning materials on the following?:
>How problem solving works?
>How learning works?
>How memory works?
Phyllis Chennerford - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:28:30 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know about the others but this is a good one:

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damned-Science-Scientific-Controversies/dp/0132849445 It gives you the tools on how to spot junk science and know where science stands on many issues through personal research

orgasms shape sexuality by Fanny Bongerketch - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:31:40 EST ID:4DJQkMXz No.196294 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414125100747.jpg -(53936 B, 500x673) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53936
what u are thinkin about durin the orgy shapes your sexuality
sexuality can bend
if u as masturbatin to the other thing
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
John Pundlewell - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:11:10 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196315 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Reprogramming homosexuals has already been tried. It doesn't work. It just amounts to regressing the urges which ends up causing psychological problems. At this point, it seems very unlikely that anyone can change their sexuality only repress it.

Correct in principal? In what way?

And I agree, what is wrong with most sexuality? Everyone has preference just like everyone is a certain ethnicity. Some are introverts while others are extroverts. Do we need to make everyone into an introvert or extrovert? I appreciate the variety.

I am not sure what Republicans obsession with sex is about. It could be that they were taught that it was wrong all their life so they attack it as adults. Aside from the extremes, sexuality is as natural an expression as eating. It's normal and healthy. Sometimes people's lovemaps take a detour and they are attracted to peculiar and uncommon things or situations.

I do believe that orgasm plays a part but not in the way someone in this thread expressed. It could be that having an orgasm during a specific event as a child can create a fixed association between sex and an object. But once this pivotal moment occurs, I think this preference as an adult just evolves and lasts for their life cycle. I think it can only be repressed.

Let's use pedophiles as an example. A dominant pedophile is always going to be a pedophile. He or she can decide to suppress their urges as to not harm children but it'll always be with them. We have tried to cure pedophiles. It doesn't seem to work. We can zap them, castrate them, and everything else in our arsenal but they are still what they are.
Fuck Pingerdig - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:57:03 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Reprogramming homosexuals has already been tried. It doesn't work

It's been tried by idiots that have incredibly stupid ideas about humanity, and for idiotic reasons. Of course it didn't work. Only incompetents tried. People who have a little more understanding of human nature, won't try in the first place, because there's no point for wasting all that effort. They can just coexist with homosexuals because they're not idiots out to get anyone who grosses them out.
Someone like Timothy Leary for example could have "deleted" the imprinting and substituted it with another one.. But he wouldn't have ever done that, because he was a decent human being.

>Correct in principal? In what way?

That it's a choice. Not like a trivial choice like what kind of ice cream, but the kind of choice that you make little by little, over the years, without realizing you're making it.

>We have tried to cure pedophiles. It doesn't seem to work. We can zap them, castrate them

Again, you mention stupid, barbaric ways to "cure" these people and then say "pedophiles are pedophiles".
Maybe if we got over our rage-boner against pedophiles and considered them human beings like everybody else, we could try alternative methods that could actually work, instead of torturing them and calling it "medicine".
John Pundlewell - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:20:05 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196321 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>That it's a choice. Not like a trivial choice like what kind of ice cream, but the kind of choice that you make little by little, over the years, without realizing you're making it.

I am not sure of this. It could be those little by little choices were inevitable given the person's intrinsic qualities. Even if it were a choice, it doesn't matter. Republicans like to use the whole choice argument for some reason. They think that if it's actually chosen that it places blame on them. It doesn't seem to understood that no blame exists and no one worth their salt considers it a disorder. They like to talk about how it was once in the DSM but fail to know that even Freud said that nothing is wrong with it. Not only this but they only went by psychoanalysis of patients only and never studied homosexuals outside therapy which was only started around the 50's; Those studies showed that homosexuals were productive and healthy minded citizens.

>timothy leary

but I personally doubt that homosexuality is a result of imprinting but rather intrinsic state of their brain. That could be wrong. I am open to the possibility. I just think it's a fixed state based on hardwired biology.


I agree with you that we should treat them like the human beings that they are. All child molesters are not pedophiles and not all pedophiles molest children. It is uncertain how many pedophiles never molest children but there are those pedophiles that are deeply disturbed by their attraction. Just because one has an urge does not mean they have to succumb to it. Just as men that find a woman walking down the street attractive must rape. A pedophile can just as easily not rape.

Having said that, there are pedophiles that are pretty much hopeless. This is because they simply don't care about the well-being of others and tend to be repeat offenders. Castration doesn't always prevent future molestation either way since there is the psychological aspect. If we could use something more humane, it would be a step up.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fuck Pingerdig - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:10:56 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196322 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>but I personally doubt that homosexuality is a result of imprinting but rather intrinsic state of their brain

I don't know either, but I lean more towards the imprinting stuff. I mean, how many times were we convinced something was intrinsic and instead found out it was totally changeable? At this point, concepts like "unchangeable", "hopeless", or "intrinsic" seem more like excuses to not admit your temporary powerlessness and lack of results. After all, if you blame nature, you don't have to admit that the limits are your own. This is just semantics, though.

>This is because they simply don't care about the well-being of others and tend to be repeat offenders

Well yeah, if they're not even interested in changing, there's not much to be done I think. Maybe that would change once they're behind bars though.. No one wants to be in that position.
Fanny Bongerketch - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:11:31 EST ID:4DJQkMXz No.196323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
'can we reprogram' is not important - that is a cretins notion, when he thinks he understands the world and that there is a right and wrong way to live. when he looks around himself for cheap examples of the 'natural order' and begins forcing that perception onto those around him.

'should we' is a much better debate worthy of philosophy.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.