That said, no insult can justify murder of innocents. The only thing this film has in common with the American consulate is that the outside of the building has “America” written on it. More blood shed for the honor of an imaginary god.
The Absurd Logic of Apologizing for Islam“For those that want to blame the individuals and groups involved in creating the movie you should realize that is illogical. As distasteful as the movie may be (have any of those "defending the prophet" even seen it?) it is in no way a justification to participate in violence and murder. To have to point that out for people makes my head hurt.”
Penn State Group to "Stone an Atheist"Yes people are offended by atheists making light of the fact that their most altruistic and self-deprecating expressions [FOR CHARITY] are offensive. I will now attempt to be offensive to theists everywhere using the least amount of characters. Ready? I EXIST.
Pat Robertson: Since 'We Don't Condone Wife-Beating These Days' Husband Should 'Move to Saudi Arabia' to Beat Her I know, I know. It’s Pat Robertson: The epitome of “low hanging fruit” but I cannot get over the glaring fact that the Pat sites “scripture” as the reason the man should not get a divorce yet he advocates to moving to a county where it is legal to beat your wife because “scripture” does not view wife-beating as being any more immoral than say, beating your slave (as long as you don’t knock out your slave’s teeth).
Don't Many Scientists Question Evolution?“Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. “
Politics, The Pledge And A Peculiar History“When Mitt Romney uses the Pledge of Allegiance as a metaphor for all that's good and right with America, how many in his audience know that the two-sentence loyalty oath was penned not by the Founding Fathers in 1776, but a fascist preacher more than 100 years later?
Or that the original recommended posture was with a straightened arm raised upward and outward? Or that it was changed to the hand over the heart during World War II after the Nazis adopted the original as their salute?”
there are far more abuse victims than actual abusers. This research could clue us in to the “X factor” of who survives sexual abuse and is able to heal vs who goes on to become a predator.
"Most of them are not born so much as made. But there are far more abuse victims than actual abusers. This research could clue us in to the “X factor” of who survives sexual abuse and is able to heal vs who goes on to become a predator."
Did you read the originating Gawker article? It didn't say that pedophiles are "made" that way through being abused. It actually makes a strong point from a science perspective that it could indeed be something they were born with, a sexual orientation.
I read nothing there about any "X factor" that separates "victims who heal" from "those who become predators". Phrasing it that way certainly leads me to believe you didn't read the article, as it suggests either A) all pedophiles that were assaulted as children will become predators, or B) a pedophile that doesn't pray on children is "healed". The article strongly points out that pedophiles are not synonymous with sex offenders, ie, predators.
First of all, I was commenting on the Discovery.com article about the Gawker article. Not the original Gawker article. I was referring to the Nature vs. Nurture argument for sex offenders. What I said about being made rather than born is an observation from working with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse for over 12 years. I am aware (as I’m sure you are) that not every person who is sexually abused becomes a sexual abuser. The vast majority of abusers are victims of abuse. The “X factor” I was talking about is a colloquialism often used in the field referring to the different reactions to and resiliency from trauma. So when I think of a “Pedophile” I think of the DSM-IV diagnosis under Paraphilia. There is no specific diagnosis for those with the sexual urges who do not act on them. The urge and the action are part of the same diagnosis as comorbid behavior. There is a debate in Psychology right now about adding a specific diagnosis for the “non-offending pedophile”. It is well documented that their brains are different. It is also well documented that childhood trauma, specifically sexual abuse changes your brain. There is no way of knowing what percentage of “natural pedophiles” were abused as children because no one knows how many exist. As I said, I was commenting on the Discovery article. My two sentence comment was thought-association. I honestly did not read the Gawker source article at the time of the posting, but I’m glad you did. That’s the point of the FLD after all. Thanks for reading.
2 comments:
"Most of them are not born so much as made. But there are far more abuse victims than actual abusers. This research could clue us in to the “X factor” of who survives sexual abuse and is able to heal vs who goes on to become a predator."
Did you read the originating Gawker article? It didn't say that pedophiles are "made" that way through being abused. It actually makes a strong point from a science perspective that it could indeed be something they were born with, a sexual orientation.
I read nothing there about any "X factor" that separates "victims who heal" from "those who become predators". Phrasing it that way certainly leads me to believe you didn't read the article, as it suggests either A) all pedophiles that were assaulted as children will become predators, or B) a pedophile that doesn't pray on children is "healed". The article strongly points out that pedophiles are not synonymous with sex offenders, ie, predators.
First of all, I was commenting on the Discovery.com article about the Gawker article. Not the original Gawker article. I was referring to the Nature vs. Nurture argument for sex offenders. What I said about being made rather than born is an observation from working with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse for over 12 years. I am aware (as I’m sure you are) that not every person who is sexually abused becomes a sexual abuser. The vast majority of abusers are victims of abuse. The “X factor” I was talking about is a colloquialism often used in the field referring to the different reactions to and resiliency from trauma. So when I think of a “Pedophile” I think of the DSM-IV diagnosis under Paraphilia. There is no specific diagnosis for those with the sexual urges who do not act on them. The urge and the action are part of the same diagnosis as comorbid behavior. There is a debate in Psychology right now about adding a specific diagnosis for the “non-offending pedophile”. It is well documented that their brains are different. It is also well documented that childhood trauma, specifically sexual abuse changes your brain. There is no way of knowing what percentage of “natural pedophiles” were abused as children because no one knows how many exist.
As I said, I was commenting on the Discovery article. My two sentence comment was thought-association. I honestly did not read the Gawker source article at the time of the posting, but I’m glad you did. That’s the point of the FLD after all. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment