RE: Talk about science denial

RE: Talk about science denial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 10:35:31 AM)
quote: But it doesn't do that. The "pray away" crowd of ministers and lay religious groups aren't affected by it. Would you support the ban if they were included?

SadistDave -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 12:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: No one in this conversation is saying that any therapy will make gay CHILDREN straight. Then what's the point of reparative therapy? ETA from the CA law: (b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex. (2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation. Also: (o) Nothing in this act is intended to prevent a minor who is 12 years of age or older from consenting to any mental health treatment or counseling services, consistent with Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code, other than sexual orientation change efforts as defined in this act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172 Really? 1st. Try reading the whole post dc. The rest of the paragraph you're cherry picking from answers your question... 2nd. The California Bar Association is not in THIS conversation... -SD-

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 12:56:14 PM)
quote: Really? 1st. Try reading the whole post dc. The rest of the paragraph you're cherry picking from answers your question... I did. Then I zeroed in on the one part that actually pertained to the thread. I saw your "answer" but didn't buy it. quote: 2nd. The California Bar Association is not in THIS conversation... Who said anything about the Bar Association? I quoted the actual law--which banned a specific, discredited type of therapy aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation. Not only does it not bar troubled kids from getting help, but it specifically endorses their right to do so.

Moderator7 -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 3:20:15 PM)
This thread has been locked for review and cleanup. Thank you for your patience.

Moderator7 -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 3:36:35 PM)
The thread is unlocked. Some post were deleted due to racist comments, quoting, and going too far in our Feisty section. Enjoy your discussion.

GotSteel -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 4:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi People do that every day. The lottery is one of the biggest scams out there. And I must admit it's sad to see people put food back on the shelves because they can't afford both the food and their power ball ticket. Maybe we should try to outlaw that if we are really concerned that people are getting scammed. Certainly I think those people are spending their money poorly, which is why lotteries are illegal in several states. But to call it a scam, how have they been cheated, defrauded or swindled by means of a trick? This "reparative therapy" on the other hand is fraudulent because it's billed as 1. reparative and 2. therapy both of which aren't true. If it was billed as psychological torture instilling self loathing to the point you'll plausibly kill yourself then it wouldn't be fraudulent.....and also likely less popular.

PeonForHer -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 4:06:22 PM)
quote: People do that every day. The lottery is one of the biggest scams out there. And I must admit it's sad to see people put food back on the shelves because they can't afford both the food and their power ball ticket. Maybe we should try to outlaw that if we are really concerned that people are getting scammed. Many people are able to multitask and are able to act against more than one scam, of quite different types, at the same time, THB, I feel.

BamaD -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 4:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: People do that every day. The lottery is one of the biggest scams out there. And I must admit it's sad to see people put food back on the shelves because they can't afford both the food and their power ball ticket. Maybe we should try to outlaw that if we are really concerned that people are getting scammed. Many people are able to multitask and are able to act against more than one scam, of quite different types, at the same time, THB, I feel. The lottery is a stupidity tax.

PeonForHer -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 4:17:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave There is an editing error in my last post thats rather important. It should have indicated that no one here is saying therapy should be used to help gay children adopt a heterosexual lifestyle against their will. -SD- SD, to get it into perspective: If my child (should I have one) were to go to a therapist, exercised about his feelings of being attracted to the same sex, I'd want the therapist to offer all opinions. This would include that opinion that holds that my child isn't fucked up; rather, his schoolmates are fucked up. Even his parents might be fucked up. People who are innately conservative, politically, keep tripping over the erroneous beliefs that what a) authorities, b) tradition and c) most people feel to be the 'correct'/'natural'/morally acceptable state of affairs is the most healthy. I would want my hypothetical troubled child to know, very clearly, that this is bollocks. I would want him strongly to consider the possibility that the big issue is not his being unable to fit with his schoolfriends and family, but their inability to fit with him. After he's got that together, I might just mention that he could try to 'eliminate' the homosexuality within himself. And then counsel him that this doesn't work, and doesn't need to work, anyway.

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 4:58:09 PM)
quote: I would want him strongly to consider the possibility that the big issue is not his being unable to fit with his schoolfriends and family, but their inability to fit with him. After he's got that together, I might just mention that he could try to 'eliminate' the homosexuality within himself. And then counsel him that this doesn't work, and doesn't need to work, anyway. Beautifully said, Peon. Thanks! [:)]

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/15/2014 10:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: But it doesn't do that. The "pray away" crowd of ministers and lay religious groups aren't affected by it. Would you support the ban if they were included? Probably not. I am no fan of people hawking "reparative therapy" from the back of a wagon, or for that matter a "cure" for schizophrenia, but I object to the idea that competent professionals should be prohibited from working with clients who approach them with such goals. Accepting the legitimacy of an individual's distress and a willingness to engage with them toward their goals is the doorway to a therapeutic encounter. If you refuse, they will leave. The only effect of this law will be to drive more people underground into the hands of charlatans and religious nuts, who would ignore the law even if it included them. K.

SadistDave -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 12:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave There is an editing error in my last post thats rather important. It should have indicated that no one here is saying therapy should be used to help gay children adopt a heterosexual lifestyle against their will. -SD- SD, to get it into perspective: If my child (should I have one) were to go to a therapist, exercised about his feelings of being attracted to the same sex, I'd want the therapist to offer all opinions. This would include that opinion that holds that my child isn't fucked up; rather, his schoolmates are fucked up. Even his parents might be fucked up. Currently, the only thing anyone on the left seems to favor for "gay" children is to teach them that it's everyone elses problem. There is a lot of denial on the left in these forums that appears to lead to the belief that all people who are a certain way want to be that way, are happy that way, and should be encouraged to engage in a lifestyle they don't want to be in. But don't take my word for it. Yours will do quite nicely to demonstrate this. quote: People who are innately conservative, politically, keep tripping over the erroneous beliefs that what a) authorities, b) tradition and c) most people feel to be the 'correct'/'natural'/morally acceptable state of affairs is the most healthy. Liberals do the same thing. Liberals and conservatives just have different issues they believe are morally correct. Liberals like to push gun control, ripping off people who work to give money to people who don't, not allowing people to eat what they want, or just generally have their own opinions and make their own decisions. Kind of like this topic. People who are inately liberal want to make sure that society conforms to the herd mentality for its own good in the exact same way as conservatives. The liberal herd says that anyone who disagrees with the herd is evil, bigotted, racist, etc. This thread is pretty indicative of the lefts inability to allow people to have personal choices that don't show conformity. In fact, your next comments actually confirm that. quote: I would want my hypothetical troubled child to know, very clearly, that this is bollocks. I would want him strongly to consider the possibility that the big issue is not his being unable to fit with his schoolfriends and family, but their inability to fit with him. After he's got that together, I might just mention that he could try to 'eliminate' the homosexuality within himself. And then counsel him that this doesn't work, and doesn't need to work, anyway. Lets go back to your first statement... How is anything in the paragraph above allowing your hypothetical child to have access to "all" opinions? It very clearly indicates that you do not want your hypothetical child to have access to any opinions that you disagree with, and that the herd would disagree with. The part I emphasized pretty clearly indicates that you would resist providing your hypothetical child any kind of professional help that you might find distasteful, even if your opinion might be wrong. As a hypothetical parent that's your perogative, but at least cut the bullshit. -SD-

tweakabelle -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 1:37:34 AM)
quote: Kirata Accepting the legitimacy of an individual's distress and a willingness to engage with them toward their goals is the doorway to a therapeutic encounter. "[A]ccepting the legitimacy" of an individual's distress places a number of obligations upon the therapist. Among these obligations is searching for the origin/cause of the client's 'distress'. The notion that some people are genetically disposed to hating themselves for their homosexual desires is as silly as it sounds. If a person is suffering distress around their same gender desires, the origin of that distress must be in that individual's external circumstances. An externally-generated aversion to same gender desires is internalised leading to the distress that drove the individual to seek help. It stands to reason that the individual seeking help must place differing valuations on same- and other-gender desires. No one seeks therapy to cure their 'heterosexuality'. It follows that those valuations must devalue same-gender desires and elevate other-gender desires, making the common error of mistaking the norm for the 'natural'. What ever the individual's situation, this differential valuation must be present in some form for an individual to feel distress and seek help. It must also form the core of any so-called reparative therapy that claims to 'cure' same gender desires. If this analysis is valid, the first task of any therapist dealing with a client feeling distress over their same-gender desires must be to guide the client to the realisation that the differential valuation at the core of their issues is incorrect, that it can be changed, that there is a high success rate when this valuation is changed and that, therefore, the best hope for a successful outcome to the therapy is to pursue this path. It can be argued, from the data, that this option alone offers the possibility of a successful therapy. So-called 'reparative' therapy does not consider this strategy, not does it accept this analysis. Unless the above analysis is invalid, any 'therapy' that excludes this option (for whatever reason) cannot be in the client's best interests. It ought to be self-evident that any health professional offering a service that is demonstrably not in the client's best interests should not be allowed to operate. When the best therapeutic option is rejected for purely ideological reasons (eg. religious reasons), we are not talking about therapy any more, we have strayed into the realm of quackery, brainwashing and proselytising.

DomKen -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 1:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: But it doesn't do that. The "pray away" crowd of ministers and lay religious groups aren't affected by it. Would you support the ban if they were included? Probably not. I am no fan of people hawking "reparative therapy" from the back of a wagon, or for that matter a "cure" for schizophrenia, but I object to the idea that competent professionals should be prohibited from working with clients who approach them with such goals. Accepting the legitimacy of an individual's distress and a willingness to engage with them toward their goals is the doorway to a therapeutic encounter. If you refuse, they will leave. The only effect of this law will be to drive more people underground into the hands of charlatans and religious nuts, who would ignore the law even if it included them. I think you will find that competent professionals will not engage in such since all the research indicates therapy cannot change a person's sexuality and the attempt can have negative outcomes.

PeonForHer -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 3:25:40 AM)
quote: I would want my hypothetical troubled child to know, very clearly, that this is bollocks. I would want him strongly to consider the possibility that the big issue is not his being unable to fit with his schoolfriends and family, but their inability to fit with him. After he's got that together, I might just mention that he could try to 'eliminate' the homosexuality within himself. And then counsel him that this doesn't work, and doesn't need to work, anyway. quote: Lets go back to your first statement... How is anything in the paragraph above allowing your hypothetical child to have access to "all" opinions? It very clearly indicates that you do not want your hypothetical child to have access to any opinions that you disagree with, and that the herd would disagree with. The part I emphasized pretty clearly indicates that you would resist providing your hypothetical child any kind of professional help that you might find distasteful, even if your opinion might be wrong. As far as I'm aware the empirical evidence has it that it really doesn't work. I read an article about it some while ago (though didn't take much notice because, again from what I'm aware, such treatment isn't available in my country anyway) that it might be successful, temporarily, with those who are bisexual. It works by simply helping the child to suppress certain feelings for a while. But the payback is that those feelings return, further down the line, though now with added horror in the child that a 'treatment has failed'.

GotSteel -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 3:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Liberals do the same thing. Liberals and conservatives just have different issues they believe are morally correct. Yes liberals are human beings too and as such generally work pretty much the same way as other humans work. The difference between liberals and conservatives at this point is an endeavor to hold a morality based on reality instead of a morality based on superstition.

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 3:45:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle we have strayed into the realm of quackery, brainwashing and proselytising. That describes your post rather nicely. This debate has more to do with gay political activism and anti-religious sentiment than it does with reality. Nicholas Cummings is a past President of the American Psychological Association and was the sponsor of the resolution declaring that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. You might benefit from considering the possibility that his observations may be more informed than your own (link). K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 3:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle we have strayed into the realm of quackery, brainwashing and proselytising. That describes your post rather nicely. This debate has more to do with gay political activism and anti-religious sentiment than it does with reality. Nicholas Cummings is a past President of the American Psychological Association and was the sponsor of the resolution declaring that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. You might benefit from considering the possibility that his observations may be more informed than your own (link). K. Sorry, K. Based upon posting history, here; this guy, Cummings is obviously an anti-Semite. [:D] Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

tweakabelle -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 4:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle we have strayed into the realm of quackery, brainwashing and proselytising. That describes your post rather nicely. This debate has more to do with gay political activism and anti-religious sentiment than it does with reality. Nicholas Cummings is a past President of the American Psychological Association and was the sponsor of the resolution declaring that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. You might benefit from considering the possibility that his observations may be more informed than your own (link). K. So you couldn't find any flaws in the analysis I offered and have resorted to appeals to 'authority' to maintain your increasingly tenuous position. It is not anti-religious sentiment to point out that religion-driven 'reparative therapy' has no credible basis and rejects far superior therapeutic options. That is a correct factual observation of the current state of play. It is not gay political activism to observe that 'reparative therapy' against same gender desires necessarily involves a disparaging differential valuation - it is self evident. Regarding the link you supplied, I note that Cummings has both professional and financial interests in promoting the so-called 'reparative therapy'. I also note that he declined to declare either interest. If there is an independent evaluation of his claims, I might be tempted to take that a bit more seriously. I also note that you decline to state a position on the differential evaluation of same- and other-gender desires, the core problem that generates this entire issue. While I would welcome your declaration of a position on this core issue, I cannot add that I am surprised that to date you have avoided the core issue. Despite your shonky pretence that you're being ideologically neutral and engaged solely in a 'defence of freedom of choice' your position is as ideological as any one else's. Freedom of choice does not sanction the implicit homophobia of your position, quite the opposite. Your silence on the core issue simply amplifies the stench of homophobia permeating your defence of this evil ideologically-driven 'therapy'. If you can't find a flaw in the analysis I presented in post #193, and thus far you haven't, better to stay quiet rather than getting your knickers in a twist over some twisted (mis)understanding of 'freedom of choice'.

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/16/2014 6:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So you couldn't find any flaws in the analysis I offered and have resorted to appeals to 'authority' to maintain your increasingly tenuous position. It is not an appeal to authority. Learn your logical fallacies. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It is not anti-religious sentiment to point out that religion-driven 'reparative therapy' has no credible basis and rejects far superior therapeutic options. That is a correct factual observation of the current state of play. This is a straw man. I'm not talking about religion-driven therapy. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It is not gay political activism to observe that 'reparative therapy' against same gender desires necessarily involves a disparaging differential valuation - it is self evident. It is purely gay political activism. "Reparative" refers to repairing the effects of childhood abuse and trauma, not "fixing" the homosexual. And leaving aside the "pray away" crowd, what about when the differential valuation is the client's own, with respect to his own life. Is that a thought crime now? quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Regarding the link you supplied, I note that Cummings has both professional and financial interests in promoting the so-called 'reparative therapy'. I also note that he declined to declare either interest. His professional interest and experience (and yes, most professionals are paid) is rather prominently declared at the link. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Despite your shonky pretence that you're being ideologically neutral and engaged solely in a 'defence of freedom of choice' your position is as ideological as any one else's. Freedom of choice does not sanction the implicit homophobia of your position, quite the opposite. Your silence on the core issue simply amplifies the stench of homophobia permeating your defence of this evil ideologically-driven 'therapy'. When defending freedom of choice is tarred as "homophobia," there is no room for doubt about where the "stench" is coming from. K.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875