CreateDebate


Leblueboy's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Leblueboy's arguments, looking across every debate.
5 points

Homosexuality is the result of a complex combination of biopsychosocial factors. To say otherwise is simply ignorant.

As for testing: why should a test be available? The fact is that it creates a system open to abuse.

1 point

Really I'd say it is possibly a better solution to want your society to change, than want your child to change. If we adapt to society it will never change. The great changes in our society have come from people forcing their social structure to adapt to them, rather than the other way around.

3 points

To 'mind' your child's sexual orientation is something like 'minding' having a disabled child, a gifted child, or a female instead of male. Homosexuality is the unavoidable consequence of a complex set of biopsychosocial factors, to 'mind' it is somwhat bizzare.

2 points

I think it is possibly fair to say that no couple should 'want' their child to be any sexual orientation.

The vast majority of gay couples, thankfully, neither 'want' or 'expect' their children to be gay.

1 point

... Being a Muslim is a choice. I'm really not sure what else to say to that.

1 point

You're making it a moral argument, and it's not, it's a scientific one. Morals have no place within science.

2 points

You're making some fantastic proclamations... with no evidence. I'm a social scientist by education and profession, and I have seen some fantastic debates about instinct-vs-conscious choice. No one knows whether animals work entirely on instinct, and no one knows if humans don't.

You are, once again, misunderstanding the concept of paedophilia. To abuse a child is to be a child abuser, just as to force an adult into sex is rape. To be a paedophile is not automatically to be a child abuser any more than to be heterosexual is to be a rapist.

Paedophilia is not consenting in legal terms, that does not mean it is not consenting in social terms. There is a great difference made - in legal terms, one must actually state "i provide consent" (the purpose of a rape trial is to provide evidence that consent was provided, not to provide evidence that it was not), which means 99% of people have not given consent whilst having sex, in legal terms.

As for your wonderful treatment idea: what about those who are later found to be innocent (around 45% of sex-offenders, in Europe)?

1 point

I think that's the first time I've seen a psychologist who claims not to be a scientist. Psychology is either a bioscience or a social sceicne depending on which approach you take.

I agree to your argument to some extent. However, to the very best of my knowledge, the most acceptable research currently says that you can, indeed, 'turn a gay man straight'. The problem as always, is ethics. It is unethical to alter someone's sexuality, but not remotely difficult. Standard aversion therapy combined with electro-convulsive therapies are generally considered 'effective' within a few months: faster than using NLP to deal with social anxiety.

Please submit research evidence supporting the claim that paedophiles are emotionally unstable, I have been unable to find research which makes this claim and I'd be interested in reviewing it. I'd also be interested in research which claims one is born with unstable emotions, as the consensus within academic psychology is that emotional disposition is generally the result of complex psychosocial factors, rather than simple biology. A neuroscientist would, of course, disagree with the stimulus-result.

I'm yet to actually come across a psychologist of note who doesn't combine pederasty (the attraction to pre-pubescent boys) with homosexuality - in terms of anthropology, little distinction is made, and pederasty is considered one of the three forms of homosexuality.

However, your argument is made clearly and concisely... so I support it.

2 points

Please review the meaning of the word 'paedophile'. It does not translate as 'child abuser' any more than 'homosexual' translates to 'rapist'.

2 points

Proofs do not exist outwith mathematics. There is no evidence to say that paedophilia is an active choice - in actuality, there is a large amount of evidence to say that it is the result of complex biopsychosocial factors, as is any other sexual orientation.

2 points

Frankly, I think what 'Jesus' thought of it is somewhat irrelevent. We have no evidence of what 'Jesus' thought, we merely have a badly-translated and translitterated Bible. The bible preaches the murder of witches, homosexuals and any number of others. Do you really want to trust what 'Jesus' thinks?

6 points

I'm afraid this is a very simple, semantic argument.

Paedophilia is defined as 'a sexual attraction to children' (Princeton). It should be noted that paedophilia applies specifically to pre-pubescent children (approximately 0 - 12). Homosexuality is defined as 'a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex ' (Princeton).

The problem is the social connotations of the word 'paedophilia' - this is by no means a lay problem, it exists within both professional and academic circles. The problem being that people associate 'paedophile' with 'rapist' or 'abuser'. Notably, this also occurred during the 1950s with the word 'homosexual'. To consider a paedophile a rapist is to consider a hetero- or homosexual a rapist, too. Paedophiles may engage in consensual sex* (though not legally, see below).

Homosexuality was legalised in a number of countries over a number of years, though generally, prior to legalisation, it was considered a mental illness and and any two men who had sex with one another were deemed unable to provide consent: as such, it was an act of statutory rape. A child (ie those under the age of sixteen in the United Kingdom) are unable to provide legal consent - to have sex with a child under sixteen, if one is over the age of sixteen, is an act of statutory rape, regardless of whether the child provided 'consent'.

Your argument, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Child abuse hurts people - so does rape. Consensual sex with a paedophile does not, and a large number of studies suggest that children who engage in consensual sex with both other children and adults face no repercussions later in life.

1 point

Obama has fulfilled many of his manifesto promises. However, the way in which has has fulfilled them has been misleading, though not untruthful.

Guantanamo is a fantastic example - Obama claimed that Guantanamo would be steadily removed and the prisoners would either be released or face a fair trial and 'normal' imprisonment. This is being fulfilled at a speed faster than previously expected. However, what was not expected, is that prisoners who were released from Guantanamo were immediately re-arrested and taken to Bagram: a lawless, trial-less prison system with lower standards and less observation of basic human rights than Guantanamo. A liar, no. Deceitful, yes.

A half-truth is as good as a lie, I'm sure.

RE: Air Force One: Obama is not a 'figure-head'. He is a president: a man appointed by the citizens of the United States of America to control the way in which their state (country) is governed. It is Obama's personal responsibility to ensure that his government behave in a respectable and informed manner: if he is ill-informed, he is doing his job in an incorrect manner.



Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]