Much like the last post, this is from the Mykel Board reading list.
I have not actually read this all the way through, but thought it was something worth considering.
https://archive.org/details/al_Bob_Black_The_Abolition_of_Work_a4
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Freaky 20th Century Sexperts
My main gripe is some people really dislike Wikipedia. This is my light Saturday morning reading, which may (probably not) lead to further study. If a Wikipedia article in not enough for you serious minded folks, it should not be and you will then move on to further studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia:_The_Radical_Case
------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist)
"During the APA's heated debate in the early 1970s about the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, Green argued forcefully in favor of declassification.[13] He argued that the grounds for deciding the issue should be the "historical and cross-cultural groundings in homosexual expression, associated psychiatric features accompanying a homosexual orientation, the emotional consequences to the homosexual of societal condemnation, and behaviors of other species".[13] Green applauded the eventual APA decision while strongly criticizing the fact that the administration put it to a vote, saying that such "a shotgun marriage between science and democracy" was "ludicrous".[13]
In his work, on gender identity in children, Green used common English expressions like "sissy boy" and "tomboy" in the titles of some of his publications. His choice of terminology attracted a number of criticisms over its political correctness.[14]
In 2002, he initiated a debate in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the extent to which pedophilia should be classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, without impinging on the legal and law enforcement aspects. It concluded that sexual arousal to children is subjectively reported "in a substantial minority of "normal" people", and reviewed the level of social acceptance of this historically, but stated that such observations may not entail cultural or legal acceptance today.[13] The paper also raised specific concerns about the DSM-IV definition, some of which were later acknowledged by Ray Blanchard in his literature review for the DSM-5 workgroup,[15] which proposed a more general nomenclature distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders; this proposal is part of the DSM-5 draft.[16] In 2010, however, Green criticized in stronger terms Blanchard's proposal to introduce hebephilia as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (as a subtype the proposed pedohebophilic disorder). Pointing to the legal age of sexual consent in several countries of Europe, this would declare 19-year-olds engaged sexually with 14-year-olds as having a mental disorder.[17]"
---------------------------------------------
The same Richard Green was involved in a Boy Scouts discrimination case from 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia:_The_Radical_Case
Reception
Mainstream media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by the journalist Mary-Kay Wilmers in the London Review of Books,[1] the psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft in The Times Literary Supplement,[3] John Rae in the Times Educational Supplement,[4] Maurice Yaffé in New Statesman,[5] and Eric Taylor in New Society.[6] Reviewers were sharply divided. Wilmers, Rycroft and Rae were scathingly dismissive,[1][3][4] while Yaffé and Taylor were strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out.[5][6]Gay media
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by Ken Plummer in Gay News, Hubert Kennedy Books in The Advocate, and Wallace Hamilton in Christopher Street. These reviews were broadly sympathetic.[7][8][9] Jim Monk reviewed the book in The Body Politic, writing that while O'Carroll "takes great care in researching and documenting his arguments", O'Carroll's personal interest in having sex with children meant that he was not "disinterested" and his work was not academic. While Monk granted that many of O'Carroll's arguments had been made before, he credited O'Carroll with being the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and with making a compelling case. Nevertheless, he had reservations, pointing to the possibility of heterosexual men sexually abusing young girls. Monk accepted O'Carroll's view that consensual sex does not interfere with a child's emotional or sexual maturation. Monk criticized O'Carroll's treatment of incest, writing that while O'Carroll stated he would not deal with the topic, he nevertheless implied that "sex play between parents and their children" was desirable. Monk argued in response that "father-daughter affairs" were not "healthy". Monk concluded that the book was the solution to problems facing the gay rights movement in Canada, which according to him was suffering from a feeling that its strategies were lacking.[10]------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist)
"During the APA's heated debate in the early 1970s about the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, Green argued forcefully in favor of declassification.[13] He argued that the grounds for deciding the issue should be the "historical and cross-cultural groundings in homosexual expression, associated psychiatric features accompanying a homosexual orientation, the emotional consequences to the homosexual of societal condemnation, and behaviors of other species".[13] Green applauded the eventual APA decision while strongly criticizing the fact that the administration put it to a vote, saying that such "a shotgun marriage between science and democracy" was "ludicrous".[13]
In his work, on gender identity in children, Green used common English expressions like "sissy boy" and "tomboy" in the titles of some of his publications. His choice of terminology attracted a number of criticisms over its political correctness.[14]
In 2002, he initiated a debate in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the extent to which pedophilia should be classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, without impinging on the legal and law enforcement aspects. It concluded that sexual arousal to children is subjectively reported "in a substantial minority of "normal" people", and reviewed the level of social acceptance of this historically, but stated that such observations may not entail cultural or legal acceptance today.[13] The paper also raised specific concerns about the DSM-IV definition, some of which were later acknowledged by Ray Blanchard in his literature review for the DSM-5 workgroup,[15] which proposed a more general nomenclature distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders; this proposal is part of the DSM-5 draft.[16] In 2010, however, Green criticized in stronger terms Blanchard's proposal to introduce hebephilia as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 (as a subtype the proposed pedohebophilic disorder). Pointing to the legal age of sexual consent in several countries of Europe, this would declare 19-year-olds engaged sexually with 14-year-olds as having a mental disorder.[17]"
---------------------------------------------
The same Richard Green was involved in a Boy Scouts discrimination case from 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America
Friday, March 9, 2018
The Burden of Communication by James Sass
http://www.satannet.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=58222#Post58222
THE BURDEN OF COMMUNICATION
If you post or respond to posts here, you are obliged to write in a manner that can be understood and responded to.
This involves form and content.
Form is spelling, grammar, and punctuation. There is no excuse for lacking these basic skills. If you have a hard time with this, try writing your post in Word or whatever word-processing program that came loaded in your computer. Most of these programs are designed to correct basic errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Content is the substance of your post. Just about any comment you can make is either a judgment or a call to action.
In the case of judgment, you are stating that you agree or disagree with a statement and your reasons for agreement or disagreement.
If you disagree with someone, it is because they are uninformed (lacking information), misinformed (based on wrong information), or their reasoning is flawed (they draw wrong or erroneous conclusions from the basic information), or they are incomplete in their analysis. If you disagree with someone the burden is on you to clearly state why. There is no point in just stating “I disagree” – that is just being mindlessly contentious. If you agree with someone and find it worth saying so, it also does not hurt to state why.
In the case of a call to action, you are stating what should be done or not be done and your reasons why.
If you can’t make the effort to be understood in the first place, Don’t be surprised when you get banned.
If you just “don’t care” if your post is understood, or if you are legible or coherent to anyone reading it, then why post here in the first place? Go do something more productive with yourself, like stick a butter knife into an electric socket.
The same goes to all the lot lice that immediately jump on every lame newcomer with petty nit-picking criticism. From what I’ve observed here, 99 times out of 100 you have nothing better to offer yourself.
Kindergarten dismissed!
If you post or respond to posts here, you are obliged to write in a manner that can be understood and responded to.
This involves form and content.
Form is spelling, grammar, and punctuation. There is no excuse for lacking these basic skills. If you have a hard time with this, try writing your post in Word or whatever word-processing program that came loaded in your computer. Most of these programs are designed to correct basic errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Content is the substance of your post. Just about any comment you can make is either a judgment or a call to action.
In the case of judgment, you are stating that you agree or disagree with a statement and your reasons for agreement or disagreement.
If you disagree with someone, it is because they are uninformed (lacking information), misinformed (based on wrong information), or their reasoning is flawed (they draw wrong or erroneous conclusions from the basic information), or they are incomplete in their analysis. If you disagree with someone the burden is on you to clearly state why. There is no point in just stating “I disagree” – that is just being mindlessly contentious. If you agree with someone and find it worth saying so, it also does not hurt to state why.
In the case of a call to action, you are stating what should be done or not be done and your reasons why.
If you can’t make the effort to be understood in the first place, Don’t be surprised when you get banned.
If you just “don’t care” if your post is understood, or if you are legible or coherent to anyone reading it, then why post here in the first place? Go do something more productive with yourself, like stick a butter knife into an electric socket.
The same goes to all the lot lice that immediately jump on every lame newcomer with petty nit-picking criticism. From what I’ve observed here, 99 times out of 100 you have nothing better to offer yourself.
Kindergarten dismissed!
Monday, March 5, 2018
Get Toxic Media Out of Your Head
Every night an audience of mostly baby boomer aged people watch
primetime news and talk shows. Of course, it is all slanted Anti-Trump and Republican Party. It is much little sound and video bytes for people, several minutes or even less than a minute. Most people will not bother to research these topics.
It is enough to make one who thinks about it all insane.
At most they will listen to what some dimwit whom listens to "edgier" programs such as Democracy Now! and NPR. Or even worse, some public service employee!
It is true that Trump says some crazy things and many (most) in the GOP are mainly concerned about property taxes.
However your average Republican party bashing person will never take the time to learn about spending and taxes nor the corruption and greed in the media. Many will also just attack your average citizen whom has conservative, right wing values (gun control, immigration, moral values).
They will go after law enforcement to arrest and criminally charge said people (whether concerning an arguement on social media or at a "peaceful" protest) and for corporations to fire these said people.
Once these activists (morons) have their way they then attack the very instituions (police and corporations) they claim to care about. They totally forget that Human Resource departments and the police are always on their sides.
Granted many of these cartoonish looking neo-nazi types are useless clowns. However, back to my main point: the media (mainstream news TV stations, newspapers, print publications, radio, the grand wide internet and Hollywood movies) will only focus on said individuals, examine to death something Trump said and avoid the real issues.
The root of these issues? I don't know where to begin with that!
However you can always avoid it all as much as you can.
Even avoid Pro-Trump social media postings!
We have to start living on our own terms and plant the seeds for tomorrow's generations. I am not here to tell you WHAT to do.
primetime news and talk shows. Of course, it is all slanted Anti-Trump and Republican Party. It is much little sound and video bytes for people, several minutes or even less than a minute. Most people will not bother to research these topics.
It is enough to make one who thinks about it all insane.
At most they will listen to what some dimwit whom listens to "edgier" programs such as Democracy Now! and NPR. Or even worse, some public service employee!
It is true that Trump says some crazy things and many (most) in the GOP are mainly concerned about property taxes.
However your average Republican party bashing person will never take the time to learn about spending and taxes nor the corruption and greed in the media. Many will also just attack your average citizen whom has conservative, right wing values (gun control, immigration, moral values).They will go after law enforcement to arrest and criminally charge said people (whether concerning an arguement on social media or at a "peaceful" protest) and for corporations to fire these said people.
Once these activists (morons) have their way they then attack the very instituions (police and corporations) they claim to care about. They totally forget that Human Resource departments and the police are always on their sides.
Granted many of these cartoonish looking neo-nazi types are useless clowns. However, back to my main point: the media (mainstream news TV stations, newspapers, print publications, radio, the grand wide internet and Hollywood movies) will only focus on said individuals, examine to death something Trump said and avoid the real issues.
The root of these issues? I don't know where to begin with that!
However you can always avoid it all as much as you can.
Even avoid Pro-Trump social media postings!
We have to start living on our own terms and plant the seeds for tomorrow's generations. I am not here to tell you WHAT to do.
Winter is Coming... to an End
Art!
Recent Photos (Stuff in the Kitchen)
Recent Youtube Videos
There are women out there for you and money to be had.
Definitely do not listen to me! Err DO listen to me but agreeing nor disagreeing will get you nowhere.
Showing my microphone MC abilities.
Showing off my new sportscoat.
Showing off my dance moves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)