Forum: Off Topic

Thread (Discussion): Really Stupid Things

Not only is the gay rights movement up front in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers' claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.

"When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have had no sexual objective in mind. Some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems have come to believe that the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other adults who discover that the child has had such a contact, may disturb the child more seriously than the sexual contacts themselves. The current hysteria over sex offenders may very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual adjustments some years later..."

So using your logic here concerning Dr. Cameron, I have to also disavow all of Alfred Kinsey's studies on sexuality.

In Kinsey's study titled "Sexual Behavior of the Human Female" he concluded,
"When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have had no sexual objective in mind. Some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems have come to believe that the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other adults who discover that the child has had such a contact, may disturb the child more seriously than the sexual contacts themselves. The current hysteria over sex offenders may very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual adjustments some years later..."

Since this idea isn't accepted by "experts" today as having much validity, I guess I have to label Dr. Kinsey as a whacko.

Who knows who these "some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems" actually were that Kinsey quoted from?--so it apparently, following your logic, brings about the necessity to pretty much ignore all of his other works as a result.

Yet modern witch-doctors—those who extol the primacy of feelings (e.g., do you have good "self-esteem," "do you feel good about yourself") and tout the importance of people "following their hearts"—are magnifying their influence over common thought and social policy.

The following annual report from King County, Washington, home of the city of Seattle, shows how

does not lead to recovery. Of over 9300 patients treated by the county in 2002, only 5 individuals recovered. The report for 2001 is similar

the "mental health care" profession claims to rely upon "scientific findings" to devise and carry out its treatments.

A basic question, and one that I have mentioned before, is "does all this ‘therapy-stuff’ work?" that is, what happens if we apply the FDA standard of "safe and effective" to the treatment of mental illness? Well, lo and behold, the political body of King County, Washington (where Seattle is located) has demanded just such an accounting—at least in part.

Here is a report from King County following up a year later and referencing the same report that Dr. Cameron quoted, The 2002 statistics aren't much better. Since you've written off Dr. Cameron as a wacko, you'll have to do the same with the King County Department of Community and Human Services.

Modern psychiatry and clinical psychology came out of "treatment" of those who were obviously "nuts." That is, people who heard strange noises, bothered their neighbors with no account disturbances, or who were unreasonably depressed (e.g., suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar, or dysthymic [long-term depression] disorders).

The professions of psychiatry and psychology claim great things (e.g., we understand how people tick) and demand great things (e.g., psychologists should be included in all health-care insurance and should be permitted to write prescriptions—after all, mental health is as important as physical health). Attempts have been made to include mental health practitioners in Federal insurance plans. And rather than being made up of witch-doctors—as some allege—the "mental health care" profession claims to rely upon "scientific findings" to devise and carry out its treatments.

A basic question, and one that I have mentioned before, is "does all this ‘therapy-stuff’ work?" that is, what happens if we apply the FDA standard of "safe and effective" to the treatment of mental illness? Well, lo and behold, the political body of King County, Washington (where Seattle is located) has demanded just such an accounting—at least in part.

There a law has been passed that demands an annual accounting of just how well these "scientific" treatments work. The goal of the politicians was fairly similar to what was sought in the 1850s under the reformer Dorthy Dix. Then, resumption of social functioning was the goal. Now it is "Recovery emphasizes the restoration of self-esteem and on attaining meaningful roles in society." The "restoration of self-esteem" is, of course, a new requirement.

Nonetheless, the accounting is in. For 2001, 7,831 patients were treated by the staff of the King County mental health system (at a cost of $90 million or roughly $11,500/patient). The results documented that 6,949 (88.7%) showed no improvement, 597 (8%) showed some improvement, 285 (4%) regressed, and four (.05%) recovered.

This is "scientific success"?

During the 20th century, under the reforms of Dorthy Dix, mental hospitals that emphasized basket weaving, working in the fields, and listening to preachers had "cure" rates north of 80%. But that was before "scientific" practitioners came along.

Look at the numbers above. It seems unlikely that the 8.1% improved or recovered exceeds spontaneous remission! In fact, I have a suspicion that the 8.1% rate is below spontaneous remission.

Yet the professionals who managed to "achieve" this outcome, in one of the more progressive locales with one of the most generous budgets, dare to tell us how to live our lives, have our marriages, and—in particular—the correct philosophy of life.

We justly scoff at people who pay witch doctors to make dolls of their enemies and pierce those dolls with pins. "How silly," we say, "dolls are not people, and no matter what you do to dolls, it won’t make any difference in the real world." Yet modern witch-doctors—those who extol the primacy of feelings (e.g., do you have good "self-esteem," "do you feel good about yourself") and tout the importance of people "following their hearts"—are magnifying their influence over common thought and social policy.

"Notice that " Recovery" is a concept that has been around for quite some time but has been applied mostly to chemical dependency treatment.""

He’s part of a defined anti-gay right wing agenda and much of what he writes borders on hate speech, not to mention being factually implausible in the extreme.

The Psychology Industry decides want it does and doesn’t wants the public to know. It wants people to hear about new treatments, such as EMDR or ThoughtField Therapy, and about its successes. It doesn’t tell us when therapies prove uneffective or even harmful, such as the notorious "repressed memory therapy," or when treatment is unsuccessful and clients get worse or die.

Just one case in point involves the results of a consumer survey conducted by Consumer Reports, the organization that reports on how well people like their toasters and their VCRs. In 1994, it surveyed its subscribers about automobiles and psychotherapy. The response rate was an abysmal 1.6 %, but none the less, Consumer Reports (CR) and the American Psychological Association claimed that its results showed that "nine out of ten" people got better with therapy. Despite an abundance of shockingly obvious flaws in the survey, the APA continues to promote it in their "Public Education Program," a multi-million dollar effort designed to persuade the public that psychotherapy works!.

On the other hand, an $80,000,000 project funded by the U.S. government, is not included in their Public Education Program. This well designed and controlled study, which even the APA described as "state of the art," was intended to show that "a continuum of mental health and substance abuse services is more cost-effective than services delivered in the more typical fragmented system." However, what it found was that, despite better access, greater continuity of care, less restrictions on treatment and more client satisfaction, the cost was higher and the clinical results no better than those at the comparison site: not at all what the Psychology Industry had either expected or wanted! Even though users expressed satisfaction about their treatment just as in the CR survey, there was no concurrent evidence of effectiveness to support the idea that "satisfaction" is a measure of effectiveness. Leonard Bickman, the senior researcher, utterly surprised by the outcome, stated that "these results should raise serious doubts about some current clinical beliefs" about the effectiveness of psychological services.

He’s part of a defined anti-gay right wing agenda and much of what he writes borders on hate speech, not to mention being factually implausible in the extreme. I’d take anything he writes with about a metric ton of salt, particularly any statistics he cites...

The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false. "

Now there’s a mountain of research about as high the Empire State Building that has shown repeatedly that heterosexuals and homosexuals molest children at about precisely the same rate

"The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false. "

"How many offenders act out becuse they are confused about their orientation? Lots."

" I would prefer that they find their identify and figure out their orientation BEFORE they offend."

Thread