|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 16, 2017 10:36:43 GMT
Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not. What types one is attracted to, is not always legally consensual though and therefore can be a "misuse" of sexuality. By this I mean, not acting accordingly or appropriately with how we use our sexuality. For instance, drugging somebody to take sexual advantage of them without their consent. Pedophilia is "misusing" sexuality, because it is taking advantage of those that still very impressionable and still have a way to go with physically and mentally maturing.
Pedophilia is the action of getting it on with pre-pubescent children, or even just a sexual desire for children if not acted upon. Homosexuality doesn't need to be changed in anyone—even though there are many that would still see it as deviant and perverted and un-natural—where as this discussion is about what can be done to assist pedophiles and their urges. Perhaps it can't be helped and is something innate, but at the end of the day, isn't it all a product of the ego mindset? We as humans have to learn to control our desires and urges if they aren't serving us or others very well. Each individual needs to take responsibility for these actions and we know that homosexuality comes with the package; but this is not a dark aspect of a persons being like it was believed to be and was conditioned to be oppressed within.
Pedophilic behavior can only really be cured by those that desire or engage in it at the end of the day. If they can't, or don't want to grow and change, then so be it. Something is not going to go away just because we want it to, and that accounts for pretty much everything in this world and how it operates.
Perhaps pedophilia is something that is innate, but it is on a par with those that have murderous tendencies, in my opinion. It's something that needs to be controlled, first by taking responsibility and admitting to it, as you said, then by getting help. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 16, 2017 10:42:08 GMT
Don't waste your time. He could go on and on like this forever. Believe me, I know. I've argued with him on this subject on the old boards. He's impossible to pin down and loves to play with words. no we just both are anti-ageists and believe there are no correct definition of a word which is where the similarities end. Someone on this thread mentioned that you have never said you are a pedophile, or condone pedophilia, but isn't that splitting hairs (which you love to do)? If you are what you call 'anti-ageist' regarding sex then aren't you actually condoning child/adult sex, but in a roundabout way and without actually coming out and saying that? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 10:53:19 GMT
What types one is attracted to, is not always legally consensual though and therefore can be a "misuse" of sexuality. By this I mean, not acting accordingly or appropriately with how we use our sexuality. For instance, drugging somebody to take sexual advantage of them without their consent. Pedophilia is "misusing" sexuality, because it is taking advantage of those that still very impressionable and still have a way to go with physically and mentally maturing.
Pedophilia is the action of getting it on with pre-pubescent children, or even just a sexual desire for children if not acted upon. Homosexuality doesn't need to be changed in anyone—even though there are many that would still see it as deviant and perverted and un-natural—where as this discussion is about what can be done to assist pedophiles and their urges. Perhaps it can't be helped and is something innate, but at the end of the day, isn't it all a product of the ego mindset? We as humans have to learn to control our desires and urges if they aren't serving us or others very well. Each individual needs to take responsibility for these actions and we know that homosexuality comes with the package; but this is not a dark aspect of a persons being like it was believed to be and was conditioned to be oppressed within.
Pedophilic behavior can only really be cured by those that desire or engage in it at the end of the day. If they can't, or don't want to grow and change, then so be it. Something is not going to go away just because we want it to, and that accounts for pretty much everything in this world and how it operates.
Perhaps pedophilia is something that is innate, but it is on a par with those that have murderous tendencies, in my opinion. It's something that needs to be controlled, first by taking responsibility and admitting to it, as you said, then by getting help. My opinion is that paedophilia is probably an innate tendency but in the real world not many paedophiles are actually going to admit to it. Sure government and other social organisations should do a lot to make paedophiles reach for help but as a society we should strive to account for ourselves. Parents should be taught how to care for their children so that monsters like Jimmy Savile don't get away with their monstrous acts. I believe that in usual cases children of a dysfunctional family are more likely to fall prey to pedos. Some unfortunate kids are very unlucky to have paedophile parents. I don't know how we can tackle that. But sometimes some acts of paedophilia can be contained but are not contained simply because we as society are not strong enough to do anything about them. A lot of rich people from developed countries often make trips to poorer countries in what seems to be pedo rackets. The governments of both the poor countries and the developed countries should work hard to get rid of such rackets. If I become a parent I will also ensure that no strangers are having any sort of friendly relations with my kids by frequently enquiring with them. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 12:20:42 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Perhaps once you include preferences for blonds, big boobs, milfs, nice superior purple contusion forming, great squealers in terror, etc., as sexual orientation/preferences.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 13:11:20 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Yipiity hoppity. Can only mean one "they", so paste in the sentence and your confusion and I'll straighten you out. Gotta have something current to quote. Because you and he are welcome to impugn/dismiss/cackle like little girls over their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal. Linked to what? Dump in what you want to say so I have something current to quote. Edit: OR, as was directly pointed out before, save the blather about if you don't read the whole sentence, and give what other possible "theys" fit the entire sentence, not bits alone, not out of context, regardless of whether you can read Bryce's mind or not. Whole sentence. What do you want to know about it? Well thanks for finally admitting the lack of controversy re porn to sex much like child porn to desire for child sex. As for the second, and think it may make you do a puppy headcock, but normal people don't have a bloodlust for real people urge analogous to normal person urge for sex. Where is the evidence that porn leads to sex, umm, err, wait, didn't you say people having sex didn't want porn or something? Better rest that puppyhead of yours. Yeah, well, there's a reason for that here and at toddler beauty pageants. You just above said it was noncontroversial. And it fires me up for it, I've got to tell you. Child porn - child sex. Adult porn - adult sex. Blew your mind, didn't I. Claims and sensible (and as painfully relates to this board) unmotivated claims are very different things. Right, and well-known controversies don't overlap perfectly with with non controversies, to put it mildly, and the child abuse harm of child sex-dolls would only do as much or more to encourage the act than child portnography, which is already illegal, and the "porn controversy" objection is pitiful as the analogy would actually be porn to desire for and effort to get real sex, which is noncontroversial, not the far less relevant porn to sex violence, which is, mildly stating, highly controversial. And of course the analogy you object with of video games to violence is naught due to a normal urge like sex is not available to latch onto and distort, as no halfway normal/healthy person wants to do violence to nonspecific people.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 17:50:46 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Upon a second pass (sorry, stayed up a little late last night) file this in the appropriate slot: Eva Yojimbo said: The answer is "Because you and he are welcome to impugn/dismiss/cackle like little girls over their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal.", and you had mentioned the credentials at least via Bryce's quote. But further, I don't know, I could have misread part of your quote of his words due to your mishandling the quotation marks. It could be that I was past paying you too serious attention as you'd dove into another one of your rage manias in which you post ludicrosity after ludicrosity, like it's ok to process sentence bits independently from the rest of the sentence that makes up the actual thought, or that "what other 'theys' could it be" or the like for a sentence that can have only a single "they", regardless of your catty style critique of how smoothly my post did or did not seque. Or I got it from one of the 18 thread branches going at that time. I just do not value, nor really even consider, your "opinion" in such matters, even when you're not diving in to speak for someone else due to your great pique from interactions elsewhere in the thread. Whatever it is, it's also more of your maniacal meaningless jabber, because you in fact did subsequently? impugn/dismiss/"question:weaselword followed by nada" the article's purported "experts". So regardless of your smoking gun derangement, I don't care the order and I don't care about your idea of style nor your bafflement at easily read-through typos nor of even bigger lazy garbles that you could enquire about gracefully if you weren't in fact just trying hard to score some kind of flaccid juvenile (oh no!) typo-hunter hit.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 18:10:09 GMT
I think you mean vegetarian, unless you think a cow feels pain when you milk them or sheep feel pain when you sheer their wool. That said, I'll say "fair enough" so as not to derail this thread (any further, I mean). If we use the ability to feel pain as a measure for ethics, then we need to consider the emotional stress of farm animals. Maybe they don't suffer when being milked; but they probably do suffer when locked into small boxes. Which is why I usually buy organig eggs or milk products. And talking about these things is not derailing the thread in my opinion. The original subject was whether child sex dolls are good or bad. How do we decide it? And if we believe that avoidance of pain is a legitimate concern (which I do), then it makes sense to talk about whether it's a good measure for ethical decisions; also in other fields like abortion or animal welfare. Fair enough RE emotional stress of farm animals. I understand what you're saying RE pain/morality on a more general level, but this thread is already long and quite involved so it doesn't seem like the best idea to start another tangent this far in. Plus, going back-and-forth with rabbit is taking up enough time. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 18:13:19 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Defending it furiously and then claiming "Have not defended it" is still defending it furiously.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 18:59:25 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: But further, I don't know, I could have misread part of your quote of his words due to your mishandling the quotation marks. (I'm just going to consolidate all of our discussions into one post). You could've just said this and left it at there, as that's the only semi-correct answer. The only "mishandling" of the quotation marks is that I didn't change Bryce's quote-marks around "experts" within the quotation to 'experts,' but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when an open quote follows another open quote (and the first closed quote is around a single word) you're quoting what someone else put quotation marks around. Can't you get anything right? I never said this. What I said was "most people do not read most sentences all in one gulp but rather word-by-word." That's a factual statement. When you first start to read a sentence with a pronoun, your mind immediately associates the pronoun with whatever the last subject was. This informs how you read the rest of the sentence. Under correct grammar usage, that initial referent shouldn't change or get confused in the mind of the reader. You did it incorrectly by responding to a post about experts and starting your post with a pronoun about sex-robots. And BTW, this is why we go back-and-forth for days with hundreds of posts; because it literally takes that long for me to explain things like basic grammar usage and how people read, and even when I do you still somehow fail to grasp it, or if you do grasp it on some level you smokescreen your mistake for as long as you possibly can. You don't value the "opinion" of anyone that proves you wrong, even on basic factual matters that most grade-schoolers understand. And the reason I was so insistent about asking the question is that this whole tangent reveals, plain as day, your horrid reading comprehension AND your equally horrid ability to communicate properly. Note I made the same mistake in one post about using an ambiguous pronoun. When you pointed it out I apologized and immediately corrected it in the next post. That's what someone with intellectual integrity does. What YOU do is instead natter on for dozens of post not understanding your mistake and trying to shift blame to everyone else and go off on completely inane rants that have nothing to do with the point and are only smokescreens for your obvious mistakes. **********[^ "They" Subject ^]********** Unsurprisingly you completely misunderstood what I said. I said: "the lack of controversy about porn-to-sex is that nobody cares, not that everyone agrees it happens." You don't seem to understand the difference between those two things. Considering there's no such controversy, the comparison to child-porn-to-sex is not a valid comparison, and nobody but you brought either of these things up anyway. "Bloodlust for real people" is not what you said, but nice goalpost shift. What you said was "Vidgames to violence is controversial as there's no urge, orgasmic or otherwise to kill." Game hunting exists because people like to kill, and because it's against the law to kill humans they kill animals instead. Pretty simple. Further, I'd say the urge to kill humans is probably about as common as the urge in some to sleep with kids. Further, you seem completely oblivious to how after every school shooting there were many blaming violent video games for making kids violent. Yeah, there is no evidence that porn leads to sex. What I said was that the people most likely to watch porn were those not having sex, while for many who are having sex, the sex would be enough and they wouldn't need porn (I realize that just as many, perhaps even a majority, still would). Non-sequitur, but still this whole "claim isn't controversial" is a good illustration of your stupidity. I know damn well that before this thread you had not researched what the expert consensus was on the dangers of child-sex dolls. So you read the OP's article that cites "anonymous experts" and you decide their claim isn't controversial. On what, pray tell, did you base this conclusion of a lack of controversy on? Because it certainly wasn't some expert consensus which you are undoubtedly completely ignorant of. Reading comprehension, brain-of-a-rabbit: I said uncontroversial in the sense that nobody cares, not that everyone agrees that porn leads to sex. No shit, rabbitlock. Analogies tend not to perfectly overlap in general. Again, welcome to gradeschool level reading. The point is that there is no evidence in any general "simulated outlets leading to real instances" arena that it actually happens, and in fact in the two most common ones they are reversely correlated. You have no evidence that whatever "differences" you can find in the case of child-sex-dolls would make a hill-of-beans difference to the legitimacy of the claim. Again, where is your evidence for this? **********[^ Child-Sex-Dolls/Porn/Video Games ^]********** I was including those things. I realize orientation is typically only about what sex/gender you're attracted to (hence the "similar to"). No weasel wording--that's another term you don't understand. If you understood a lick of logic and rationality you would know precisely what I mean by form, but even with NOT knowing about them it was made pretty clear by my post precisely what I meant. It "suggests" what I said explicitly: that that method of argumentation doesn't distinguish between right and wrong positions, as emotion-based outrage-appeals do not in any circumstance. When you cite a difference, such as your "between consenting adults it was misplaced," then that's an example of a rational rebuttal, and not an emotional outrage appeal. If you were capable of more of the former I wouldn't mind. It's your preference for the latter that drives me crazy, because you end up harming your own side without realizing it, and you're too stupid to realize it. I hear ya, rabittjen. You're a lone righteous crusader amidst a den of filth and villainy who have formed a legion of doom to combat you. Keep up the good fight! That you completely avoided my point that exposed your hypocrisy is unsurprising. I've defended the classification of what it is, I have not defended the substance of it. Your claims of "defense" fails to make this rather drastic distinction, and is thus pure dishonesty. **********[^ Other ^]********** |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 18:59:45 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:But that's the fun bit. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 19:16:54 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Aj_June said:Disagree. of course. Anyone who advocates the advocating a system offering 4 year-old up to adults is inescapably one. And you're the one who started this whole line on him in this thread. Just IMDB1 and pally pal connections all over again. Next time you guys trot it out it will be the third of the same situation. 
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. You have got to reflect on the childishness of your statement. People can lend support to certain positions without being benefited from those positions. Rabbit reflect on the childishness of his statements? You ask the impossible. Might as well ask a dog to learn how to make margaritas. I mean, of all the stupid he's mouthed in this thread, I'm not even sure if the "anyone who can envision advocating for something must be someone who wants to do that something" is even in the top 5. Just look at his brain-melt blather about how if you dare question who anonymous experts even are you're dismissing what they say; the implication being that for any article that cites anonymous experts we should just accept whatever the article claims the experts said. On the basis of that, I seriously nominate Rabbit for being the board's new Blade. Sure, their opinions on most everything are completely different and rabbit isn't as creepy, but the complete lack of logic is about the same. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 19:19:25 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Aj_June said:Tell you what, why don't you go find where things went off the rails and who took them there, and who's posting consistently and who's popping off into another crazy diverting irrelevant jabbercavil mania. And don't use "but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old", or when you tagged me and I didn't comment on deezen. And try to maintain a bit of decorum, because I'll start where you pick and look backward to see if it is a reasonable spot or just more Vandellia cirrhosa butticus. And you can rant that it is "emotion based" all you like, but knowing that someone who can support 4 year-olds being subject to sexual use by adults, or has to ponder if the big ill of pedophilia is just the stigma, or spends reams on trying to divert to general consent-based approaches as opposed to the specific criteria at hand, and lies profusely about that and other things - is either a pedophile, or as I've subsequently granted, profoundly broken in the social/empathy gland. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make it "emotion based", nor false.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2017 19:30:31 GMT
The article they're referencing re infant-like features was a study of grade school kids re innate infant caretaking drives. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 19:47:17 GMT
The article they're referencing re infant-like features was a study of grade school kids re innate infant caretaking drives. "Other important features of physical attractiveness are prominent cheekbones, shiny teeth, a wide smile and babylike features such as large eyes" - Encyclopedia of Human Relationships Vol 1 "Neotenous features are particularly important for female facial attractiveness: women with baby-like features (such as large, widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin) are typically judged to be the most attractive" - The Psychology of Physical atraction "Some facial beauty may stem largely from the possession of baby-like features and in particular the shape of the upper part of the head" - sexual attraction "We noted that girls tend to retain a number of baby-like features into adulthood, that they emphasise them in make-up and clothing, and that men are attracted by them." loves Mysteries; The Psychology of Physical attractiveness [/b] |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 19:50:24 GMT
tpfkar or spends reams on trying to divert to general consent-based approaches as opposed to the specific criteria at hand, So now it's "divert" rather than "misrepresent." Well, at least now you're in the ballpark of correct word usage. Unfortunately, reality again refuses to cooperate with your new words as well: 1. I had mentioned "consent-based approaches" in a grand total of 3-posts (and one was literally just a restatement of what I had already said) before you trotted out your inane "misrepresenting" remark, so no "spending reams." 2. It is not "diverting" to classify something and then discuss the category. 3. The discussion to begin with had been over how to classify Eddie's position, NOT over what the specific criteria was (except for a brief bit between saoradh and I where he admittedly misunderstood what I meant); so, if anything, your attempt at discussing the specific criteria WAS the diversion because that's not really what was being discussed (apart from the aforementioned exception). |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2017 19:50:34 GMT
The article they're referencing re infant-like features was a study of grade school kids re innate infant caretaking drives. "Other important features of physical attractiveness are prominent cheekbones, shiny teeth, a wide smile and babylike features such as large eyes" - Encyclopedia of Human Relationships Vol 1 "Neotenous features are particularly important for female facial attractiveness: women with baby-like features (such as large, widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin) are typically judged to be the most attractive" - The Psychology of Physical atraction "Some facial beauty may stem largely from the possession of baby-like features and in particular the shape of the upper part of the head" - sexual attraction "We noted that girls tend to retain a number of baby-like features into adulthood, that they emphasise them in make-up and clothing, and that men are attracted by them." loves Mysteries; The Psychology of Physical attractiveness Okay so what's an actual primary source that claiming any of this so that I can check exactly what they're claiming and the methodology they employed? The primary source referenced in the other links wasn't actually claiming anything like this. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 19:57:12 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:So very happy! And I'm going to break this bitch right back up! Sorry, when treating your posts appropriately, it is very easy to see an end quote screw-up and interpret it as, you know, the end of the quote. Much easier than ridiculously pretending to be confused on "they" in a sentence that can only make sense with one "they" of the thread. I get it all right with you, my home English teacher brother. 
You "said" equated intimated crapped-across bullsh!tted that I should worry about somebody not actually reading the whole sentence properly past just prodding them to actually read it. That means it is acceptable enough to for you to wax idiot about it over countless posts. This is not published work or an English test and so colloquials, shortcuts, adventures, f!cking with, and whatever else goes on, regardless of you insipid snorts. If the reader is confused because of an incomplete or inadequate seque or because of feign, they can still actually read the sentence, or in some cases a following sentence to clarify whatever "confusion" they have. In this case it is all in that sentence, only one "they" was possible, regardless of your continued gushing jabbers on the matter. We'll pick up some more when I'm feelin' like it. Immediately? Later today? Stay tuned to this batty pedo channel!
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 20:08:29 GMT
"Other important features of physical attractiveness are prominent cheekbones, shiny teeth, a wide smile and babylike features such as large eyes" - Encyclopedia of Human Relationships Vol 1 "Neotenous features are particularly important for female facial attractiveness: women with baby-like features (such as large, widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin) are typically judged to be the most attractive" - The Psychology of Physical atraction "Some facial beauty may stem largely from the possession of baby-like features and in particular the shape of the upper part of the head" - sexual attraction "We noted that girls tend to retain a number of baby-like features into adulthood, that they emphasise them in make-up and clothing, and that men are attracted by them." loves Mysteries; The Psychology of Physical attractiveness Okay so what's an actual primary source that claiming any of this so that I can check exactly what they're claiming and the methodology they employed? The primary source referenced in the other links wasn't actually claiming anything like this. I presume by primary source you mean those who did the research. some sources dont give a primary source and the ones that do are on google books and I cant look at the footnotes. Those who are claiming this are proffesional psychologists is that not enough? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2017 20:13:22 GMT
Okay so what's an actual primary source that claiming any of this so that I can check exactly what they're claiming and the methodology they employed? The primary source referenced in the other links wasn't actually claiming anything like this. I presume by primary source you mean those who did the research. some sources dont give a primary source and the ones that do are on google books and I cant look at the footnotes. Those who are claiming this are proffesional psychologists is that not enough? No. That hardly makes them immune to misrepresenting what the actual research was (whether intentional or not), and even re a primary source, there's no guarantee that the methodology was sound, that the reasoning from the data was sound, etc. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 20:20:08 GMT
I presume by primary source you mean those who did the research. some sources dont give a primary source and the ones that do are on google books and I cant look at the footnotes. Those who are claiming this are proffesional psychologists is that not enough? No. That hardly makes them immune to misrepresenting what the actual research was (whether intentional or not), and even re a primary source, there's no guarantee that the methodology was sound, that the reasoning from the data was sound, etc. Obviously not but they dont just pull this stuff out of their arse you know. The only mainstream psychological viewpoint I have ever disagreed with is evolutionary psychology which is just nonsense to me. |
|
