Posts by DogGone

32

U.S. Army admits to widespread cultural pedophilia in Afghanistan

by RottenRiley in

my atheist, agnostic and deist family members, why don't we attack this insanity more?

dr. richard dawkins is finally calling out islam for it's true nature, i hope he is balanced because i don't want him to get killed by these whack jobs.

i enjoy listening to dr. dawkins debate and would like him to attack their false religion like he lambaste's christians, i guess it's a tight-wire act he must follow or they would kill him.

DogGone

Vidiot - "Institutionalized sexual victimization of young people in an area with a long history of authoritarian religion? Gosh; never saw that one coming."

Very well put!

23

Is there a pedophile epidemic ?

by Snoozy in

after reading another thread on pedophiles i was wondering if there is a pedophile epidemic or is it just that we now have more access to the information?

it seems like everywhere you read there are more and more cases being reported.

are we becoming a nation with no morals at all?

Band on the Run, while I do not know of a brain scan that can "show" or diagnose pedophilia, there has been some interesting brain scan studies which demonstrate clear differences. I can't speak to the credibility of these studies, but they are interesting:

Pedophilic perpetrators showed a significant decrease of right amygdalar volume, compared with healthy
controls (P=.001). We observed reduced gray matter in the right amygdala, hypothalamus (bilaterally), septal regions,
substantia innominata, and bed nucleus of the striae terminalis. In 8 of the 15 perpetrators, enlargement of
the anterior temporal horn of the right lateral ventricle that adjoins the amygdala could be recognized by routine
qualitative clinical assessment. Smaller right amygdalar volumes were correlated with the propensity to commit
uniform pedophilic sexual offenses exclusively (P=.006) but not with age (P=.89).

Ref - Brain Pathology in Pedophilic Offenders - ARCH GEN PSYCHIATRY/VOL 64, JUNE 2007

This paper references the above study as well as the author's own:

So far, three research groups have published structural MRI studies of pedophiles: my own group at CAMH in Canada (Cantor et al., 2008), and two other groups, both in Germany (Schiffer et al., 2007; Schiltz et al., 2007). The CAMH team compared large groups of pedophilic men with men who committed nonsexual offenses; we found that the pedophilic men had significantly less tissue in two wide-spread regions of the brain. These two regions (called the superior fronto-occipital fasciculus and the right arcuate fasciculus) are not at all what previous researchers had expected to find (including us). Instead of being in charge of any specific function of the brain (such as self-control or sexual response), these particular brain structures are made up of “cables” (or axons) that connect other brain regions. This suggests the possibility that sexual attraction to children versus adults is not caused by some difference in any one region of the brain, but in the way that multiple regions work together. Neuroscientists refer to this as a partial “disconnection syndrome.”

When comparing pedophilic and nonpedophilic men, one must remain careful not to confuse cause with effect. That is, one must consider carefully whether the brain differences we detected cause pedophilia or whether some aspect of being pedophilic caused the brain differences. Previous research findings suggests that it is more likely for the brain differences to be causing pedophilia than for the other way around...

Ref - MRI research on pedophilia: What ATSA members should know - ATSA Forum, Fall 2008

Sir82, stated "a child is, by law, incapable of giving consent. Sex with a child is always, 100% of the time, rape." That is a popular oversimplification of the law, at least so far as it applies in my country. As EndofMysteries pointed out, even the term child varies. In Canada, what I would commonly call a "child" can give consent. Consider the law in Canada:

Age of consent is 16 years for all sexual activity (raised from 14 in 2008) EXCEPT
Age of consent is 18 years when the activity exploits the young person (parent, coach, teacher, etc) EXCEPT
Age of consent is 14 years when the partner is less than 5 years older and the relationship is not exploitative (parent, coach, teacher, etc) EXCEPT
Age of consent is 14 when the partner is more than 5 years older AND they are legally married ("solemnization" of marriage requirements) EXCEPT
Age of consent is 12 years when the partners is less than 2 years older and not in a relationship of trust (babysitter, etc)

Under many systems of law the concern is less about "consent" at some magic number than about differences in power and authority. Children will, by and large, be sexual. Denying any ability to give consent criminalizes and victimizes all manner of sexual activity that is a frequent part of social development.

The law is a poor form of moral argument. Law should be informed by societal values, not the other way around. As a rather crude analogy - "The law states a youth is, by law, under 21. Therefore giving beer to someone under 21 is always irresponsible and negligent". Frankly, the rest of Earth (Muslim countries notwithstanding) will collectively roll their eyes.

I think discussions about consent and cause/effect are beside the point. Harmful activity should be proscribed. As a thought experiment, if it could be 100% proven that a 12 year old gave full consent in full understanding, would that make it right? I would say the answer is no.

As an aside, the concept of "consent" can be a mental tool used by non-violent offenders - they generally work away at getting enough "consent" to satisfy their conscience - to allow themselves to offend. The illustration I use is with the drug heroin. A damaged child may crave it, may ask for it, even beg for it. It is still morally outrageous, unacceptable, and illegal to give it. In my experience, pedophiles with a conscience (a concept that will be hard for some to grasp) generally agree that giving heroin to a child is wrong under any circumstance; they then make the logical connection that the "consent" they thought they had was beside the point entirely. Of course, most people know that a large part of being an adult is curbing the "consent" of youth.

To the original thread topic, sexual abuse is, almost certainly, now much lower than at any time in recorded history. Herotodus spoke of how the Persians had taken up the practice with gusto when they learned it from the Greeks. And Herotodus is, as they say, the Father of History.

28

Argument with my Child "Why did I stay in the Organization so long?" Anger and Bitter Feelings.

by RottenRiley in

jw
friends

last night my third oldest child wanted to know why we stayed in the organization so long.

child is a third year college student enjoying all the classes this "wicked system" has to offer, the insatiable appetite for learning makes him want to argue and debate, i don't have the energy to debate because i don't feel good with all life has thrown our way.. .

"the only reason i went to meetings so long was because grandma and grandpa needed somebody to take them to meetings and cobe aunt and uncle and secretary aunt and uncle refused to talk to grandma for years, otherwise i would have stopped attending the kingdom hall because the kids were assholes and i was always the one who had to make "first contact", "i was the one who had to go around and meet and greet newbies while the regular jw wall-flowers (calebs) ignored all the visitors and new persons visiting our kingdom hall.

DogGone

You have some great perspective and advice above. All I can add is this:

- Don't let your children guilt trip or abuse you. Life wasn't perfect for them... so what? When is it? I've seen this guilt dynamic play out too many times. You love them, you did what you thought was right. This touches a nerve with me and reminds me of the relationship between my older brother and my mother. It is, in my opinion, too often abusive and guilt ridden (though having nothing to do with the WT).

- In time, hopefully, he will grow up and put on big boy pants and actually have some fond memories and laughter about his past. Surely it wasn't all bad. I had some fantastically great times in the cult. It's a part of who I am and the reason I can clean-up on the Bible categories in Jeopardy. (The only category I can out do my brilliant wife). Or perhaps he doesn't, perhaps he waters it, builds it, wallows in it, and blames all his misfortune on his upbringing. He finds like-minded souls on some online forum and spends his days growing his "Poison Tree." If so, see my last piece of advice.

- If he stays angry and directs guilt at you despite telling him you're sorry and that you did what you thought was right at the time, then you just have to shut the conversation down and refuse to be a punching back for his rage. Boundaries are healthy.

36

After years of Watchtower fighting the BAN in Russia.....

by Newly Enlightened in

i apologize if this topic was already covered, i didn't have time to look thru several pages of posts.... after several years of fighting their ban in russia.

russian court declares jw's literature extremist:.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140113/186483571/russian-court-declares-jehovahs-witness-brochures-extremist.html?fb_action_ids=530487500391762&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5b1377130229215916%5d&action_type_map=%5b%22og.recommends%22%5d&action_ref_map=%5b%5d.

DogGone

AndDon'tCallMeShirley,

That is a shocking Watchtower quote - thank-you for sharing. Come to think of it, one Elder did tell me that my disfellowshipping was loving because in the old days I would have been stoned. I forgot the favourite part of my story, my best mate who had pretty much faded was disfellowshipped for attending a food and wine function with me. I wouldn't have thought they would actually followed through on the threat to DF you for socializing with DF'd people... until they did.

I agree that if the law allowed the Watchtower religion would be even more oppressive. There are national theocracies in action we can use as case studies. Bad people do bad things - but it takes religion/ideology to make good people do evil.

36

After years of Watchtower fighting the BAN in Russia.....

by Newly Enlightened in

i apologize if this topic was already covered, i didn't have time to look thru several pages of posts.... after several years of fighting their ban in russia.

russian court declares jw's literature extremist:.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140113/186483571/russian-court-declares-jehovahs-witness-brochures-extremist.html?fb_action_ids=530487500391762&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5b1377130229215916%5d&action_type_map=%5b%22og.recommends%22%5d&action_ref_map=%5b%5d.

DogGone

While many of the freedoms the WT fights for, such as the freedom to go door to door, freedom to hold private assembly, freedom from discrimination, are, in fact, for their members, I do agree with some of the points in the above posts. They fight for freedom of expression and then psychologically torture members who write or speak freely against thier doctrine. (Yes, I do consider shunning a form of psychological torture)

Although using the word "admirable" was a poor choice on my part, I find the conclusion drawn above to be wanting. The expressed desire must be for MORE freedom, within the Tower and without. Smug satisfaction that the Watchtower is getting what it gives gets us nowhere - other than another successful volley in Russia's war on religious, sexual, and commercial liberty.

Can you be so blinded by hatred of the leaders of our former religion that you applaud the snuffing out of freedoms long wanted, scarcely granted, and quickly snatched?

This statement is too much:

Sadly, the restriction of freedoms within the WT organization due to the dictatorial mindset of the governing body are far more oppressive than anything Russia will do to Watchtower.

Surely you do not mean what you write? I have been counselled publically, I have been through several judicial committees, I have been publically reproved, I am disfellowshipped and presently I am shunned by everyone I socialized with for many years and by a sizable chunk of my family. That is certainly oppressive. The Russian state, on the other hand, is known for secret detentions, physical torture including beatings, electic shock to the genitals, and sexual abuse all while getting forced confessions for invented offences. The state has the power to place people in geater isolation than the WT - be it in prison or in actual isolation. You speak of what Russia will do to the Watchtower... to members of our former faith pushing outlawed literature....

Sometimes I feel posters have forgotten that "The Watchtower" is a collection of human beings.

As an aside:

The fact that the WT fought for the freedoms in their own interest misses the point. Almost every point of law is argued for self-interest. When the feudal barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta they certainly weren't trying to provide liberty to their serfs. When signatories to the Declaration of Independence endorsed the line that "all men are created equal" they were not trying to free the slaves (later 3/5 a person) and certainly were not declaring women equal under law. The motives may be questionable, but we can still appreciate what their efforts afford us. Certainly in my country, Canada, Jehovah’s Witnesses did contribute to the establishment of civil liberties.

36

After years of Watchtower fighting the BAN in Russia.....

by Newly Enlightened in

i apologize if this topic was already covered, i didn't have time to look thru several pages of posts.... after several years of fighting their ban in russia.

russian court declares jw's literature extremist:.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140113/186483571/russian-court-declares-jehovahs-witness-brochures-extremist.html?fb_action_ids=530487500391762&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5b1377130229215916%5d&action_type_map=%5b%22og.recommends%22%5d&action_ref_map=%5b%5d.

DogGone

One of the admirable things Jehovah's Witnesses have done is to test the limits of freedoms. You don't need protection from the State until you are doing or advocating for something the State does not want.

For me, this is a sad day. Certainly the literature is propaganda. So is anything which exclusively pushes a single viewpoint. This is another example of Russia's slide backwards.

Good for Russia? No... I hope this gets overturned. I hope the Witnesses are victorious and are able to freely disseminate their version of "Truth" so that all others who wish to can.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

20

Dumb ass cultish elders

by Crazyguy in

ok so i'm not officaily da'd as of yet and the elders (2) come over to my house and want to talk with my wife.

so i'm thinking there looking for more info on me and ask her to go sit with them in their car since there was no place for privacy at my house.

then a few minutes later my wife calls me and asks me to meet them out at the car and they drive around and i get in.

DogGone

CrazyGuy,

Sorry for this situation, how upsetting on every angle. It sounds like it was certainly handled very very poorly.

To those condemning the fact you "would allow" your wife to talk to Elder's in the car, get over yourselves. I know we all got indoctrinated in a sexist, paternalistic, backward religion, but did you not think that she might WANT to talk to her spiritual leaders in private? It's a cult, yes! But no one should be prevented from talking in private to whatever group they would like, however crazy we think it. I understand the desire to use their backward rules against them; but I have to wholeheartedly condemn adopting a heavy handed dictatorial "head of the household" rule.

If I tried that with my Catholic wife she'd understandably look at me like I was an idiot. She is much smarter than I (Catholicism notwithstanding)

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Sammieswife,

One small point, it is adhering to the budget that creates the need to raise the debt ceiling. But, yes, I agree with your overall point, unchecked it just keeps growing. That is why I think the budget is the right thing for the Republican to use to fight for cost reductions, not the debt ceiling. As such, I wouldn't call them anything like terrorists. (Please don't do this on the debt ceiling, Mr Speaker, please!)

China's currency would rise dramatically if they called back the US debt. But, it is a power point of leverage they have. Just a correction, if China dumped the debt it would not create more debt. It would cause the treasury to have to buy the debt, thus dramatically increasing the monetary supply, thus leading to crazy inflation. Hence, the US currency would tank and the Chinese currency would rise - dramatically. In that case manufacturing would flee back to America. If this happened suddenly the disruption to the economy would be so large, I can't fathom it!

To your point about the next generation, yes you are right. Rising debt (as a percent of GDP) is passing the buck to the next generation. Inflation is punishing todays savers (a tax in a different form). Great example bringing up German reparations. It is interesting because modern economists do not agree with Keynes and the old view that the reparations (80+% of GDP) were too high a burden. What caused Germany problems was their aversion to raising taxes, recent economists say. Germany chose not to raise taxes in 1914 to pay for the war. It is argued that they chose not to pay back the money. they printed money instead of raising taxes. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations).

Thank-you for posting that article. I found it very informative. Interesting how the exchange subsidies are scored. That was news to me. It was also news to me that the Republicans also propose a similar mechanism as the Cadillac tax.

Here’s what we don’t know: how will the CBO’s estimates change next year? Will we see a continuation of the trend toward higher spending, higher taxes, and more deficit spending? We might. And that is exactly what the law’s skeptics have feared all along.

Agree. It is no mystery how it will be paid for, taxes and deficit spending. The CBO has upped the revenue projection from the ACA. If you are fighting for lower taxes this has got to be concerning. Also, those federal deficit reductions reverse if those revenues are projected down and/or either the costs go up or savings go down. Great points.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Could have saved myself some time. Here is a good explanation of Blahous complete with graphs: http://crfb.org/blogs/affordable-care-act-and-hi-trust-fund

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

I apologize to all for the length of this post. If you aren’t following my conversation just skip it, please.

AndDon’tCallMeShirley:

There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge? I anticipate very acerbic responses that ignore what I've just said. What would be appreciated is this: if someone can demonstrate mathematically why I'm wrong, go ahead. I'd appreciate the insight. There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge?

You have a great Canadian comedian as your avatar, which made me like you off the hop. Therefore, when you said you would appreciate if someone could point out how it was going to be paid for I took you at your word and thought your request was in good faith.

I don’t know if the ACA is good or bad. Whatever it is, it is nothing like what other countries are doing with healthcare. To me it looks like a giant social experiment and I hope it works out well. But, I get objections to it, I really do.

However, when you asked for mathematical answers and not “speculation and daydreams” I thought you may not be aware of the CBO projections (which were referenced earlier by another poster). So I provided them thinking, even if you didn’t agree, you would at least acknowledge the CBO is not full of wild speculators and daydreamers.

In response you stated that there “was no budgetary offset” and that the “ACA will be more expensive than projected”. You then selected some quotes that, even when I read them now, seem to indicate that you understood the federal deficit implications to be what Fox quoted as the “full accounting of the bill ... $2.6 trillion”. I say that because you reiterated that you were asking “how a broke government is in a position to support a program it can’t afford”.

Did I read you wrong? What did you mean to illustrate by those quotes?

You see, when I read the Fox article and noted right there in paragraph 13 that it will reduce the deficit, even by $81 billion more than thought the year before, I figured you must have missed the equivocation in the article on the use of “deficit”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, after all why would you post an article that agrees with me to challenge the CBO report I posted?

Then there was the strange fact that you brought up that the projections had been revised. Odd, because the Fox article was from March 2012 and the CBO projections I linked were from May 2013. Even more odd when the bold subheading in the CBO article said “The Estimated Budgetary Impact of the ACA’s Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little on a Year-by-Year Basis Since March 2010” Strange to respond to the May 2013 CBO projection with a March 2012 Fox article and then state the “CBO numbers have been revised”. I assumed that maybe you had not read it.

Did I read you wrong? What was the point of referencing the March 2012 CBO segment as a response to the May 2013 CBO article I referenced?

Still, I was being charitable, I thought that the Fox article was sly and anyone who wasn’t reading it carefully would think it was saying the federal deficit was going to balloon. I thought you would appreciate having that pointed out. I thought you must not have read the whole article or the CBO projections it is talking about. So, I asked if you had read it. I even quoted the critical paragraphs from the CBO projection.

Let’s be clear, this is not about a difference of opinion. All of us, Fox and Sessions included, were talking about what the CBO projects. One doesn’t have to fall back on opinion here because the CBO is kind enough to put their projections right there on the web. I thought I would explain how you might have mistaken the Fox news article and how it was deceitful, in my opinion. Since you said you would appreciate seeing how the ACA would not bankrupt the country, I thought you would be, well, appreciative.

Still, if that wasn’t fulsome enough I provided charts to show what the debt and budget are projected to look like. I think this is really good news. I think the US has made some amazing changes. In 2009 I was VERY worried about you! If you go down the tube, so do we Canucks!

Then, after all of this, you said the Fox link you posted was pretty self-explanatory and maybe I should read it again... huh? Please, if you are being sincere and not just having sport playing with me, explain what you think the Fox article says?

You then link to an April 2012 Forbes article which, to your credit, does not agree with the ACA costing in the CBO report I linked earlier. I admit, by this point I was getting a bit exasperated because you did not engage in any of points I had brought to your attention.

However, the Blahous critique is substantial and deserves a full treatment and not my glib reply. So I go back on my declaration to bow out. If we use the Blahous method the ACA will cost much more, true, but only because government program spending is dramatically cut. In other words, it works out better for the overall deficit and debt picture! Why? Because the ACA will cost more but all the expenses in Medicare will reduce and disappear! Rejoice! If the CBO scenario turns out true you can see that the baseline is healthy. If Blahous is right the deficit will go down even faster! Again, this is not opinion, this is what is stated if you carefully read what is written in what you posted.

How? Because using his accounting you cannot count on Medicare payouts existing after the trust fund cannot cover 100% of the costs. If there is no Medicare than you can’t very well save any money on it, like the ACA promises. True, but then you are not spending any money on Medicare, so the overall effect is a much smaller deficit! Does anyone actually think Congress will just let Medicare die? No, Congress will keep having the American tax payer foot the bill. Blahous’s response is in the article you linked: “It’s the law. Some may not like the fact that Medicare can only spend money to the extent that it has a positive balance in its trust funds, but that’s the law.” Note how he explains it, “The finding that the ACA reduces the deficit depends on the critical assumption that Medicare will always pay out full benefits whether there is anything in its trust fund or not.”

So he removes the cost savings to Medicare in his mathematics. Law ties Medicare benefits to the trust fund Americans pay into. The CBO assumes Medicare will continue and that Congress will ensure Medicare continues paying out full benefits even if the fund no longer covers 100% (since the taxes into the fund have been less than the money coming out - for some time now). So, we have three scenarios:

CBO is projecting numbers with the ACA and the good old American Tax payer footing the bill for Medicare. It says, comparing a world where Medicare keeps going and there is no ACA to a world where Medicare keeps going and there is the ACA you can see deficit savings projected.
Blahous interpretation #1 is that Medicare discontinues and the ACA exists, thus proving the ACA saving projections on Medicare a lie. (But, an overall smaller deficit!) Comparing a world with Medicare and no ACA to a world with the ACA and no Medicare (or less Medicare) the deficit is smaller but the ACA is more expensive.
Blahous interpretation #2 is that Medicare will be funded, but you need to add that on top of the ACA. He says, comparing a world where there is no Medicare (or less Medicare) and no ACA to a world where there is both and you can see a huge deficit difference. (though the same federal deficit, of course, as #1) - in effect, the savings on Medicare from the ACA go to keeping the Medicare fund solvent. The beans move from one program to another.

Blahous says since you can’t “double dip” - you can’t count the savings dollars of a program that isn’t funded under current law. You can’t both assume the savings of Medicare without assuming the costs, as it is not going to continue under current law unless the fund is topped up.

OK, that does make the ACA more expensive if you look at it that way, if you stack the future Medicare dollars on top of the ACA. I can see that. Strange. But OK.

If you are following the point, though, you will see that #1 and #3 have the SAME budgetary impact. He isn’t arguing with the CBO federal budget projections. He just says that since the ACA assumes Medicare will continue you have to add that program cost to the ACA costing OR you can’t assume those Medicare savings when talking about the ACA.

I’m not expressing an opinion about whether he is right or wrong, I’m pointing out how he arrives at his numbers.

Now, to your point, about how all of this can be paid for…. The overall deficit is either the same (#1 and #3) as the CBO projected or it is much better (#2). You can move beans around in jars but you still have the same number of beans.

You also make another popular mistake, you state that Blahous was appointed by Obama. He was not. He was appointed by Bush and was a hold over for a few months while the new administration was brought in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blahous) Not that it matters to the substance of his argument.

I understand there are different viewpoints, for sure. But all the articles you have put up point to the same conclusion that I was trying to make to you – the overall solvency of the Government is not threatened by the ACA. They look at different ways of adding up the ACA costs, for sure. And I haven’t disagreed with a single calculation. The Fox article is right about the cost (deficit) side of the ledger (but is not clear about the word deficit). Blauhous has an interesting way of adding up the ACA costs. But, with the exception of Blahous’s concern Congress will not fully enact the bill, there are no differences in what I have noted about the effect on the Federal Deficit in anything you have put up.

The Federal Budget looks better with the ACA than without it, unless you pull Medicare out of the budget all together, in which case the Budget looks rosy, indeed!

This is what I mean about engaging an article you link. I have no objection to your posting quotes from articles or links to articles. I object when you do so and then retreat from the discussion about what those articles actually say. What the ideas within them mean.

As to how the entire debt can be paid off… I’m not your monkey. I answered your original request in good faith.

It’s ok, because I was at the hockey game tonight and my team won in overtime… I couldn’t possibly be in a better mood!