Clarifying Free speech/Hate speech

[Argus]

Look it up.

Not an acceptable answer. You made the statement. You back it up.

[Argus]

No thanks.

Pedophiles are criminals.

Homosexuals are not.

In point of fact, pedophiles are not criminals. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. They only become criminals when they act upon the urges it gives them.

[shortlived]

In point of fact, pedophiles are not criminals. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. They only become criminals when they act upon the urges it gives them.

Dude calling pedophilia a psychiatric disorder is a little bit of flame bait wouldn't you say?

Its like having any sexual preference is a psychiatric disorder.

The issue with pedophilia is that it violates western notions of consensual sex required at law.

"True sexual attraction" is largely hormone based.

but sexual arousal can be programed.

In this basis having a preference to thin women over fat women would be a psychiatric disorder. For all the harm quack doctors have done to people over their professed illnesses of action you seem to be jumping the gun on what simply amounts to sex without consent, due to the minors inability to have enough maturity for informed consent on a vague definintion which doesn't even meet our own historic premises of cosent, which in the past use to be clearly defined as age 12 for most judeochristian society, but moved to 16 18 and 19 and 21 to a large extent.

People can enter puberty as early as 8 or 9 years old so physiologically they begin to be able to have childen at that age.

The idea of sexual acts in the minds of children, could be formed at a much younger age, it just isn't a culturally acceptable thing to do so.

However it has nothing to do with psychiatry and everything to do with culture.

At worst it is unacceptable behaviour, which is due to psychological programming, not psychiatry.

Even if there is a gay bomb I'm not aware of there being a pedobomb.

Edited March 1, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

Dude calling pedophilia a psychiatric disorder is a little bit of flame bait wouldn't you say?

Dude isn't calling it anyway at all, he is merely reporting the generally agreed diagnosis which is that it is a psychiatric disorder.

You can take it up with the authers of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition Text Revision.

[g_bambino]

I absolutely do not support human rights commissions being able to bring any kind of charges or level any sort of punishment because of any findings. If real hate speech is committed then the person should be charged by police and tried before a real court.

Agreed. Hate speech is already covered in the Criminal Code, which means any cases can be tried in a proper court. Fortunately, this Supreme Court ruling put some more limitations on the ability of human rights commissions to make judgements based on political correctness or hurt feelings.

[Canuckistani]

I thought section 13 of the human rights act was repealed?

[shortlived]

Dude isn't calling it anyway at all, he is merely reporting the generally agreed diagnosis which is that it is a psychiatric disorder.

You can take it up with the authers of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition Text Revision.

Is this the same book that said Homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder?

What do Americans know? this isn't a Canadian publication, I could pull up a copy of the khoran and it'd be perfectly fine.

Ok I think that calling gays sane and peds insane is a bit of a stretch.

In that case peds would have a not criminally responsible out..

This is like saying performing any abnormal sex act is a psychiatric illness, I think that is not reasonable.. the insanity rates would be incredibly high, and only perhaps the amish would be sane. and I bet there is some rule about shaving your moustache off and growing a beard that would qualify you as insane too.

but at the same time with new legislation that would be an indefinite sentence anyway.

ex. anal sex rates between 1960 and 1990 increased from 9% to over 27%. Is this to say that a dramatic increase of people became insane? Or is it only insane if the but is less than 16 years old? Or sorry it is still a crime if it involves someone under 18.

anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence ---- so how is this crime able to be a crime if the person is insane and thus not criminally responsible?

Or any people who have sex while still minors are insane... even though puberty hits as early as 8 years old and now kids are having sex all over.. so all these teens and youngers having sex with each other are insane.

Your book is just another quack book that makes anything the author doesn't like insane as opposed to being founded on reasonable scientific grounds. There is more to behaviour than cause and effect.

Personally I think shoving a piece of plastic into a body orifice is far more non-sane biologically than confused actions of using flesh. However this is not to say it is more ethical or moral.

Edited March 1, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

Is this the same book that said Homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder?

What do Americans know? this isn't a Canadian publication, I could pull up a copy of the khoran and it'd be perfectly fine.

Ok I think that calling gays sane and peds insane is a bit of a stretch.

In that case peds would have a not criminally responsible out..

This is like saying performing any abnormal sex act is a psychiatric illness, I think that is not reasonable.. the insanity rates would be incredibly high, and only perhaps the amish would be sane. and I bet there is some rule about shaving your moustache off and growing a beard that would qualify you as insane too.

but at the same time with new legislation that would be an indefinite sentence anyway.

ex. anal sex rates between 1960 and 1990 increased from 9% to over 27%. Is this to say that a dramatic increase of people became insane? Or is it only insane if the but is less than 16 years old? Or sorry it is still a crime if it involves someone under 18.

anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence ---- so how is this crime able to be a crime if the person is insane and thus not criminally responsible?

Or any people who have sex while still minors are insane... even though puberty hits as early as 8 years old and now kids are having sex all over.. so all these teens and youngers having sex with each other are insane.

Your book is just another quack book that makes anything the author doesn't like insane as opposed to being founded on reasonable scientific grounds. There is more to behaviour than cause and effect.

Personally I think shoving a piece of plastic into a body orifice is far more non-sane biologically than confused actions of using flesh. However this is not to say it is more ethical or moral.

Hmm....I"ll tell you what.

Come on back when some sanity prevails with you and we can chat then, in the meantime I have no doubts you have no idea what you are talking about.

"what do Americans know?....um lots?

'The Koran"...

Anal sex....

Get a grip.

[shortlived]

Hmm....I"ll tell you what.

Come on back when some sanity prevails with you and we can chat then, in the meantime I have no doubts you have no idea what you are talking about.

"what do Americans know?....um lots?

'The Koran"...

Anal sex....

Get a grip.

It is simply irrational to call one sexual preference a psychiatric disorder, while ignoring the fact it is no different than 99% of sexual acts out there. This isn't to condone victimization but it is to say that victimization is a cultural victimization, not one brought on by any legitimate psychiatric illness.

Edited March 1, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

It is simply irrational to call one sexual preference a psychiatric disorder,

Those with medical degrees and scientific background are the ones who make the decisions based on some set criteria.

They call it a psychiatric disorder based on that criteria. Im not a Dr., neither are you.

Take it up with the overwhelming number of scientists and Docs who agree...not me.

[shortlived]

Those with medical degrees and scientific background are the ones who make the decisions based on some set criteria.

They call it a psychiatric disorder based on that criteria. Im not a Dr., neither are you.

Take it up with the overwhelming number of scientists and Docs who agree...not me.

You know what they don't know anything. They make it up, that's what doctors do. Mental health is like that, the have no clue what the issue is. There are some legitimate neurological disorders, but lets just face the facts here, it is all based on the western "norm" not science.

So don't even try to call a quak psychiatrist a medical doctor, they aren't, they are psychiatrists. They don't heal peoples bodies, they pump people full of drugs because they don't represent the norm.

Doctors aren't god, they can stop some issues like bleeding and counteracting some body functions but they don't heal the brains of people with supposed psychiatric issues.

psychiatry is in large extent just a way of forcing mind control on people who don't represent the norm.

As said while there are legitimate cases 1 in 10 Canadians are not ill mentally, they are just not living the way some other people want them to.

That is all there is to it.

You simply don't got a clue what you are talking about.

Calling gays or peds mentally ill is just nonsense.

While some compulsive disorders can be neurologically caused you are out to lunch saying all peds are neurologically imbalanced and unable to control their sexual desires.

You are just a f-ing sheep who thinks the doctor is always right.

They aren't. PIP and most other psychiatric diagnosis methods are complete BS.

The professions has been one wave of idiocy by the next since its inception.

They just play on the norm to marginalize people and reinforce stigma.

Drugging people to lethargy and inaction isn't curing people, it is poisoning them.

A huge chunk of these illnesses are just developmental issues, not neurological.

It is so utterly obvious this is a quak diagnosis that is a sham due to its basis

It is an illness only exhibited in "persons 16 years of age or older" who have sex with people younger than the age of consent.

LOMG SHAM diagnosis.

"It occurs in 100% statutory rapists and people convicted of pedophilia" the cause of this illness is know to be conviction in a court of law, or appearing in any mass media publication as such. People with pedophilia should be confined away from society and drugged while locked in a straight jacket for the rest of their lives. Pedophilia is also known to be contagious and is spread via the internet. BEWARE! This dangerous disease can only be confined by you reporting it to police, who are immune from pedophilia contact.

Is there a sex doll or vibrator mental illness?

Hmm that is odd, paraphilia isn't a mental illness but pedophilia is, hmm wonder why that is?

Geesh homophilia isn't a mental illness either.. that's strange.

Charles Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals.[13] Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances."[14]

In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others

Harm is culturally assumed even if actual harm is not seen based on an age basis not a neurological effect basis. It simply isn't acceptable, even if it is not actually proven to be harmful to take pictures of naked children. Fact is, it isn't directly harmful as taking a picture of some kid with their clothes off or on has little if any effect. Likewise while some would disagree, there are people who claim masturbation isn't victimizing or self harm, others would say it is. But masturbation isn't illegal unless in public. Also masturbation isn't seen as a mental illness.. but is considered illegal in some places, and is to a large extent a culturally created practice in some groups. Even sex ed classes say masturbation is "normal". However how does masturbation differ from a hand job. It should start to be clear these are culturally defined issues, not based on science.

In general many practices that are victimizing are not deemed "mental illness" people people are socially programmed to perform some of those acts. Even if in fact they are self victimization.

THis basically places all "rough sex" as psychiatric illness. I think that is a load of BS. That is a pussification of norms. Its saying doing anything rough in life is illness. Fact is people have preferences, there is no norm. Doctors make norms to enforce social mores not saying what is healthy or unhealthy it is politics and little more.

Sure it is criminal but people make choices. behavioural issues are just saying we don't like how they behave, it is a load of BS.

pedaphilia is defined as "Sexual feelings directed toward children." This as a baseline would not say pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder but some pedophiles may victimize children, and those people like all other people who victimize people are insane..... oh hold on is it only mental illness if you get sexual pleasure from victimizing other people? what about people who just do it for kicks, or the rush, or to make money? You know those other criminals who victimize people are they all insane too? Why even have jail terms just let doctors decide every three years who stays or goes right?

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Argus]

Rex Murphy mocking the Supreme Court decision. He also takes issue with one of the things which bothers me about the ruling, that truth is no defense. How can you ban statements which are true and still have freedom of speech?

There’s a fair dollop of therapeutic chatter in the Whatcott ruling, a resort to vague nostrums, such as the idea that “hate speech” might
“oppose the targeted group’s ability to find self- fulfillment?” So might bad weather, or bunions. What, really, is that phrase supposed to encompass? Moreover, how can group “self-fulfillment” be measured? Is self-fulfillment a legal right?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/02/rex-murphy-choosing-self-esteem-over-freedom-of-speech/

[jacee]

Rex Murphy mocking the Supreme Court decision. He also takes issue with one of the things which bothers me about the ruling, that truth is no defense. How can you ban statements which are true and still have freedom of speech?

Which Whatcott flyers were true?

[Argus]

Which Whatcott flyers were true?

That isn't relevant. What's important was that they stated that truth is not a defense. That's disturbing because it will be used in other cases.

[jacee]

That isn't relevant. What's important was that they stated that truth is not a defense. That's disturbing because it will be used in other cases.

Where is that said?

[scribblet]

from the ruling:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.

[g_bambino]

Rex Murphy mocking the Supreme Court decision. He also takes issue with one of the things which bothers me about the ruling, that truth is no defense. How can you ban statements which are true and still have freedom of speech?

What's meant by truth, though? Certainly, Whatcott believed what he was saying is true, though many of us would not. Does that mean his truth is a defence when he's using it to put others in danger (and I mean real danger to their person, not just hurt feelings)?

[Argus]

What's meant by truth, though? Certainly, Whatcott believed what he was saying is true, though many of us would not. Does that mean his truth is a defence when he's using it to put others in danger (and I mean real danger to their person, not just hurt feelings)?

I think truth is something which the court can satisfy itself with. It's not something open to debate. They didn't say something someone 'thought' was true, but that truth was no defense.

[Argus]

from the ruling:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.

What truthful statements do you fear? What truthful statements need to be restricted?

[g_bambino]

I think truth is something which the court can satisfy itself with. It's not something open to debate. They didn't say something someone 'thought' was true, but that truth was no defense.

They didn't seem to differentiate between a truth that can be satisfied by the court and a truth a person holds regardless of whether it's been satisfied by the court or not.