User Tag List

Page 6 of 26 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 385

Thread: Why "Conversion Therapy" Should Be Illegal

  1. #76
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,205
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 2,774 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1237432
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    You seem to be dancing around an argument of everyone's viewpoint is different therefore there is no certainty in the world. While there is some philosophical truth to that, it really just applies evenly to everything and so is essentially meaningless to the scientific question.

    The entire purpose of the scientific method is to realize that subjectiveness exists and negate it as much as possible.

    You also seem to be drifting off the question, we are not trying to get to the bottom of the hetero and/or same-sex attraction question. The question we are trying to get to the bottom of is do any of the multitudes of conversion therapies actually work and are they safe (ie any potential harm is outweighed by the benefits).

    That is a far different question and one the scientific method as it is applied to medical treatments is quite capable of answering. The process of applying that method minimizes and negates the subjective issues you raise.
    You've continually missed my point (though I have already related my agreement with you and AB against the supposed efficacy of quack conversion therapies more than once).

    My point being that although, as you put it "The entire purpose of the scientific method is to realize that subjectiveness exists and negate it as much as possible" because human beings are involved in that, all sorts of approaches to one thing or another that might prove at least looking into, are not looked into, due to "the status quo" that far too many within "accredited science" end up turning "the scientific method" into.

    The battles with the status quo scientific method waged by brilliant but just as necessarily rebelious minds like that of a Luis Pasteur, of a Marie Curie, of an Oliver Sacks, of a Walt Disney in his field, of a Robert De Niro within the film world, and that of many many others like them, come to mind.

    Its the same in every field.

    Thus, while most just buy into "accredited findings" as some sort of "the last word" on a thing, I have long since learned to refuse to.

    Seemingly accredited or not, seemingly unproven or not, supposedly quack, or not, the word of a supposed amateur or of a supposed expert, or not, the word of someone seemingly humble, or seemingly full of hot air, or not - I absolutely refuse to allow such labels as set in stone conclusions, to deter me from turning over each's rock and finding out for myself whether or not what any of what any of them has to say, has any merit, or not.

    One comes to see a lot of things of much merit from that, that even the best within.a field tend to miss.

    If that sounds arrogant, or skirting of an issue, or what have you, than have at such limiting conclusions and what they actually say about their conclud-er.

    I know I have greatly benefited in my understanding of much and application of same in many areas in my life, as a result of the above approach to looking at all things.

    You...make of that whatever your self-imposed limits to looking at a thing might.

    Me, I'll keep looking for fresh answers to a thing.

    "To know, and not yet to do, is not yet to know."

  2. #77
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,205
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 2,774 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1237432
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Simple question. Have you ever chosen to be attracted to somebody? Or was that merely something out of your control as a lot of things are like instinctual reactions?
    So long as you think you are asking the right questions to a thing, not only will you remain unable to see, or at least possibly consider the obvious, but continue to reveal your approach is off.

    Of course, I have at times chosen to be (to fool myself into believing I was) attracted to someone.

    But you asked a poor question, which makes my answer, a poor answer, when considered from within the obviously limited frame of reference within which you asked your question.

    A much more fully informed question would be one based more on something along a line of the following, wider frame of reference - actually an absolute fact of life and what it implies about other, closely related areas in life...

    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-lov...ng-sex-normal/

  3. #78
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    149
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked 147 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    49243
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    if that's God's will, so be it


    would you risk prison to save the souls of others?
    Perhaps if it would save souls but what you suggest would not, it would only ensure the loss of your own.

  4. #79
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    149
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked 147 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    49243
    Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
    You've continually missed my point (though I have already related my agreement with you and AB against the supposed efficacy of quack conversion therapies more than once).

    My point being that although, as you put it "The entire purpose of the scientific method is to realize that subjectiveness exists and negate it as much as possible" because human beings are involved in that, all sorts of approaches to one thing or another that might prove at least looking into, are not looked into, due to "the status quo" that far too many within "accredited science" end up turning "the scientific method" into.

    The battles with the status quo scientific method waged by brilliant but just as necessarily rebelious minds like that of a Luis Pasteur, of a Marie Curie, of an Oliver Sacks, of a Walt Disney in his field, of a Robert De Niro within the film world, and that of many many others like them, come to mind.

    Its the same in every field.

    Thus, while most just buy into "accredited findings" as some sort of "the last word" on a thing, I have long since learned to refuse to.

    Seemingly accredited or not, seemingly unproven or not, supposedly quack, or not, the word of a supposed amateur or of a supposed expert, or not, the word of someone seemingly humble, or seemingly full of hot air, or not - I absolutely refuse to allow such labels as set in stone conclusions, to deter me from turning over each's rock and finding out for myself whether or not what any of what any of them has to say, has any merit, or not.

    One comes to see a lot of things of much merit from that, that even the best within.a field tend to miss.

    If that sounds arrogant, or skirting of an issue, or what have you, than have at such limiting conclusions and what they actually say about their conclud-er.

    I know I have greatly benefited in my understanding of much and application of same in many areas in my life, as a result of the above approach to looking at all things.

    You...make of that whatever your self-imposed limits to looking at a thing might.

    Me, I'll keep looking for fresh answers to a thing.

    "To know, and not yet to do, is not yet to know."
    I think we are both managing to miss each other here. *laughs*

    I'm not suggesting unquestioningly accepting the status quo or that it is wrong to look for fresh answers. But when it comes to the safety of minors I do expect those seeking those fresh answers to do the hard work to prove it.

  5. #80
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,205
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 2,774 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1237432
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I think we are both managing to miss each other here. *laughs*

    I'm not suggesting unquestioningly accepting the status quo or that it is wrong to look for fresh answers. But when it comes to the safety of minors I do expect those seeking those fresh answers to do the hard work to prove it.
    Google, download, and read...

    The Introduction in this book:

    Pdf Time Line Therapy And The Basis of Personality Tad James

    And Chapter VI in this book:

    Pdf Anthony Robbins UNLIMITED POWER -

    (The actual book, not the notes to the audio course)
    Last edited by Danoh; June 18th, 2018 at 02:10 AM.

  6. #81
    TOL Legend serpentdove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    14,813
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,776 Times in 2,551 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    559948
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    “…[T]he opinions of the authorities in the field are relevant
    "Men study science as god not the God of science." ~ Adrian Rogers
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    “…as far as the law is concerned.”
    Laws come from God not man (1 Ti 1:8-10, Ac 5:29). The law is for the lawless (1 Ti 1:9).

    What's new?
    PlastikBuddah [aka Gamera] make-believer. Kmoney [aka Count Iblis] make-believer. Alate_One deceives students in the classroom. Arthur Brain wants answers. Eph 5:11

    "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J Vernon McGee Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to serpentdove For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018)

  8. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanks
    7,901
    Thanked 6,485 Times in 4,333 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
    So long as you think you are asking the right questions to a thing, not only will you remain unable to see, or at least possibly consider the obvious, but continue to reveal your approach is off.

    Of course, I have at times chosen to be (to fool myself into believing I was) attracted to someone.

    But you asked a poor question, which makes my answer, a poor answer, when considered from within the obviously limited frame of reference within which you asked your question.

    A much more fully informed question would be one based more on something along a line of the following, wider frame of reference - actually an absolute fact of life and what it implies about other, closely related areas in life...

    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-lov...ng-sex-normal/
    Okay, dunno what's going on here as I replied to this about ten minutes ago and posted elsewhere and a whole bunch of recent replies just disappeared so who knows how long this one will last...

    It's only a "poor" question in as much as you would have preferred another one seemingly. It was a straightforward one, one which I would have had no difficulty in answering.

    No, I've never had any control in who I've been attracted to and I didn't choose to be heterosexual and exclusively attracted to the opposite sex either. Simply the way it is. It's not necessary to overcomplicate things when some aspects of life can actually just be that simple.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (June 18th, 2018),Rusha (June 18th, 2018)

  10. #83
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    7,225
    Thanks
    404
    Thanked 813 Times in 705 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Okay, dunno what's going on here as I replied to this about ten minutes ago and posted elsewhere and a whole bunch of recent replies just disappeared so who knows how long this one will last...

    It's only a "poor" question in as much as you would have preferred another one seemingly. It was a straightforward one, one which I would have had no difficulty in answering.

    No, I've never had any control in who I've been attracted to and I didn't choose to be heterosexual and exclusively attracted to the opposite sex either. Simply the way it is. It's not necessary to overcomplicate things when some aspects of life can actually just be that simple.
    Exactly. And you go by scripture to find out what is and what is not sinning. Thus if one is born with a sinful tendency that person needs to repent and seek deliverance from God thru the Messiah. Quit making excuses for bad behavior


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #84
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanks
    7,901
    Thanked 6,485 Times in 4,333 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by intojoy View Post
    Exactly. And you go by scripture to find out what is and what is not sinning. Thus if one is born with a sinful tendency that person needs to repent and seek deliverance from God thru the Messiah. Quit making excuses for bad behavior


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If someone is born homosexual then they ain't responsible for it. You are just a moron.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (June 18th, 2018),Rusha (June 19th, 2018)

  13. #85
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,953
    Thanks
    1,447
    Thanked 4,535 Times in 3,406 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147707
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    If someone is born homosexual then they ain't responsible for it.
    and if they're born with an attraction to children?

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    glorydaz (June 18th, 2018),JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018)

  15. #86
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,351
    Thanks
    13,013
    Thanked 34,732 Times in 17,488 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147786
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    and if they're born with an attraction to children?
    Nice to have you back, doser.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018),ok doser (June 18th, 2018)

  17. #87
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,411
    Thanks
    893
    Thanked 909 Times in 520 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    526945
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    If someone is born homosexual then they ain't responsible for it. You are just a moron.
    No one is born homosexual because no one is born sexual.
    Responses to puberty and progressive sexuality are learned and often conditioned by others.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018),ok doser (June 18th, 2018)

  19. #88
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,953
    Thanks
    1,447
    Thanked 4,535 Times in 3,406 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147707
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    No one is born homosexual because no one is born sexual.
    Responses to puberty and progressive sexuality are learned and often conditioned by others.
    this is the lie the left pushes - it removes responsibility for the actions of those who are "born" into whatever perversion they want to embrace and force society to accept



    it will be the thin tip of the wedge that will inevitably lead to societal acceptance of pedophilia in our lifetime

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    George Affleck (June 18th, 2018),JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018)

  21. #89
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,411
    Thanks
    893
    Thanked 909 Times in 520 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    526945
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    this is the lie the left pushes - it removes responsibility for the actions of those who are "born" into whatever perversion they want to embrace and force society to accept



    it will be the thin tip of the wedge that will inevitably lead to societal acceptance of pedophilia in our lifetime
    We are well past the thin edge in my opinion.
    That was years ago.

    We may not see pedophilia but it will come eventually.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 22nd, 2018),ok doser (June 18th, 2018)

  23. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanks
    7,901
    Thanked 6,485 Times in 4,333 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    No one is born homosexual because no one is born sexual.
    Responses to puberty and progressive sexuality are learned and often conditioned by others.
    I knew I saw girls in a different way to boys long before puberty and adolescence kicked in. It's not simply about "sex". The innate attraction to the opposite sex was already wired.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (June 18th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us