Author Topic: Why the Gawker Sucks  (Read 3139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bison

  • Captain America
  • Arquebusier
  • *
  • Posts: 18638
Why the Gawker Sucks
« on: September 09, 2012, 09:07:56 AM »
I've never liked the Gawker.  Not to fine a point on it, but its a trash journalist outlet that can kiss my ass.

Here's an article trying to draw sympathy for the "sexual orientation"  that is being a pedophile.  Yeah lets embrace deviation as nothing more than a sexual orientation.  NAMBLA would be proud. 

Don't read it if you have kids and don't want to get overly pissed off.

http://gawker.com/5941037


Offline LongBlade

  • Unsanctioned Psyker
  • Blunderbuster
  • ****
  • Posts: 27192
  • No Regerts
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2012, 09:45:59 AM »
Not reading it. I don't need another reason to raise my blood pressure.

Offline son_of_montfort

  • Ego rex Jerusalem et Sicilie, comitatus Provincie et Folcalquierii
  • Crossbowman
  • *
  • Posts: 5803
  • The Electronic Eremite
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2012, 09:53:09 AM »
I shouldn't have clicked. One sentence and I closed. I feel sick to my stomach and I'm physically upset.

I've never gone to Gawker, but I'm not ever going to go there again.
"Now it is no accident all these conservatives are using time travel to teach our kids. It is the best way to fight back against the liberal version of history, or as it is sometimes known... history."

- Stephen Colbert

"The purpose of religion is to answer the ultimate question, are we in control or is there some greater force pulling the strings? And if the courts rule that corporations have the same religious rights that we humans do, I think we’ll have our answer."

- Stephen Colbert

Offline Keunert

  • Man-at-Arms
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • he who wears rabbit ears, has libido
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2012, 11:00:16 PM »
besides the totally unnecessary explicit part i found the article interesting. i recently read another article on the mentioned 'Dunkelfeld' project in Germany. there are groups like AA meeting with therapists. they train self restriction mechanics, try to find jobs and living situations that minimize risks and so on.

If this is true that paedophiles are uniquely attracted to children i rather would like to know this. i would still send them to jail. but if we know more about their conditions we will more likely be able to reduce the number of cases. what the consequences in legal terms are is open to discussion.
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde

Special K has too much class.
Windigo

Offline GDS_Starfury

  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 35990
  • Sons of Punarchy
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2012, 11:08:57 PM »
a bullet reduces the number of cases.
Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


Offline Keunert

  • Man-at-Arms
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • he who wears rabbit ears, has libido
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2012, 05:41:06 AM »
Stalin agreees!
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde

Special K has too much class.
Windigo

Offline Jack Nastyface

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: Why the Gawker Sucks
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2012, 10:19:15 PM »
Although the example (peadophilia) used is reprehensible, the article actually deals with a growing area of medical science and study - brain morphology and behavior.

Let's use a much more acceptable topic:  sugar.   If you look at the chemical formula for sugar, there is absolutely NOTHING about it's molecular structure or atomic elements (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) that would give you the indication that sugar will be "sweet" (a sensation that we can describe as "pleasing to the sense of taste").  So why does the taste of sugar leave us with pleasing sensation?  Because our brain is "wired" to do so.  Sugar is high-energy food-source.  Survival (in the evolutionary sense of the word) was dependent upon us getting enough high-energy food so that we could build fat and have energy to burn.  So in effect our brain "tells" us sugar is good, go out and get some more (so that we can survive), but this urge / desire / sensation is really just the result of a series of chemical and electrical activity.  You never "decide" that the taste of sugar is pleasing  - that's just how your brain interprets the sensation from your tastebuds.

So what has this have to do with pedophilia or criminality or any number of other areas of physcological study?  Simply put...the research that is being done in this field is trying to determine how much effect that a brain with "failed wiring" has on the human behaviour.  The goal is NOT to find an "excuse" for abberant behaviour, but rather to find out if there is a definable biological morphology or pattern common in certain behaviour types, with the hope of one day being able to address it before it becomes problematic.

Less sinister versions of pattern behavior having a link to brain chemistry and physiology include addiction beahviour (gambling, lying, theft, etc).  There is proven evidence that certain drugs not only effect mood and behaviour, but actually alter brain chemistry and physiology.  The popular rave-drug ecstasy, for example, saturates receptors in the brain with chemicals that create a feeling of euphoria.  If you take a hit of E once or twice a year, this is no big deal.  However, if you take a couple of hits of E every weekend, what eventually happens is that your brain creates new receptors.  By itself, this may not seem like a big deal (except that you might need to take more hits of E to get the same high you once had), but the real problem is that an "unfed" receptor receptor releases a chemical that is linked to feelings and symptoms of clinical depression.  So getting high on E paradoxically leads to severe depresssion not because of the temporary effects of the drug, but because of long-lasting physiological changes that the drug has on the brain.  Similarily, it is believed that certain types of behaviour, feelings, emotions, etc may also alter brain function to the point where chemistry and / or physiology are changed.

It is unfortunate that a particularly repulsive form of behaviour was used to illustrate the scope of work being done in this area....but certainly anecdotal evidence does bear out some of this research.  There are more than a few convicted pedophiles (and killers...even U of T clock tower shooter Charles Whitman told doctors that there was something "wrong with his brain" and he was afraid of what he might do) that have stated to prison authorities that they should never be released because they remain completely unable to change their sexual preference.

If there is one thing I've learned from study mental health tools is just how incredibly powerful is the brain...and yet our brains are nothing more than biophysical networks that depend on chemical and electrical inputs and pathways.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 10:09:36 PM by Jack Nastyface »
Now, the problem is, how to divide five Afghans from three mules and have two Englishmen left over.