|
On January 21 2017 04:52 xM(Z wrote:the article doesn't make its own conclusions; almost all lines are quoted for from the linked articles. [35,36] are legal cases and [37] is an argument on the definition of paraphilia. 35 - Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (2002) Show nested quote +CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002
In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offender's confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute's words "mental abnormality or personality disorder" satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior-even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial court had made no such finding. 36 - Show nested quote +KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 95-1649. Argued December 10, 1996-Decided June 23,1997*
Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to commit respondent (and cross-petitioner) Hendricks, who had a long history of sexually molesting children and was scheduled for release from prison. The court reserved ruling on Hendricks' challenge to the Act's constitutionality, but granted his request for a jury trial. After Hendricks testified that he agreed with the state physician's diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and is not cured and that he continues to harbor sexual desires for children that he cannot control when he gets "stressed out," the jury determined that he was a sexually violent predator. Finding that pedophilia qualifies as a mental abnormality under the Act, the court ordered him committed. On appeal, the State Supreme Court invalidated the Act on the ground that the pre commitment condition of a "mental abnormality" did not satisfy what it perceived to be the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a "mental illness" finding. It did not address Hendricks' ex post facto and double jeopardy claims. and [37] is - Show nested quote +Abstract
Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, delimiting a range of so-called normative sexuality and defining paraphilia as any intense and persistent sexual interest other than that. The author examines the wording and intended meaning of this definition, and he argues that there are many problems with it that "correct" interpretation requires ignoring what it says. Because of these problems and the possibility of civil commitment under sexually violent predator/person laws on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful consideration of grammar and wording is urged in drafting a definition for paraphilia for DSM-5. there's nothing about homosexuals in there; it's all in your head. you can try as much as you want but the homophobia issue is again - all in your head. to throw you a silver lining, i know of articles in which researchers take the subset of homosexuality and split it into normal gay and deviant gay subsets. good luck there. Edit: yea and welcome to the world in which definitions matter/need to exist for medical and legal purposes.
Let me get this straight.
After I directly quote both your links and the portions of your links you deemed relevant and showed how your use of their argument is flawed; your counterpoint, your attempt at clarification for this discussion about pornography and the human imagination are court cases relating to a specific law in Kansas? This one?
http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/059_000_0000_chapter/059_029a_0000_article/059_029a_0002_section/059_029a_0002_k/
Is that the law you wish to use as your baseline? Even though the first section of that law is:
"Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence.
So you want to use court cases from that law as an axiom from which to define sex and human imagination? Is that what you're trying to suggest?
|
|
|
On January 21 2017 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
How can we get the fun talk about pornography back? Suggestions?
Weird funny kinks some people have that you have heard of?
I heard about cake farts and then saw the videos where the girls, hot naked ones, fart on cakes. And apparently this gets some people off!
Are you sure its the cake farts that do it and not just the hot naked girls doing anything at all?
|
It's all about the farting on cakes dude, has absolutely nothing to do with how hot or undressed or even what gender these people are. The fart is enough for the blood vessel widening trigger.
|
When they are out to get you .. can you still cure/work on your paranoia?
|
On January 21 2017 07:21 fluidrone wrote:
When they are out to get you .. can you still cure/work on your paranoia?
Don't be so paranoid; they're *actually* after me.
|
On January 21 2017 07:21 fluidrone wrote:
When they are out to get you .. can you still cure/work on your paranoia?
As far as I know, and been a spectator of a paranoid psychosis, it's quasi impossible. You're in a complete cognitive dissonance where only your view of reality makes sense. Some people might have a stronger grasp on this than others, but once you lose grip, I think it's very hard, or even impossible to get that grip back.
However, the episodes don't last and you get a glimpse back into your old ways once you've rested, taken anti-psychotics, underwent therapy, ...
|
On January 21 2017 08:55 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 07:21 fluidrone wrote:
When they are out to get you .. can you still cure/work on your paranoia? As far as I know, and been a spectator of a paranoid psychosis, it's quasi impossible. You're in a complete cognitive dissonance where only your view of reality makes sense. Some people might have a stronger grasp on this than others, but once you lose grip, I think it's very hard, or even impossible to get that grip back. However, the episodes don't last and you get a glimpse back into your old ways once you've rested, taken anti-psychotics, underwent therapy, ...
The issue with paranoia is very similar to the issue of theology--ie, you can't prove a negative.
It gets more nebulous when you then shift into objectivity/scientific methodology--anything is possible once you have enough information.
Hence it becomes easy for the brain to believe in paranoia, with no way to disprove the paranoia except through a change of faith.
|
|
|
On January 21 2017 11:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 21 2017 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
How can we get the fun talk about pornography back? Suggestions?
Weird funny kinks some people have that you have heard of?
I heard about cake farts and then saw the videos where the girls, hot naked ones, fart on cakes. And apparently this gets some people off! Are you sure its the cake farts that do it and not just the hot naked girls doing anything at all? Pretty sure, because if it was just about the hot naked chicks I can think of at least 542 things I'd rather have them do to make me horny then fart on cakes.
If it was just girls showing skin you could literally just buy a magazine one time and stare at the same pictures over and over again. But obviously things get old and at some point the nudity is a baseline that needs much more than that.
|
On January 21 2017 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 04:52 xM(Z wrote:the article doesn't make its own conclusions; almost all lines are quoted for from the linked articles. [35,36] are legal cases and [37] is an argument on the definition of paraphilia. 35 - Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (2002) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002
In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offender's confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute's words "mental abnormality or personality disorder" satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior-even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial court had made no such finding. 36 - KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 95-1649. Argued December 10, 1996-Decided June 23,1997*
Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to commit respondent (and cross-petitioner) Hendricks, who had a long history of sexually molesting children and was scheduled for release from prison. The court reserved ruling on Hendricks' challenge to the Act's constitutionality, but granted his request for a jury trial. After Hendricks testified that he agreed with the state physician's diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and is not cured and that he continues to harbor sexual desires for children that he cannot control when he gets "stressed out," the jury determined that he was a sexually violent predator. Finding that pedophilia qualifies as a mental abnormality under the Act, the court ordered him committed. On appeal, the State Supreme Court invalidated the Act on the ground that the pre commitment condition of a "mental abnormality" did not satisfy what it perceived to be the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a "mental illness" finding. It did not address Hendricks' ex post facto and double jeopardy claims. and [37] is - Abstract
Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, delimiting a range of so-called normative sexuality and defining paraphilia as any intense and persistent sexual interest other than that. The author examines the wording and intended meaning of this definition, and he argues that there are many problems with it that "correct" interpretation requires ignoring what it says. Because of these problems and the possibility of civil commitment under sexually violent predator/person laws on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful consideration of grammar and wording is urged in drafting a definition for paraphilia for DSM-5. there's nothing about homosexuals in there; it's all in your head. you can try as much as you want but the homophobia issue is again - all in your head. to throw you a silver lining, i know of articles in which researchers take the subset of homosexuality and split it into normal gay and deviant gay subsets. good luck there. Edit: yea and welcome to the world in which definitions matter/need to exist for medical and legal purposes. Let me get this straight. After I directly quote both your links and the portions of your links you deemed relevant and showed how your use of their argument is flawed; your counterpoint, your attempt at clarification for this discussion about pornography and the human imagination are court cases relating to a specific law in Kansas? This one? http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/059_000_0000_chapter/059_029a_0000_article/059_029a_0002_section/059_029a_0002_k/Is that the law you wish to use as your baseline? Even though the first section of that law is: Show nested quote +
"Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence.
So you want to use court cases from that law as an axiom from which to define sex and human imagination? Is that what you're trying to suggest? first you came out with the homosexuality/homophobia issue and i showed that beside the "this is how it used to be" snippet, there was nothing about it in there. then you came with the confusion on homosexuality and claimed deviance when the article was talking about sexual offenders. now you're coming with imagination being defined by the law shenanigans...
i shall let you imagine things from now on and be the better man here excusing myself from his discussion.
|
On January 21 2017 11:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 21 2017 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
How can we get the fun talk about pornography back? Suggestions?
Weird funny kinks some people have that you have heard of?
I heard about cake farts and then saw the videos where the girls, hot naked ones, fart on cakes. And apparently this gets some people off! Are you sure its the cake farts that do it and not just the hot naked girls doing anything at all? Pretty sure, because if it was just about the hot naked chicks I can think of at least 542 things I'd rather have them do to make me horny then fart on cakes.
May I ask you for an exhaustive list? 542 seems very specific.
|
|
|
Norway28873 Posts
I think there are even quite a lot of objects I'd prefer to watch hot chicks fart on. Why ruin a cake?
|
On January 21 2017 17:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 21 2017 04:52 xM(Z wrote:the article doesn't make its own conclusions; almost all lines are quoted for from the linked articles. [35,36] are legal cases and [37] is an argument on the definition of paraphilia. 35 - Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (2002) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002
In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offender's confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute's words "mental abnormality or personality disorder" satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior-even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial court had made no such finding. 36 - KANSAS v. HENDRICKS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 95-1649. Argued December 10, 1996-Decided June 23,1997*
Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to commit respondent (and cross-petitioner) Hendricks, who had a long history of sexually molesting children and was scheduled for release from prison. The court reserved ruling on Hendricks' challenge to the Act's constitutionality, but granted his request for a jury trial. After Hendricks testified that he agreed with the state physician's diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and is not cured and that he continues to harbor sexual desires for children that he cannot control when he gets "stressed out," the jury determined that he was a sexually violent predator. Finding that pedophilia qualifies as a mental abnormality under the Act, the court ordered him committed. On appeal, the State Supreme Court invalidated the Act on the ground that the pre commitment condition of a "mental abnormality" did not satisfy what it perceived to be the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a "mental illness" finding. It did not address Hendricks' ex post facto and double jeopardy claims. and [37] is - Abstract
Blanchard (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) proposed a definition of paraphilia for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5, delimiting a range of so-called normative sexuality and defining paraphilia as any intense and persistent sexual interest other than that. The author examines the wording and intended meaning of this definition, and he argues that there are many problems with it that "correct" interpretation requires ignoring what it says. Because of these problems and the possibility of civil commitment under sexually violent predator/person laws on the basis of a diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, caution and careful consideration of grammar and wording is urged in drafting a definition for paraphilia for DSM-5. there's nothing about homosexuals in there; it's all in your head. you can try as much as you want but the homophobia issue is again - all in your head. to throw you a silver lining, i know of articles in which researchers take the subset of homosexuality and split it into normal gay and deviant gay subsets. good luck there. Edit: yea and welcome to the world in which definitions matter/need to exist for medical and legal purposes. Let me get this straight. After I directly quote both your links and the portions of your links you deemed relevant and showed how your use of their argument is flawed; your counterpoint, your attempt at clarification for this discussion about pornography and the human imagination are court cases relating to a specific law in Kansas? This one? http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/059_000_0000_chapter/059_029a_0000_article/059_029a_0002_section/059_029a_0002_k/Is that the law you wish to use as your baseline? Even though the first section of that law is:
"Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence.
So you want to use court cases from that law as an axiom from which to define sex and human imagination? Is that what you're trying to suggest? first you came out with the homosexuality/homophobia issue and i showed that beside the "this is how it used to be" snippet, there was nothing about it in there. then you came with the confusion on homosexuality and claimed deviance when the article was talking about sexual offenders. now you're coming with imagination being defined by the law shenanigans... i shall let you imagine things from now on and be the better man here excusing myself from his discussion.
Thank you for agreeing to stop posting your links. I'm glad you were willing to see reason.
Now, to the fart jokes!
|
|
|
On January 22 2017 03:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 00:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think there are even quite a lot of objects I'd prefer to watch hot chicks fart on. Why ruin a cake? Maybe to them the cake is not ruined but enhanced?
Stoner1: Farts are soul of food dude.
Stoner2: What would cake with 2 souls look like?
|
My family is like 8+ generation Canadians but I wanna immigrate to Canada to take advantage of the sweet benefits immigrants get in Canada. How do I as a Canadian files for those papers so I can get the benefits?
|
whose the most popular head of state in a country thats a legitimate democracy/ has legitimate voting? so basically who has the highest approval rating.
|
if you'd be able to detach your dick(including its accessories) then attach it back without any problems and while detached it would remain fully functional but you'd not be able to feel anything(neither you nor your dick would feel what happens to the other), would you do it?. could there be situations in which it would help?.
i believe the lack of feeling would hinder some self-serving scenarios so i'm thinking of extroverted activities mostly.
would you loan/rent it?; give it to you your gf/wife for that working weekend?; make your first homosexual encounter an out of body experience?; have it stashed somewhere secure and only use it when you want/need to?; throw it in the trash?; nsfw+ Show Spoiler +how would cuckold be redefined?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
