Power and Umpiring
Digby at Hullabaloo had a partial quote that sent me back to the original. As the Senate Judiciary Committee considers President Obama's well-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, it is interesting to read this description of the approach taken by the last guy's pick for Chief Justice. Jeffrey Toobin was writing about John Roberts in The New Yorker back in May. The good stuff is in the last few sentences:
Sometimes Authority is right, and a good judge should be able to recognize those times. But sometimes the little guy is right, sometimes the little guy gets a bad deal, and an unbiased judge needs to be able to recognize when that has happened, too. It just can't be that the authority, the prosecution, the state, the corporation is always right, and the worker, the prisoner, the customer is always whining about nothing.
Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party. No More Mr. Nice Guy
Sometimes Authority is right, and a good judge should be able to recognize those times. But sometimes the little guy is right, sometimes the little guy gets a bad deal, and an unbiased judge needs to be able to recognize when that has happened, too. It just can't be that the authority, the prosecution, the state, the corporation is always right, and the worker, the prisoner, the customer is always whining about nothing.
posted by JimK at 9:15 AM
21 Comments:
Anon-B and Tish are in horror this morning as their worst nightmare has taken form in the real world.
Sarah Palin has begun her campaign to rescue America.
Today she begins her columns for the op-ed page of the Washington Post:
"There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity." "
"We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.
For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.
Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?
Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska."
Thanks for confirming the WaPo Meltdown continues, SarahSmittenAnon.
Thanks too for demonstrating once more your fine cutting and pasting skills.
And woo hoo, SSA! Congratulations for figuring out a way to cite your source! I'm so proud of you! It's good to know you can "consider doing things a different way", as Dr. T and others have suggested.
BTW, how's your search for non-spun sources about studies documenting the harm caused by repartive therapy going, or are you still reading CitizenLink spin like it's the gospel truth?
"how's your search for non-spun sources about studies documenting the harm caused by repartive therapy going"
You're the one that claimed some "harm". I don't think there is any, at least any that is not common to other treatments, so why would I search for it?
As I recall, you came around to letting other people exercise self-determination but you still think they should be warned of the dangers of trying to overcome deviancy first.
Why then shouldn't teens be warned of the far greater dangers when schools teach fairy tales about how wonderful the gay life is?
danger of reparative therapy by Anon-BS:
it might not work and you'll get depressed
danger of gay lifestyle:
good chance the random male you exchange bodily fluids with will have an uncurable and transmittable and invariably fatal disease
danger of reparative therapy cited by Anon-BS:
you'll become estranged from your family
danger of coming out as a homosexual:
you'll become estranged from your family
danger of reparative therapy cited by Anon-BS:
you'll lose faith because your pastor encouraged you to change and you find you can't
danger of leading gay lifestyle:
you'll lose faith because you don't want to read scripture and hear what it says about homosexuality
which of these situations warrant a warning?
I know what the lunatics think
we could go on but the "dangers" of reparative therapy are basically the dangers of self-differentiation
described courtesy of Anon-BS
it's called life
don't miss out on it
"Congratulations for figuring out a way to cite your source!"
Don't get used to it. It just happened that the source was humorous today. Sarah's piece appeared in the liberal, pro-O Post.
"Thanks for confirming the WaPo Meltdown continues, SarahSmittenAnon."
The Post's op-ed page, like the op-ed pages of other major papaers, carries columns from all sides of the political spectrum. That you take the fact that they print a column by a former Republican VP nominee as evidence of a "meltdown" introduces your mentality to any readers who may be joining us for the forst time today.
For those of you who don't know, Anon-BS is trying to obscure the fact that she is terrified by the thought of Sarah Palin pushing her ideas in the public forum.
Aunt Bea -- Let's assume that you're correct. Reparative therapy has the possibility of causing depression or some such thing. So what? If someone wants reparative therapy, and is willing to take the risk, why do you have a problem with that? If parents enroll their children in reparative therapy and they know it has some risks, then so what? Parent send their kids to chemotherapy, knowing that there are some risks. People have risky heart surgeries, knowing that there are some risks. People jump out of airplanes, knowing that there are some risks. Parent send their children to playgrounds, knowing that there are some risks. People drink tap water, knowing that there are some risks. People go skiing, knowing there are some risks. They take their children on the slopes, knowing there are some risks. Making children do chores they don't want to do carries some risks (anger at you).
Sometimes the risks turn out to be good and sometimes they turn out to be bad.
Life is full of risks. Do you want to wrap someone in a plastic bubble and shield them from all physical or mental harm? Well that's impossible, because being in a plastic bubble causes harm too.
So, if a person finds out that reparative therapy harmed them.....well, they were willing to take the risk. Find some more therapy and undo the harm.
Not rocket science. Not complicated. If you're unhappy being gay and you want to try reparative therapy, then try it. If your parents want you to try it, then you try it.
Until coming to this website, I never knew that the LGBT community assessed themselves as having so many problems and issues of concern. If I had a kid who was gay....after coming to this website, I'd be looking hard at the reparative therapy option. Before coming to this website, I didn't feel that way.
I know someone whose parent sent him to a drug addiction clinic and he ended up committing suicide. I don't know -- maybe he was innately just a drug addict and trying to change him was just more than he could take. But the parents tried. They knew that the risks outweighed the benefits. Just like....if my girl thought she was a boy, I'd look at the Montgomery County gender identity law and think: "WOW. If she's a trangender, she won't even be able to get cable service in Montgomery County or be served in a restaurant! I better rush her to therapy because her chances of getting cable service and restaurant service will be much better if she can change."
Everything in life carries a risk.
If someone wants reparative therapy, and is willing to take the risk, why do you have a problem with that?
I'm fine with that, if they're told of the risk. Problem is they are not informed of the risk. NARTH and PFOX use Spitzer's study to claim change is possible, but according to Dr. Spitzer himself, "What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare." And there's great risk of all sorts of harm for those who fail to change as documented by Shildo and Schroeder.
You're the one that claimed some "harm".
Spin all you want, but I'm not the one who has documented the harm of reparative therapy. Many researchers' scientific experiments reported in peer reviewed professional medical and mental health journals report the harm you and NARTH both try to minimize.
Dr. Throckmortong said I urge you to consider doing things a different way, when he was good enough to stop by over the weekend and confirm the harm he himself has seen in individuals who have submitted or been forced to attempt to alter their sexual orientation.
People have risky heart surgeries, knowing that there are some risks.
And how do they know there are risks? Because before someone has a risky surgical procedure, they are informed by their physician of the "risks," "benefits," and "alternatives" because the AMA and all 50 states insist on it. Once again, it's called "informed consent."
The same disclosures should be required for anyone providing reparative therapy. The therapist should have to disclose the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure to the client (or their legal guardian for underage clients) so that informed consent may be given.
Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. In the case of reparative therapy, I hope we make it a requirement for the provider to report risk, benefit, and alternatives so the potential customer may give or withhold their "informed consent," just like we do for "risky heart surgery."
I don't think there is any [harm from repartive therapy], at least any that is not common to other treatments, so why would I search for it?
You should search for it to make sure your thinking on the subject is correct. You seem to be basing your "think"ing on NARTH's report as covered by CitizenLink. Several people, including Dr. Throckmorton himself, have pointed out problems with NARTH's literature review. You don't have to take my word for it, but reasonable people might expect you to trust the CRC's expert.
...after coming to this website, I'd be looking hard at the reparative therapy option. Before coming to this website, I didn't feel that way.
How often do you consider making life altering decisions that will effect you and your children based on what you read at independent websites?
Hmmm, Aunt Bea. If I allowed someone to open up my heart and work on it, I wouldn't need anyone to tell me that I'm taking a risk. I'd have figured it out all on my own. No law is needed to tell me I'm taking a risk!
We have to have basic level of assumption that the average person has a brain and can figure some things out for themselves.
We seem to have another intelligent person commenting so I'll go into "deluxe" mode to help TTFers tell us apart.
"The same disclosures should be required for anyone providing reparative therapy."
Medical procedures have risks that only experts can assess. That's why they're required to be disclosed.
The risk of "harm" cited by Anon-B and Dr Throck isn't of an extraordinary nature compared to risk of any other self growth or enlightenment. There is no need for a warning.
Those engaging in other Freudian type therapies aren't required to disclose any risk.
The call for a warning here are simply pro-gay propaganda.
"In the case of reparative therapy, I hope we make it a requirement for the provider to report risk, benefit, and alternatives so the potential customer may give or withhold their "informed consent,""
Ridiculous.
"You seem to be basing your "think"ing on NARTH's report as covered by CitizenLink."
No, I was basing it on the rather lengthy posts you recently made. I think it took four or five posts to get it all in.
"Several people, including Dr. Throckmorton himself, have pointed out problems with NARTH's literature review."
His problem seem to center around the title of the release of the paper.
I agree it was a little misleading but anyone who read past that understand the methodology of the study perfectly well.
NARTH looked at all the studies and papers that they could get a hold of from the last century. Obviously, some of everything is always faulty.
Big insight.
"You don't have to take my word for it, but reasonable people might expect you to trust the CRC's expert."
While I have often defended CRC from the outrageous attacks, I don't necessarily feel any allegiance to them or their "experts". I wasn't involved in their efforts.
It sounded to me like Dr Throck didn't really consider himself in an alliance with them either.
Even if I wanted to blindly accept anything said by "experts", it would be impossible.
They disagree with one another.
"I think, therefore it is" said
Those engaging in other Freudian type therapies aren't required to disclose any risk.
Is that what you "think" is true? You do need to find a "different way." A google search for the American Psychoanalytic Association's standard for informed consent led me to their Principles of Ethics and Associated Standards, which state:
...Mutuality and Informed Consent. The treatment relationship between the patient and the psychoanalyst is founded upon trust and informed mutual agreement or consent. At the outset of treatment, the patient should be made aware of the nature of psychoanalysis and relevant alternative therapies. The psychoanalyst should make agreements pertaining to scheduling, fees, and other rules and obligations of treatment tactfully and humanely, with adequate regard for the realistic and therapeutic aspects of the relationship. Promises made should be honored.
When the patient is a minor these same general principles pertain but the patient's age and stage of development should guide how specific arrangements will be handled and with whom.
The American Psychiatric Association has published its Principles of Informed Consent in Psychiatry, which states:
...Psychiatrists should offer patients or others from whom consent is being obtained information about the nature of their condition, the nature of the proposed treatement, benefits of the proposed treatment, risks of the proposed treatment, and available alternatives to the proposed treatment along with their benefits and risks...
"I think, therefore it is" continued
"Several people, including Dr. Throckmorton himself, have pointed out problems with NARTH's literature review."
His problem seem to center around the title of the release of the paper.
It that what you "think" again? Actually, the fact is Dr. Throckmorton told you a lot more than that. On July 10, 2009, at 6:11 PM, he wrote:
The paper first of all includes nothing new. The leaders of NARTH have presented what is essentially a position paper as something new.
The paper does not criticize the old research due to the many design flaws. There is no need to rehash studies where psychoanalysts provided the answers they thought their poor patients would give. Or to note that Charcot thought hypnosis cured gays. They also cite the discredited Masters and Johnson study and Robert Kronemeyer's Syntonic Therapy which requires patients to scream and beat things (sound familiar IHF folks?). The paper cites materials from NARTH's website and protest descriptions from newspapers.
I could go on, but I did not want to let the idea that I have no problem with the bulk of the paper.
And then he did go on, on July 11, 2009, at 12:48 AM:
Another problem with the paper is that it lumps all types of change approaches into one general concept of reorientation. So you have what might be more mainstream approaches like cognitive therapy lumped in with unethical approaches like aversive conditioning, lumped in with beliefs that homosexuality is caused by disruptions with the same sex parent in the first 3-4 years of life, lumped in prayer and Bible reading, etc. There is no ability to discern what might be helpful and what could be harmful. This is a significant weakness of this paper.
...The papers in the report have some merit but they cannot be stretched to say something they don't say. Just because you **think** [emphasis added] your ideological opponents are playing fast and loose with the data does not mean you should do it in response.
I "think" you need to learn more facts because what you think and what is fact bear little resemblance to each other.
Anon-familiar-with-psychoanalytic-procedures-for-reasons-we-won't-speculate-on:
My complaint was differing standards for reparative vs other psychoanalytic methods. If its required for other talk therapies, then it is automatically required for reparative therapies.
The point is there is no difference in supposed "harm". No one argues that Freudian theapies are harmful. Your whole argument is based on pro-gay bias.
As for Dr Throck's points, I stand by the assessment that his main complaint is the characterization of the PR release. His further elaboration about how it doesn't evaluate different types of therapy go back to that point.
Surveying all research and drawing conclusions is fine.
And to the original issue being discussed, reparative therapies cause no more problems than any other type of talk therapy.
It's all pro-gay propaganda.
No one argues that Freudian theapies are harmful.
"Freudian therapies" of conversion therapists are based on their belief that "homosexuality derives from broken same-sex parenting," according to Dr. T, who has posted a letter from Freud to the mother of a gay son who asked if he could help her son.
Freud wrote:
…Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.
By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of the treatment cannot be predicted.
What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...
Freud's "arrest of sexual development" is believed by modern day conversion therapists like Nicolosi and others, to derive from broken same-sex parenting.
Shidlo and Schroeder reported harm from therapy based on Freudian theory:
Family of origin. Many respondents reported that conversion therapy significantly harmed relationships with their parents. These participants reported that they were instructed to blame their parents for their homosexual orientation and were taught to identify failures in parenting as causal to their sexual orientation. Participants spoke of anger, alienation, hatred, and other negative emotions toward their parents as results of the conversion therapy:
"I really wanted to believe . . . [my therapist about the cause of my homosexuality]. So for a while, it added to my hatred of my father. . . During that period I broke off relationship with my father to get away from that influence. "
Dr. T reported on Vigilance:
"Reparative therapy is based on the belief that homosexuality derives from broken same-sex parenting...
I am referring to reparative therapy in the sense that Joseph Nicolosi practices it. And that is what he preaches (see this - http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/27/nicolosi-claims-75-cured). Not all people who believe change is common believe this but reparative therapy is marked by this belief. I am surprised you would think otherwise.
Yes, psychological harm and family estrangement, near divorces, depression, loss of sexual responsiveness to anyone, religious apathy.
I urge you to stop spinning long enough to focus on what Dr. T is telling you.
Surveying all research and drawing conclusions is fine.
Only a non-scientist would say comparing apples to oranges fine. Dr. T disagrees and so do many others. If NARTH surveyed "all research," they failed to report the harm reported by Haldeman and Shidlo and Schroeder.
It's all pro-gay propaganda.
Unfortunately for SSA, the readers of Vigilance recognize pro-straight spin when they see it.
As I've pointed out previously, Anon-B, you've stretched the concept of "harm" to the breaking point.
Whether telling a patient that their parents raised them improperly would cause enstrangement actually depends greatly on the individual case.
So does whether it's true or not.
In any case, it's a thought that occurs to most people at some point in their life or another and most individuals even if they conclude that it's true, nonetheless are able to find peace and a healthy relationship.
In all honesty, just the fact of coming out as a homosexual causes an increased risk of family enstrangement, indeed higher than the that of reparative therapy.
It's all talk and people don't need a warning from the experts to make their own decision about what they believe.
Additionally, I last week misunderstood Dr Throck's use of the term "same sex parenting" to mean people raised by gay parents but regardless dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy.
last week misunderstood Dr Throck's use of the term "same sex parenting" to mean people raised by gay parents
I suspect I'm not alone, but with your deep and persistent prejudices against gay people, I am not surprised one bit. The fact is that nearly all LGBT people have straight parents.
dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy.
Oh so now you want to change the subject? Yes, there are other types of therapies, but your comments at 9:27PM on July 14, 2009, were specifically about "Freudian therapies."
Maybe you are beginning to appreciate one of the problems with lumping all therapies into one pot and trying to come up with sensible findings.
BTW, IMHO changing the subject from Freudian therapies to other types shows the weakness of your arguments about the NARTH article, especially since the vast majority of NARTH followers base their treatments on the Freudian theory.
"I suspect I'm not alone, but with your deep and persistent prejudices against gay people, I am not surprised one bit. The fact is that nearly all LGBT people have straight parents."
You are a mess, Anon-B. I was saying that I didn't think most gays are raised by gays.
"Oh so now you want to change the subject? Yes, there are other types of therapies, but your comments at 9:27PM on July 14, 2009, were specifically about "Freudian therapies."
Maybe you are beginning to appreciate one of the problems with lumping all therapies into one pot and trying to come up with sensible findings."
I have appreciated that all along. Dr Throck is the one that mistakenly referred to one version of reparative therapy as if they were all the same.
When I say "Freudian", I mean therapies that only involve discussion. Not all of these assume parental problems.
Bottom line: some people can change; no unusual harm would be expected to befall those who attempt whether they fail or not
BTW, IMHO changing the subject from Freudian therapies to other types shows the weakness of your arguments about the NARTH article, especially since the vast majority of NARTH followers base their treatments on the Freudian theory.
Far back in the thread, the anonymoid refers to the risk of contracting an "invariable fatal illness."
That should be countered, since he is mistaken in his oblique reference to HIV.
Current treatments for HIV are very effective, and HIV-positive individuals in treatment experience no reduction in life-span.
Oh, I see you spinning in your chair. Don't construe that to indicate that I oppose efforts to reduce in incidence of HIV-infection. Google me and you will see the extensive work I have done specifically in that area. I simply want to point out that you are mistaken.
Please, my friend, before you make comments to malign queer people, at least be up-to-date on your medical science.
You are a mess, Anon-B. I was saying that I didn't think most gays are raised by gays.
Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you actually said is:
"I last week misunderstood Dr Throck's use of the term "same sex parenting" to mean people raised by gay parents but regardless dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy."
You should clean up your comments so they are not a "mess" before you post them. You're right, "dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy," but it is the basis of reparative therapies supported by NARTH.
In all honesty, just the fact of coming out as a homosexual causes an increased risk of family enstrangement, indeed higher than the that of reparative therapy.
Nice whopper! You'll say anything and pretend it's "fact" and claim "honesty."
So let's see some evidence. Show us some studies comparing the harm caused by coming out to the harm caused by submitting to reparative therapy that found what you claim, namely that coming out has a higher risk of family estrangement than reparative therapy does. And then tell us what it says about the other types of harm it can cause that Dr. T mentioned last week: "near divorces, depression, loss of sexual responsiveness to anyone, religious apathy."
We won't hold our breath waiting.
I concur with Robert Please, my friend, before you make comments to malign queer people, at least be up-to-date on your medical science.
"You are a mess, Anon-B. I was saying that I didn't think most gays are raised by gays.
Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you actually said is:
"I last week misunderstood Dr Throck's use of the term "same sex parenting" to mean people raised by gay parents but regardless dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy."
You should clean up your comments so they are not a "mess" before you post them. You're right, "dealing with a dysfunctional relationship with a parent of the same sex is still not the only type of reparative therapy," but it is the basis of reparative therapies supported by NARTH."
You're still a mess, Anon-B. Dr Throck said "reparative therapy is based on improper same sex parenting".
I misunderstood what he meant by the phrase "same sex parenting" but he was wrong in either case.
He clarified that he had used the term generally when he meant the type of reparative therapy promoted by a past president of NARTH.
Fine.
As a matter of fact, it's all fine except your assertion that by misunderstanding his phrase, I was revealing some type of bias.
Anon-B needs to get she head examined.
Waaaah! Anon said a bad thing about me!
There, do you feel more macho now, dollbaby?
<eye roll>
Dr. T was absolutely correct about NARTH's Freudian theory of homosexuality. You disagreed with him and actually asked him if he was being "blackmailed or something." He assured you no blackmail was necessary, corrected you and pointed out that faulty same sex parenting is indeed the theoretical basis of the reparative therapy espoused by Dr. Nicolosi, past President of NARTH.
All that was after he had already told you that
"cognitive therapy ... aversive conditioning ... disruptions with the same sex parent in the first 3-4 years of life ... prayer and Bible reading" fall under the "general concept of reorientation," but that didn't stop you from missing that **same sex parent disruption** is but one theory among many. Reparative therapy, which is not aversive conditioning or cognitive therapy, is called "reparative" therapy because of the assumption there's something to repair, namely the disrupted bond with the same sex parent. You saw the term "same sex" and became blind to everything else. And now you protest too much, dollbaby.
Just like your hero, Dumbya, you can't admit when you've made a mistake.
Glub glub glub
You should heed Dr. T's advice to consider doing things a different way.
"He assured you no blackmail was necessary, corrected you and pointed out that faulty same sex parenting is indeed the theoretical basis of the reparative therapy espoused by Dr. Nicolosi, past President of NARTH."
Actually, he corrected himself. He had used the term "reparative therapy" without qualification and said it was on "faulty same sex parenting" but he was wrong because not all reparative therapy is based on that.
What I was mistaken about was what he meant by "same sex parenting".
But actually I didn't specify that until later so it's not a mistake you would have known about. If I had understood what he meant, I still could have made the statement I did although I probably would have been less emphatic.
Hope it doesn't bring you to tears but you really do need help.
Call up NARTH. They might be able to refer you to someone.
Post a Comment
<< Home