Answering Seattles challenge ...

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Is addiction the same thing as 'traumatic experiences creating a previously unexhibited disposition towards something' (if that makes any sense)?


BTW, I'm very much on the fence on this issue...I find SeattleUte's arguments to be pretty bland & without substance. I find yours and those in agreement with you to be more persuasive.

If I had to guess, I'd say choice exists for many who are homosexual. How many, I don't care to speculate on.

Mike can correct me if my explination is off ...

While it is not the best of comparisons it is adequate. Compulsion may lead to addiction. Addiction nourishes compulsion.

In the cycle of behavior there are, in therapy terms, triggers. Triggers are where choice resides. Something happens to trigger the compulsion to come to the surface. The compulsion will lead to behaviors that may create an addiction if one type of choices are made in favor of others. A therapist coaches a patient on how to recognize and respond to triggers with wise, well reasoned choices.

Ergo 'choices' are never easy and they are a significant factor.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Slippery slope arguments are infamously flawed as stand alone generalizations.

Indeed. But my above comments underscore the sweeping consequences of precedence.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I ate Chili last Monday, around 7pm. Ended up coming down with stomach-flu symptoms at about 11pm, and vomited roughly four times over the next few hours. I'm considering eating Chili for lunch.

Meanwhile, several years ago, my wife ate some egg sandwiches. The eggs seem to have been bad, as she became sick & vomited that evening. The entire house smelled like rotten egg for a week. She didn't eat eggs for about a year, but eats them now.


There is, IMO, some degree of 'choice' in deciding to allow experiences to shape your personal tastes & desires, relating to each individual's ability to relegate such an experience as "atypical" and therefore psychologically unimportant. This is NOT intended to cast any sort of doubt regarding the mental capacity of sexually-abused-then-deciding-they-are-gay individuals, so please don't read that sort of thing into this. I'm simply pointing out that reactions are different for different people.

By the way, if you're planning on throwing up later, I don't recommend eating Chili within a day or two of the event!!! Definitely at the top of my 'don't throw up' list of foods, along with most Korean meals.

I think you miss my point. My point isn't that all people react the same to certain events, but rather that the reaction we have to certain events may, in fact, be somewhat inherent as well (as opposed to choice). I vomited once after eating a bunch of candy, followed by a carrot later on that day (which I used to love). I haven't been able to eat a carrot since. I certainly don't think I am choosing to not eat a carrot. The mere sight of a carrot makes me sick to my stomach. If one was in my mouth, I have no doubt I would be physically ill. There may be a choice embedded in there somewhere, but it isn't within the context of what I would normally consider "choice."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Here's the slippery slope ...

And what if it opens the door to the other types of government sanctioned marriages such as polygamy, human + animal etc.?

In Canada we have already seen such legislation effectively used to support arguements in favor of the rights of a pedophile to own child pornography. Currently it is legal for a person to own child pornography so long as he/she does not create or distribute it. Ignoring the fact that a child was abused in the first place in order to create it.

I posted this in another thread, but repost it here because I see this argument presented so frequently without any real basis in rational thought.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...0&postcount=20

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you miss my point. My point isn't that all people react the same to certain events, but rather that the reaction we have to certain events may, in fact, be somewhat inherent as well (as opposed to choice). I vomited once after eating a bunch of candy, followed by a carrot later on that day (which I used to love). I haven't been able to eat a carrot since. I certainly don't think I am choosing to not eat a carrot. The mere sight of a carrot makes me sick to my stomach. If one was in my mouth, I have no doubt I would be physically ill. There may be a choice embedded in there somewhere, but it isn't within the context of what I would normally consider "choice."

On the contrary, I got your point exactly. You ate something, and then threw up. Now, the sight (or taste) of that thing triggers a certain response.

I was pointing out how a conscious choice on my part prevented a similar occurrence in an similar situation in my case. It wasn't intended to deny the DECREASE in choice inherent to the situation itself, but rather to provide a counterpoint to illustrate that your experience is not the only result of specific circumstances.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Mike can correct me if my explination is off ...

While it is not the best of comparisons it is adequate. Compulsion may lead to addiction. Addiction nourishes compulsion.

In the cycle of behavior there are, in therapy terms, triggers. Triggers are where choice resides. Something happens to trigger the compulsion to come to the surface. The compulsion will lead to behaviors that may create an addiction if one type of choices are made in favor of others. A therapist coaches a patient on how to recognize and respond to triggers with wise, well reasoned choices.

Ergo 'choices' are never easy and they are a significant factor.

Makes sense to me. I'm not sure it applies directly to my relation, other than the fact that I chose to deny the trigger to affect my response to chili.

In the very weak correlation to the trigger brought about by abuse, it's intent is to illustrate that since it's possible for me to deny the affects of the 'chili trigger' in my case, it should be possible to do the same in the case of abuse.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

On the contrary, I got your point exactly. You ate something, and then threw up. Now, the sight (or taste) of that thing triggers a certain response.

I was pointing out how a conscious choice on my part prevented a similar occurrence in an similar situation in my case. It wasn't intended to deny the DECREASE in choice inherent to the situation itself, but rather to provide a counterpoint to illustrate that your experience is not the only result of specific circumstances.

Does that make any sense at all?

Yes, but I have never claimed that my experience is the only result of a specific circumstance. I am arguing that people may have different reactions to different circumstances, but that even the reaction may not be a choice so much as something inherent (which varies from person to person). I would guess, without any way of knowing, that the more powerful the experience is (sexual abuse v. bad food experience, for example), the more intense the reaction could be.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I posted this in another thread, but repost it here because I see this argument presented so frequently without any real basis in rational thought.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...0&postcount=20

I'm not worried about the legalization of polygamy or human/animal marriage. I'm worried about precedence and the very real consequences as noted in my post above.

It is legal in Canada to own child pornography. Legalizing same sex marriage played a role in that decision!

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, but I have never claimed that my experience is the only result of a specific circumstance. I am arguing that people may have different reactions to different circumstances, but that even the reaction may not be a choice so much as something inherent (which varies from person to person). I would guess, without any way of knowing, that the more powerful the experience is (sexual abuse v. bad food experience, for example), the more intense the reaction could be.

Fair enough.

Again, my post wasn't to 'prove you wrong' or any such thing. It was solely to provide a counterexample to yours. So, in effect, I was emphasizing your point that different reactions are possible.

And I also think it likely a more powerful experience would seem to lead to a more powerful reaction.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm not worried about the legalization of polygamy or human/animal marriage. I'm worried about precedence and the very real consequences as noted in my post above.

It is legal in Canada to own child pornography. Legalizing same sex marriage played a role in that decision!

You are really going to have to explain how legalizing gay marriage had any impact at all on legalizing child pornography. Those two decisions are thousands of miles apart.