Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

by **jingofever** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:44 pm

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-2251248.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...51248.html</a>

by **yesferatu** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:33 am

This is the biggest fucking problem about ameriKan jezuz and ameriKan kkkristians: This article tells them everything they don't want to hear. How dare we show an urge to understand. How dare we use science to address the "sin problem". How dare we relegate morality to chemicals. More exorcisms is wutz needed y'all. Of course, I am not sure how welcome this article is at RI, either. Disneyfied penal brainwashing. Bad guys always should get theirs, and retribution is part of the circle (death cult) of life. Can't place yourself outside yourself and see where the so-called darkness is coming from. Why, next thing you know you will be empathizing with Iraqi insurgents and their penis in mouth stuffings. Cause we know WE would NEVER do that. And we KNOW we would NEVER be pedophiles due to chemicals....it's immoral and makes a mockery of SIN to even think like that. Gawd is bigger than chemicals. donchaknow. The gnostic crucifixion squares that up, but I won't get into that.

by **blanc** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:41 am

but only a part of eventual story surely? what about bio-feedback?

by **yesferatu** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:34 pm

I'm bumping this cuz on a site where pedophilia is part of ritual abuse stories, I thought it should get more views. Plus, I like to force people into facing uncomfortable positions that are against what they believe. I could see this story being ignored on a kkkristian site, but not here. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe "sin" is too fucking ingrained into this culture. Who wants to discuss chemicals when "hating sin, but not the sinner" (p-shaw! yeah right) is more easy on us in making sense of the world.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:50 pm

It's an interesting article, yesferatu, but I wouldn't have commented because it is nothing new to me, except you seem to crave some sort of acknowledgement that people are reading this thread And BTW, if you're truly trying to get a discussion going, using the term "kkkristian" surely isn't going to help. I don't even go to church or call myself a Christian, but it sure as hell offends me to see a blanket association of Christians with the Klan. You need to take a chill pill. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=mentalgongfu@rigorousintuition>Mentalgongfu</A> at: 7/13/06 10:09 pm

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm bumping this cuz on a site where pedophilia is part of ritual abuse stories, I thought it should get more views. Plus, I like to force people into facing uncomfortable positions that are against what they believe.<hr></blockquote> Against what position? Its a big assumption to assume all peadophillia is part of some SRA cult... Everyone should know the potential of brain injury to change personality. It doesn't mean anything. This person may have decided to act on something that would never have entered their head because of the changes in brain structure caused by the tumour. Those changes may have damaged the part of the brain that person was using to regulate and moderate their behaviour. BFD Bet that doesn't make their victim feel any better, well maybe it does. Even if paedophillia and every case of it can be traced back to a specific chemical imbalance that intereferes with the perpetrators ability to judge and morally assess their actions BFD That doesn't change the meaning associated with the victims of people who use trauma induced dissassociation to manipulate people. The article is a good find and raises some specific issues to me, but instead of discussing them it seems you are actually waving them around metaphorically in front of some people and going "See you are all wrong". To me personal responsibility is important. I have spent my life trying to cultivate it in myself and had some success. To me this raises serious issues about responsibiliy and brain damage that I find hard to assimilate. That people can act in a way and not be able to recognise the consequences of their actions is something I have always put down to laziness and weakness. Perhaps that isn't the case with this story.

by **yesferatu** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>you seem to crave some sort of acknowledgement that people are reading this thread you started<hr></blockquote> I started this thread? I am registered one time on this site. So implying I have two i.d.'s is bad form...implying I use two i.d.'s to get attention is fucked. Never bumped a thread, huh? I had no idea that was wrong. I am calling attention to the article (posted by another) and the uncomfortable implications of it. I find it interesting no one CAN comment on it - as that itself seems to imply that the so-called "sin problem" and penal retribution is part and parcel of what we are as a culture. Even among us. Chill pill? I've got rum and coke handy. Perhaps in rum and coke induced hazes I register as another member, post threads, and bump them as an alter ego. I sure sound fucked up, doing that. Since I cannot dissuade you from your suspicion, let me have some fun: I AM the original poster. REALLY. No, REALLY..... btw, amerikan jezuz is nothing to defend. I cannot bring myself to write xxxxxian, so I was going to use kristian....but just didn't like the way it looked. So I went with kkkristian, since it is not THAT bad a choice to describe the mass-hallucinators of amerikan jezuz the war god mega-tulpa. I think NOT to bring religion into the conversation (so far mine alone) is disingenuous when dealing with what is implied in this article. If I mock the "sin problem" does that make me impugn with a wide stroke "devout" people? I think not. You think so. The only thing I find devout people are devout about, is their holy Penal systems and their holy Retributive "justice-serving" selves. So there. More tinder on the fire. Then again, I understand the other disconnect. Others, who have no sympathy for amerikan jezuz and talk of "sin" may yet be quite uncomfortable in the non-acknowledgment of the "spiritual". I have no idea what god is on the less dense plane. But on the material plane, I know god IS chemicals. Since I am not in a discarnate state, I find that chemicals are the answer to the god problem and the sin problem. Meaning here and now. Spirit in matter manifests as chemicals. Or as a great sage once said, "God is a mushroom." Our brains are the holy of holies since they produce, organize, and lives thru chemicals. They create heaven and hell. I will not say the dissolution of the brain is dissolution of Mind. Who can say that?

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:42 am

Rum and coke is hardly a chill pill. I don't usually get into fights, and more often than not walk away if someone else wants to, but after a few rums (especially the OP stuff) I tend to get quite aggro, add all that sugar and caffine and its look the fuck out. And it does mess with my memory, so maybe you have been registering when pissed and forgotten. Nah I was just joshing ya.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:00 am

Fascinating article. Personally, I believe that our 'minds' are simply brain soup events, not the expression of a soul, although I understand that traditional vocabulary. The balance of evolutionary drives and our emotions creates chemically-induced behaviors. Atleast, according to my soup. lol. But the implication that since morality is now legislated that our brain chemistry might eventually also be altered according to state-sanctioned legislation is an important 'what if' to think about. Bet the paper work on those laws have already been written.

by **blanc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:22 am

yesterafu, I replied only briefly to your post because, tho he link was pretty interesting, I had limited time, and I couldn't work out what the comments you wre making meant. Its got worse, I still don't know what you are saying. That there is no such thing as sin? its all a mental condition? So Ya sucks boo? or the opposite. The brief remark I made was intended to flag up the question of feedback in brain chemistry - not as in tumour damage of course, but as in, for example, andrenochrome. I don't thin we are yet at the position where we can be sure that there is no such thing as free will, because the chemistry of our brains responds to the environment we are in, including the environment we make. ie I feel depressed, my brain chemistry will alter according to whether I react tot aht feeling by withdrawing into a dark room or taking a brisk walk in the sunshine.

by jc » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:38 am

someone just had a EUREKA moment it seems. think i'll rain on the parade (or at least drizzle). take the title: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile<hr></blockquote> i smell "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." ONE man gets a "benign" tumor. at about the same time he starts "visiting paedophiliac websites," gets WAY "touchy feely" w/ kids: "making sexual advances to his young stepdaughter." this explains everything. all paedos have brain tumors. they cain't help they selves. oh, wait, the causal chain is strengthened 'cause they remove the tumor and he becomes his "old decent self." there's your proof. furthermore, this means none of us can help it. we're doomed to be what our chemical dictate we are. sounds like "original sin" to me. [how do they know this? is there a "paedo" chemical red flag or diode the winks on when the urge is there and off when it ain't? or is all they have the man's testimony?] "my bubba was sick yr onah. he cain't hep "knowin" his daughta, he was bawn evil. we all is." come on. and you complain about "sin." determinism is equally dense as far as i'm concerned. and this "TIMES" tm article is what? a breakthrough? so there is no free will right? no accountability? so, maybe the current VEEP can't help it being so GROSSLY endowed the lack of blood to his brains makes him subject others to pain, slaughter, rape, torture and death, and if he'd just take the BLUE PILL he'd be okay? i never understood how the theories of Pavlov and BF Skinner explained Pavlov and BF Skinner. maybe this can huh? guess Jeff should retire his site and figure out what part of his brain drives him to do what he does, then he can figure out what part of his brain drove him to examine the initial part of his brain that drove him to do what he did, then he can examine which part of his brain drove him to examine the part that drove him to examine the part that made him start this site, and then… Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jc@rigorousintuition>jc</A> at: 7/14/06 9:02 am

by **blanc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:27 pm

also it should be recognised that umpteen paedophiles, after a lifetime of offending, have had their offending brain tumour spontaneously disappear when arrested, thus hiding from sight the causal link between brain tumours and paedophilia until this breakthrough.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by jc » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:54 am

yeh, next they'll unveil the "crooked molecule" that makes people "naturally "put out pheromones" that "attract" rapists who are also genetically predisposed to be attracted by "natural" victims, or maybe the "ra victim gene," which of course will be revealed to be related to the "dragon bloodline" (something the "illuminati" will then announce they've known all along, but could not tell the "sheep" because the "sheep" are morally and genetically inferior and lacking in "wisdom" and incapable of understanding, and have criminally damaged the victims and perps by guilt tripping them) where the children of course are descendants of mary magdalene (whore/madonna) and hence part of an "elect" group of "temple servants and vestal virgins" who are "naturally" fit for "ritual abuse", which can then NOT be called abuse, and in fact honored for their "sacrifice," and the "pigs in power" (©ATC) will then claim "religious freedom" and tax exemption (not that they haven't already), and "millenia old cultural and religious practices" as anthropologists have "proven." and we can all go back to sleep. right. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jc@rigorousintuition>jc</A> at: 7/15/06 9:07 am

by **yesferatu** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:02 pm

It's all mystical claptrap of "sin", then, which allows us to fantasize about ways to punish. Chemicals as the source would take the delicious edge off our penal self-righteousness. If it is posited that something neutral (chemicals) in the morality debate causes evil (bad acts), then mock the neutral agent. For we all know that evil causes sin, and sin causes evil, otherwise where we would we be in regards to our vindictive penal retributive reactions to bad people. We need evil sin. And we know that by trying to understand the brain and chemical triggers makes for bad morality plays. Progress causes vagueness. Stupid progress. And we all know that anyone who sides with science over sin is advocating that pedophiles be released from prison and allowed to roam the streets. Because we all know that advocating better understanding of human problems means that we will want no prisons and no correctional facilities for the pedophiles.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:53 pm

Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions deals with the idea of chemcials controlling human behavior. I found a good summary through google: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Breakfast of Champions has free will - or the lack thereof - as an underlying motif. Vonnegut creates the presence of this theme through both the style and the actual content of the book. He begins the novel with an interesting method that demonstrates in full the idea of predetermination - he reveals the entire plot of the book in the first paragraph. This makes the reader immediately aware of exactly what is going to happen to the characters. Their destinies are not in question, and the illusion that comes with every book - that the characters have decisions to make that can influence the outcome of the book - is gone. A similar device comes in later on, when Vonnegut himself appears as a character in the novel. He arrives at the end to "watch the confrontation between two human beings I had created."(192.) His presence again reminds the reader that this is only a book. There is also an important distinction to be made in the phrasing of the events in the book when Vonnegut is present. For instance, instead of saying "Beatrice Keedsler said to Rabo...", he makes sure to phrase it as "So I had Beatrice Keedsler say to Rabo..."(209.) This makes it clear that the characters are governed by him, and thus have no free will whatsoever. These are all only stylistic demonstrations of predetermination, and the novel has free will as a major concern in its content as well. The most important idea of the book with respect to free will is that humans are nothing but machines. This view is expressed by Dwayne Hoover, who goes insane after reading a book written by Kilgore Trout, which states that the reader is the only person with free will and that all the other humans are machines. Vonnegut also believes this, and states it: "I had come to the conclusion ... that we were all machines, doomed to collide and collide and collide." (219) At one point, for example, he refers to a woman in the novel as "a defective child-bearing machine"(46), and to himself as a "writing machine"(220). He explains World War II as being staged by robots, whom he says are "controlled by bad chemicals"(133.) Bad chemicals and faulty wiring are, in fact, his explanation for many of the people in the book and the reasons they act the way they do. They do not have free will, but are controlled by chemicals. Vonnegut pursues the idea of humans as machinery further when he begins describing every female's body measurements and every male's penis size. This has the effect of reducing every human to numbers, like those of a machine, and thus showing that the ability to think and make decisions that would affect our destiny is not present - how could it be, if one is just a machine with certain characteristics? At the end of the book, Vonnegut sets Trout free ("Arise, Mr. Trout, you are free!" (294)), but he does not become truly free - because in the beginning of the novel, Vonnegut charts out his entire life, until his death, and Trout is thus destined to follow this story. <hr></blockquote> The problem with the idea of chemicals as the sole or primary cause of human behavior, even if correct, is that it can easily be used to justify bad acts. 'It's not my fault. I was born that way' I believe the reality of who we become is somewhere between nature and nurture. Placing all the blame on nature would be an easy way to excuse all sorts of horrible things. Some good things might come from a better understanding of the human brain and how something like a tumor could affect personality and behavioral changes, but understanding that behavior will not make it any more acceptable. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And we all know that anyone who sides with science over sin is advocating that pedophiles be released from prison and allowed to roam the streets. Because we all know that advocating better understanding of human problems means that we will want no prisons and no correctional facilities for the pedophiles.<hr></blockquote> I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, but even if it were discovered that ALL cases of pedophilia are the result of chemical imbalances and other problems in the head - even if we were to accept these evil acts were not deliberately evil and simply the result of a person's "nature" - even then, some form of punishment or protection must be initiated. I feel sympathy for the guy who became a pedophile due to a brain tumor, but I still wouldn't want him around my kids. (I feel much more sympathy for the guy's victims, who regardless of chemical influences, i'm sure had no need or desire to be abused) As for the idea of "neutral chemicals," who is to say the chemicals really are neutral? If chemicals cause certain behaviors, what causes the chemicals? God? The devil? DNA? Random chance?

Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

interesting

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

Re: Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

impossible

what are we doing here?

miracles

mircales and "science"

Re: mircales and "science"

Re: mircales and "science"

Who is online