So pedophilia is a sexual orientation now ???
- Thread starter Mr. Met
- Start date
Both of the speakers looked like they were trannies...
On point like a mufugga!
yup
Basic cacology 101... and they have no shame, nothing is surprising coming from these sick fucks & their retard ideologies. This is where a pedo purge is needed. 
Yeah, I remember when they had gay marriage on the ballot in Ohio in 2004. Some who were against it said they didn't care about marriage, but they worried about shit down the road. Well, shit has got plenty weird since 2004. Hate to admit they might have been right.
sick evil CAC's
always want to get a pass and normalize all their depravity
if the majority of Pedophiles were black men and not CAC's they would be imposing stricter punishments and not even thinking of rationalizing this shit
always want to get a pass and normalize all their depravity
if the majority of Pedophiles were black men and not CAC's they would be imposing stricter punishments and not even thinking of rationalizing this shit
It was never in doubt or a question really. It's a slippery slope and this just another checkpoint to pass. Make no mistake, the powers that run this earth will have Pedo behavior, socially accepted when and of they want to and there ain't a damn thing any of us can do about it, except teach ours kids what time it is.
Better overprepared than under I say.
Board pedo experts and Nzinga in 5....4.....3.....2...…
.
.
I listened to what she's trying to say.
And she's 100% WRONG.
In fact; had pedophiles not acted on their "biological yearnings", then the lives of countless children in the past, present & future wouldn't have been irrevocably damaged.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as heterosexuality.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as homosexuality.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as bisexuality.
So, she needs to stop trying to convince us otherwise.
And she's 100% WRONG.
Pedophilia is criminalized for a reason.
Because it's about people who prey on the weakest most vulnerable members of society. Children.
Biology does NOT give you license to act on your yearnings.Because it's about people who prey on the weakest most vulnerable members of society. Children.
In fact; had pedophiles not acted on their "biological yearnings", then the lives of countless children in the past, present & future wouldn't have been irrevocably damaged.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as heterosexuality.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as homosexuality.
- Pedophilia IS NOT the same as bisexuality.
So, she needs to stop trying to convince us otherwise.
LGBTEtc are sexual minorities that convinced the so called mainstream to treat them as racial or ethnic minorities...now the other sexual minorities want their seat at the table....slippery slope indeed
Yeah I watch some of his old videos. He kinda went crazy recently but everything he said in the past is coming true right before my eyes.
I remember back in 2009 when Obama got elected and umar said it was a trick bag. The next president is going to be white and he is going to take white supremacy to 1000%.
I guess Omar is right. Look at trump
You give people a inch they will take it to a mile.
These LGBTQ are sickos. With bathroom law and now they want to test the waters with pedophile lifestyle. No wonder trump won and people got tired of liberals
This shit if beyond fukt up....
I nearly lost my career exacting vigilante justice on a child molester
I nearly lost my career exacting vigilante justice on a child molester
I've been telling people for years that it would be incest, but i guess they're going to start with this first and then that will be next.
Damn what happened?
If two consenting adults want to do that fine, sterilize their asses and let them have at it but a child cannot give informed consent to an adult. Fuck these people.I've been telling people for years that it would be incest, but i guess they're going to start with this first and then that will be next.
FUCK... NO...
LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!
oNE
LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!
oNE
Bruh...let's just say. I'm not gonna throw away my career in the medical field divulging details that can be traced back to me. Trust me...dude ain't molesting nobody no more.
Well,,, you people accepted and defended homosexuality, when we Africans
tried to tell you. Then you accepted the licking of anuses. This might seem
odious and unacceptable, but wait until they start regurgitating this mantra;
in time they will reprogram your weak minds, and make you partakers of this
criminal conduct
tried to tell you. Then you accepted the licking of anuses. This might seem
odious and unacceptable, but wait until they start regurgitating this mantra;
in time they will reprogram your weak minds, and make you partakers of this
criminal conduct
Sick shit....Even worse, the people who are behind this have lots of money and power. They are gonna leverage it into mainstream culture and try to make it seem like something is wrong with you if you arent down with it.
I also predict that some of your favorite Black celebs will be promoting and advocating for this the same way they were showing their support for gay shit (LGBT agenda), and many of their fans will fall for the okey doke and see it as harmless....
This...People can say what they want about Umar, but he was spot on about this.
I also predict that some of your favorite Black celebs will be promoting and advocating for this the same way they were showing their support for gay shit (LGBT agenda), and many of their fans will fall for the okey doke and see it as harmless....
This...People can say what they want about Umar, but he was spot on about this.
the difference between the pedo shit and all the other stuff is kids can't consent, so call it an orientation, I don't care, but at the end of the day that shit needs to stay illegal as fuck. as a parent I think punishments from castration to death are fine
Damn, can't believe people live like this. He has never fucked a woman before, at his age??
He needs to buy a few prostitutes, if he can't pull a bitch, but he wants a child so he can overpower them.
Sad case, serious mental issues.
I had to buy the 4th, 5th, & the 5th edition revision versions for grad school. I had the 1st 3 on my book shelf & didnt notice it till i started my masters program.
The difference btwn the 3rd edition & all the rest is the reformulation & reclassification of all aspects / versions of homosexuality & pedophilia in an direct effort to NORMALIZE pedophilia, transgenderisim, man boy love (its also an organization which lobbies to make it legal for grown men to have open same sex relationships with underage / minors & not be classified as pedo faggots.
Basically a small group of gay doctors & psychologist conspired to make the changes that would reflect all forms of faggotry & pedophilia as normal. What they did & how they did it wasnt discovered until it was too late.
The adjustments made & those continuing to be made work in conjunction with many of the provisions numerous colleges & universities have in place specifically for the lgbtq community & all of its variations which most normal / straight students arent aware of.
The university i attend for My grad program provides the equivalent of affirmative action exclusively for the lgbtq population.
Its some real low key type shit but it is maling its way to the public elementary / middle/ high school systems thru out the country.
This is how & why you see the vids of the drag queen trannies doing story time @ ya kids school.
Once this becomes a reality you wont have the social & or legal support to do what a normal person / parent would do.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is widely known as the bible of psychiatry and psychology.
But not many people know how this powerful and influential book came to be. Here’s a brief look at the DSM’s evolution and where we are today.
The Need for Classification
The origins of the DSM date back to 1840 — when the government wanted to collect data on mental illness. The term “idiocy/insanity” appeared in that year’s census.
Forty years later, the census expanded to feature these seven categories: “mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia, dipsomania and epilepsy.”
But there was still a need to gather uniform stats across mental hospitals. In 1917, the Bureau of the Census embraced a publication called the Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane. It was created by the Committee on Statistics of the American Medico-Psychological Association (now the American Psychiatric Association) and the National Commission on Mental Hygiene. The committees separated mental illness into 22 groups. The manual went through 10 editions until 1942.
DSM-I is Born
Before the DSM, there were several different diagnostic systems. So there was a real need for a classification that minimized the confusion, created a consensus among the field and helped mental health professionals communicate using a common diagnostic language.
Published in 1952, DSM-I featured descriptions of 106 disorders, which were referred to as “reactions.” The term reactions originated from Adolf Meyer, who had a “psychobiological view that mental disorders represented reactions of the personality to psychological, social and biological factors” (from the DSM-IV-TR).
The term reflected a psychodynamic slant (Sanders, 2010). At the time, American psychiatrists were adopting the psychodynamic approach.
Here’s a description of “schizophrenic reactions”:
It represents a group of psychotic disorders characterized by fundamental disturbances in reality relationships and concept formations, with affective, behavioral, and intellectual disturbances in varying degrees and mixtures. The disorders are marked by strong tendency to retreat from reality, by emotional disharmony, unpredictable disturbances in stream of thought, regressive behavior, and in some, a tendency to ‘deterioration.’”
Disorders also were split into two groups based on causality (Sanders, 2010):
(a) disorders caused by or associated with impairment of brain tissue function and (b) disorders of psychogenic origin or without clearly defined physical cause or structural change in the brain…. The former grouping was subdivided into acute brain disorders, chronic brain disorders, and mental deficiency. The latter was subdivided into psychotic disorders (including affective and schizophrenic reactions), psychophysiologic autonomic and visceral disorders (psychophysiologic reactions, which appear related to somatization), psychoneurotic disorders (including anxiety, phobic, obsessive–compulsive, and depressivereactions), personality disorders (including schizoid personality, antisocial reaction, and addiction), and transient situational personality disorders (including adjustment reaction and conduct disturbance).
Oddly enough, as Sanders points out: “…learning and speech disturbances are categorized as special symptom reactions under personality disorders.”
A Significant Shift
In 1968, the DSM-II came out. It was only slightly different from the first edition. It increased the number of disorders to 182 and eliminated the term “reactions” because it implied causality and referred to psychoanalysis (terms like “neuroses” and “psychophysiologic disorders” remained, though).
When DSM-III was published in 1980, however, there was a major shift from its earlier editions. DSM-III dropped the psychodynamic perspective in favor of empiricism and expanded to 494 pages with 265 diagnostic categories. The reason for the big shift?
Not only was psychiatric diagnosis viewed as unclear and unreliable but suspicion and contempt about psychiatry started brewing in America. Public perception was far from favorable.
The third edition (which was revised in 1987) leaned more toward German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin’s concepts. Kraepelin believed that biology and genetics played a key role in mental disorders. He also distinguished between “dementia praecox”—later renamed schizophrenia by Eugen Bleuler—and bipolardisorder, which before that were viewed as the same version of psychosis.
(Learn more about Kraepelin hereand here.)
From Sanders (2010):
Kraepelin’s influence on psychiatry reemerged in the 1960s, about 40 years after his death, with a small group of psychiatrists at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, who were dissatisfied with psychodynamically oriented American psychiatry. Eli Robins, Samuel Guze, and George Winokur, who sought to return psychiatry to its medical roots, were called the neo-Kraepelinians (Klerman, 1978). They were dissatisfied with the lack of clear diagnoses and classification, low interrater reliability among psychiatrists, and blurred distinction between mental health and illness. To address these fundamental concerns and to avoid speculating on etiology, these psychiatrists advocated descriptive and epidemiological work in psychiatric diagnosis.
In 1972, John Feighner and his “neo-Kraepelinian” colleagues published a set of diagnostic criteria based on a synthesis of research, pointing out that the criteria were not based on opinion or tradition. In addition, explicit criteria were used to increase reliability (Feighner et al., 1972). The classifications therein became known as the “Feighner criteria.” This became a landmark article, eventually becoming the most cited article pub- lished in a psychiatric journal (Decker, 2007). Blashfield (1982) suggests that Feighner’s article was highly influential, but that the large number of citations (more than 140 per year at that point, compared with an average of about 2 per year) may have been in part due to a disproportionate number of citations from within the “invisible college” of the neo-Kraepelinians.
The change in the theoretical orientation of American psychiatry toward an empirical foundation is perhaps best reflected in the third edition of the DSM. Robert Spitzer, Head of the Task Force on DSM-III, was previously associated with the neo- Kraepelinians, and many were on the DSM-III Task Force (Decker, 2007), but Spitzer denied being neo- Krapelinian himself. In fact, Spitzer facetiously resigned from “the neo-Kraepelinian college” (Spitzer, 1982) on account that he did not subscribe to some of the tenets of the neo-Kraepelinian credo presented by Klerman (1978). Nevertheless, the DSM-III appeared to adopt a neo-Kraepelinian standpoint and in the process revolutionized psychiatry in North America.
It’s not surprising that the DSM-III looked quite different from earlier versions. It featured the five axes (e.g., Axis I: disorders such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders and schizophrenia; Axis II: personality disorders; Axis III: general medical conditions) and new background information for each disorder, including cultural and gender features, familial patterns and prevalence
The difference btwn the 3rd edition & all the rest is the reformulation & reclassification of all aspects / versions of homosexuality & pedophilia in an direct effort to NORMALIZE pedophilia, transgenderisim, man boy love (its also an organization which lobbies to make it legal for grown men to have open same sex relationships with underage / minors & not be classified as pedo faggots.
Basically a small group of gay doctors & psychologist conspired to make the changes that would reflect all forms of faggotry & pedophilia as normal. What they did & how they did it wasnt discovered until it was too late.
The adjustments made & those continuing to be made work in conjunction with many of the provisions numerous colleges & universities have in place specifically for the lgbtq community & all of its variations which most normal / straight students arent aware of.
The university i attend for My grad program provides the equivalent of affirmative action exclusively for the lgbtq population.
Its some real low key type shit but it is maling its way to the public elementary / middle/ high school systems thru out the country.
This is how & why you see the vids of the drag queen trannies doing story time @ ya kids school.
Once this becomes a reality you wont have the social & or legal support to do what a normal person / parent would do.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is widely known as the bible of psychiatry and psychology.
But not many people know how this powerful and influential book came to be. Here’s a brief look at the DSM’s evolution and where we are today.
The Need for Classification
The origins of the DSM date back to 1840 — when the government wanted to collect data on mental illness. The term “idiocy/insanity” appeared in that year’s census.
Forty years later, the census expanded to feature these seven categories: “mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia, dipsomania and epilepsy.”
But there was still a need to gather uniform stats across mental hospitals. In 1917, the Bureau of the Census embraced a publication called the Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane. It was created by the Committee on Statistics of the American Medico-Psychological Association (now the American Psychiatric Association) and the National Commission on Mental Hygiene. The committees separated mental illness into 22 groups. The manual went through 10 editions until 1942.
DSM-I is Born
Before the DSM, there were several different diagnostic systems. So there was a real need for a classification that minimized the confusion, created a consensus among the field and helped mental health professionals communicate using a common diagnostic language.
Published in 1952, DSM-I featured descriptions of 106 disorders, which were referred to as “reactions.” The term reactions originated from Adolf Meyer, who had a “psychobiological view that mental disorders represented reactions of the personality to psychological, social and biological factors” (from the DSM-IV-TR).
The term reflected a psychodynamic slant (Sanders, 2010). At the time, American psychiatrists were adopting the psychodynamic approach.
Here’s a description of “schizophrenic reactions”:
It represents a group of psychotic disorders characterized by fundamental disturbances in reality relationships and concept formations, with affective, behavioral, and intellectual disturbances in varying degrees and mixtures. The disorders are marked by strong tendency to retreat from reality, by emotional disharmony, unpredictable disturbances in stream of thought, regressive behavior, and in some, a tendency to ‘deterioration.’”
Disorders also were split into two groups based on causality (Sanders, 2010):
(a) disorders caused by or associated with impairment of brain tissue function and (b) disorders of psychogenic origin or without clearly defined physical cause or structural change in the brain…. The former grouping was subdivided into acute brain disorders, chronic brain disorders, and mental deficiency. The latter was subdivided into psychotic disorders (including affective and schizophrenic reactions), psychophysiologic autonomic and visceral disorders (psychophysiologic reactions, which appear related to somatization), psychoneurotic disorders (including anxiety, phobic, obsessive–compulsive, and depressivereactions), personality disorders (including schizoid personality, antisocial reaction, and addiction), and transient situational personality disorders (including adjustment reaction and conduct disturbance).
Oddly enough, as Sanders points out: “…learning and speech disturbances are categorized as special symptom reactions under personality disorders.”
A Significant Shift
In 1968, the DSM-II came out. It was only slightly different from the first edition. It increased the number of disorders to 182 and eliminated the term “reactions” because it implied causality and referred to psychoanalysis (terms like “neuroses” and “psychophysiologic disorders” remained, though).
When DSM-III was published in 1980, however, there was a major shift from its earlier editions. DSM-III dropped the psychodynamic perspective in favor of empiricism and expanded to 494 pages with 265 diagnostic categories. The reason for the big shift?
Not only was psychiatric diagnosis viewed as unclear and unreliable but suspicion and contempt about psychiatry started brewing in America. Public perception was far from favorable.
The third edition (which was revised in 1987) leaned more toward German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin’s concepts. Kraepelin believed that biology and genetics played a key role in mental disorders. He also distinguished between “dementia praecox”—later renamed schizophrenia by Eugen Bleuler—and bipolardisorder, which before that were viewed as the same version of psychosis.
(Learn more about Kraepelin hereand here.)
From Sanders (2010):
Kraepelin’s influence on psychiatry reemerged in the 1960s, about 40 years after his death, with a small group of psychiatrists at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, who were dissatisfied with psychodynamically oriented American psychiatry. Eli Robins, Samuel Guze, and George Winokur, who sought to return psychiatry to its medical roots, were called the neo-Kraepelinians (Klerman, 1978). They were dissatisfied with the lack of clear diagnoses and classification, low interrater reliability among psychiatrists, and blurred distinction between mental health and illness. To address these fundamental concerns and to avoid speculating on etiology, these psychiatrists advocated descriptive and epidemiological work in psychiatric diagnosis.
In 1972, John Feighner and his “neo-Kraepelinian” colleagues published a set of diagnostic criteria based on a synthesis of research, pointing out that the criteria were not based on opinion or tradition. In addition, explicit criteria were used to increase reliability (Feighner et al., 1972). The classifications therein became known as the “Feighner criteria.” This became a landmark article, eventually becoming the most cited article pub- lished in a psychiatric journal (Decker, 2007). Blashfield (1982) suggests that Feighner’s article was highly influential, but that the large number of citations (more than 140 per year at that point, compared with an average of about 2 per year) may have been in part due to a disproportionate number of citations from within the “invisible college” of the neo-Kraepelinians.
The change in the theoretical orientation of American psychiatry toward an empirical foundation is perhaps best reflected in the third edition of the DSM. Robert Spitzer, Head of the Task Force on DSM-III, was previously associated with the neo- Kraepelinians, and many were on the DSM-III Task Force (Decker, 2007), but Spitzer denied being neo- Krapelinian himself. In fact, Spitzer facetiously resigned from “the neo-Kraepelinian college” (Spitzer, 1982) on account that he did not subscribe to some of the tenets of the neo-Kraepelinian credo presented by Klerman (1978). Nevertheless, the DSM-III appeared to adopt a neo-Kraepelinian standpoint and in the process revolutionized psychiatry in North America.
It’s not surprising that the DSM-III looked quite different from earlier versions. It featured the five axes (e.g., Axis I: disorders such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders and schizophrenia; Axis II: personality disorders; Axis III: general medical conditions) and new background information for each disorder, including cultural and gender features, familial patterns and prevalence
Its already happening in many universities across the country.
The mental health majors are the programming / normalization / indoctrination platforms.
Only a savage would think fucking someone that can't legally give consent is an orientation.
Similar threads
