Posted on 10/03/2006 4:59:54 PM PDT by research99
He may very well be that now but earlier he was a Roman Catholic:
Social issues
Foley's stances on many social issues, such as abortion, differ from his party's leadership. Although a Roman Catholic, Foley is pro-choice (a member of The Republican Majority For Choice[16]), but has advocated alternatives such as adoption and abstinence. He supports also supports the Patriot Act, the death penalty, and strict sentencing for hate crimes. [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#Early_years_and_initial_career
Gee, is it any wonder he is PRO choice and PRO gay?
I prefer women who are all grown up.
As far as their doctrine is concerned, they frown upon it -- officially. Or at least, they used to.
Scientologists -- nothwithstanding the sheer lunacy of their teachings -- are very pro-family, at least among the core that I knew.
They homeschooled, preached fidelity and responsibility, voted republican, and distrusted big goverment. Sort of like "Spaceballs meets the Quakers."
Over the years they've probably come to see the deep pockets of the queer demographic and have put forth the dual message so common to any other type of business -- "far be it from us to offend...."
Obviously a man of great discernment.
I'll pull a Scalia on you - no dictionary definition I am aware of makes such a qualification. Merriam Webster's, American Heritage, etc, just say "child" or "children". That is defined as an individual below the age of majority. Theerfore, he is a pedophile.
The American Psychiatric Association in its main diagnostic manual, the DSM-IV TR, defines a pedophile as somebody who “over a period of six months, [has] recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexually activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)”. It further states that the person has either acted on these urges or as a result of the urges has experienced marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. In other words, the pedophile may have acted upon the urges but did not necessarily do so. Sex researchers Ralph Underwager and Holida Wakefield in Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases wrote:
“Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between ‘sex offender against a minor’ and ‘pedophile’. The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles.” [italics mine]
Fagan, Wise, Schmidt and Berlin in a 2002 paper entitled Pedophilia wrote:
“Terms such as ‘child sexual abuse’, ‘incest’, ‘child molestation’ and ‘pederasty’ are not equivalent to pedophilia. Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic. For example, some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available. Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto a determination of pedophilia. Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children.” http://hfp.puellula.org/Polemic/WhatIs.html
That is a more thorough definition - but in no way excludes former Representative Foley from it. I would say that actually means he is probably a pedophile - he has never acted on his impulse in a physical manner (so he says), and he seems to have great distress - so much so that he is an alcoholic.
No, I understand the confusion, but the important point is that pedophiles are attracted to pre-sexual children - children who have not reached puberty. It is a very aberrant and sick attraction and causes much damage to children who are preyed upon by pedophiles.
It is not the same thing as middle-aged men leering at an 18 year-old (which may be disgusting or funny, but not as sick and harmful as pedophilia). (Or middle aged women at a Chippendale exhibition, for that matter).
I think there is a distinction between the medical definition and the dictionary definition, then. The dictionary doesn't indicate the younger age requirement. Therefore, while you are correct, according to the medical definition he was not a pedophile (assuming his attraction was only to older teenage males - a fact that is an assumption), by the dictionary definition he was. Therefore, a doctor would be wrong to call him a pedophile, but a reporter wouldn't.
I think there is a distinction between the medical definition and the dictionary definition, then. The dictionary doesn't indicate the younger age requirement. Therefore, while you are correct, according to the medical definition he was not a pedophile (assuming his attraction was only to older teenage males - a fact that is an assumption), by the dictionary definition he was. Therefore, a doctor would be wrong to call him a pedophile, but a reporter wouldn't.
No, a reporter who knew what he was talking about would not call foley a pedophile. It would be his duty to find out what the correct definition is, and not use sloppy, inexact definitions.
If you want to find out a definition for a chemistry term, you don't go to Websters you go to a chemistry source, and if you want to find an accurate definition of a medical/psych term, you go to a medical/psych dictionary.
But what is your point? Why do you want to call him a pedophile? There are plenty of other accurate words that would apply to him.
People understand what that means - and the gravity of what it entails.
Even though a technician's dictionary not commonly available has a more strict definition, normal language dictionaries echo that it is the correct word to use. In addition to that, it was what the reporters audience understands the word to mean (and given that many people do not have access to Medical Dictionaries, what the books on their shelf would echo). The target audience is to whom a reporter is writing. That is why our news is so poor here in that the audience whats sensationalism. That also means choosing words that are understood to the general public in the forms they are understood. Pediophile is not understood by its strict medical definition in the general public, but rather by its looser dictionary defnition. Therefore, the term applies and the reporter was right to us it.
If the report was in a medical journal, it would be incorrect to use the term. I don't think the above is a medical journal.
No, but it's a medical term with a specific meaning.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I heard a woman on a talk show once talking about something - I think someone had broken into her apartment - and she said "It was like being raped - I felt so violated". I wouldn't know firsthand, but I'm willing to bet that it wasn't anything like being raped.
Just like the current "torture" argument. People fling the word around with little concern as to what it really means, and the result is that sleep deprivation and bad music are now considered torture.
A medical term that has a different common meaning. There are too many words in our langauge that are terms of art within one field, but have different general meanings. If we always stuck to the strictest definition - we'd all be lawyers.
See #35.
I'm signing off for the evening. Must be perky tomorrow.
You make a good argument. We can take it up tomorrow.
Well, I appreciate that and understand your point. I would ideally agree that we should use the precise exact definition. But that imparts an exactness our society lacks - especially the media.
But have a good night. No need to keep on beating this dead horse ;)
What was the age range of the people who received these messages? Wikipedia defines pedophile as including pubescent targets, which I think could go up to 18.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.