Scary Larry back on campus!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ursus]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

[Anonymous]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?

[Ursus]

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

I never claimed that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies.  Nor did I address "societies" by describing Hyde as paternalistic and atavistic.  I specifically made comment about Hyde operating from a paternalistic and atavistic base.  Your faulty logic, let alone faulty reading ability, is somewhat disturbing.  Must I make a new post for every single concept addressed?  This is generally accomplished via the use of paragraphs.

I am, quite frankly, not too interested in esoteric polemic of the evolution of right and wrong and American or any other culture's attitude towards homosexuality or any other sexual behavior.

I am, quite frankly, more than a little concerned about the right here and now, mundane realities of what goes on at Hyde and how it affects people, and the fact that nothing has been done by Hyde to address that.  Stuff happened, shit went down, and people got hurt in very real, visceral, and no-argument-about-it ways.  And Hyde has never fully addressed that let alone acknowledge their responsibility in not only allowing such events to occur, but perpetrating the damage and making it even far worse than it had been to begin with, which was certainly bad enough.

There is a sick subtext underneath all the discussion of "character development" and "unique potential" at Hyde, and it focuses on control of people's psyches by exploiting their emotional vulnerabilities.

--------------------------------------

Insinuations about my virtue or lack thereof will not go far, as far as I am concerned.  Where I park my fat ass is nobody's business but my own, and the respective party or parties involved.  Suffice it to say that nobody gets hurt.

[Anonymous]

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

I never claimed that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies.  Nor did I address "societies" by describing Hyde as paternalistic and atavistic.  I specifically made comment about Hyde operating from a paternalistic and atavistic base.  Your faulty logic, let alone faulty reading ability, is somewhat disturbing.  Must I make a new post for every single concept addressed?  This is generally accomplished via the use of paragraphs.

I am, quite frankly, not too interested in esoteric polemic of the evolution of right and wrong and American or any other culture's attitude towards homosexuality or any other sexual behavior.

I am, quite frankly, more than a little concerned about the right here and now, mundane realities of what goes on at Hyde and how it affects people, and the fact that nothing has been done by Hyde to address that.  Stuff happened, shit went down, and people got hurt in very real, visceral, and no-argument-about-it ways.  And Hyde has never fully addressed that let alone acknowledge their responsibility in not only allowing such events to occur, but perpetrating the damage and making it even far worse than it had been to begin with, which was certainly bad enough.

There is a sick subtext underneath all the discussion of "character development" and "unique potential" at Hyde, and it focuses on control of people's psyches by exploiting their emotional vulnerabilities.

--------------------------------------

Insinuations about my virtue or lack thereof will not go far, as far as I am concerned.  Where I park my fat ass is nobody's business but my own, and the respective party or parties involved.  Suffice it to say that nobody gets hurt.

You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.

[Ursus]

You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.

Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well.  And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed.  Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.

Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents.  I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many.  Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde.  And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.

For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide.  And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way.  There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other.  And that's just the way it is.

[Anonymous]

You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.

Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well.  And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed.  Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.

Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents.  I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many.  Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde.  And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.

For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide.  And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way.  There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other.  And that's just the way it is.

Good for you, Ursus.  Hyde fans and apologists seem to have a real hard time with constructive criticism.  I don't blame them for rejecting criticism that is cruel and hits below the belt.  But you've been completely above board, constructive, purposeful, and principled.  Lots of people at Hyde seem to believe that only they can criticize.  Keep it up -- your commentary is making a difference, especially among parents who are Googling Hyde and finding comments like yours.

[Anonymous]

You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.

Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well.  And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed.  Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.

Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents.  I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many.  Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde.  And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.

For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide.  And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way.  There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other.  And that's just the way it is.

Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales ---  who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.

[Ursus]

Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales --- who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.

You can judge me all you want; it's certainly your prerogative.  But I can assure you of one thing:  no hidden agenda, no pose.

[Anonymous]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?

  It is not a counter example.

1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society

  It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues.  Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice,  the same inference could not be fairly drawn.

[Ursus]

At last!  An argument based on fine deductive reasoning rather than inference!  :tup:

[Anonymous]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?

  It is not a counter example.

1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society

  It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues.  Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice,  the same inference could not be fairly drawn.

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

[Anonymous]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?

  It is not a counter example.

1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society

  It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues.  Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice,  the same inference could not be fairly drawn.

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

 "2)" Is exactly my point.  Thanks for making for me again. "1)" is correct.  I have not.

[Ursus]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

[Anonymous]

Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.

I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky.  There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base.  The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.

Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.

Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?

  It is not a counter example.

1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society

  It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues.  Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice,  the same inference could not be fairly drawn.

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

 "2)" Is exactly my point.  Thanks for making for me again. "1)" is correct.  I have not.

I know it's exactly your point. Now prove it. Tip: Infer your conclusion from two (2) premises, not one.

[Anonymous]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.