Should Trump/Congress Cut Off The American Psychological Association (APA)?

[Silhouette]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. The study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year. The APA apologized for printing the article, resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda....The controversy centered around the study “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin in 1998 (Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 22-53)....findings that willing minors often experienced such activity as neutral or positive, and evidence of psychological harm often could not be found.

Congress condemned a study that was published in the American Psychological Association- Congress did not condemn the APA.

No idiot, read the quotes from the study. Congress tied the study to the APA and then condemned them for being silent and publishing it with their tacit approval. The APA had to apologize to Congress. It was quite the scandal. Or are you hoping people won't follow the links to the Rind Controversy and or/Cummings' book to read up on the details?....

No organization promoting child abuse as "good for the kids" should receive ANY federal funding whatsoever.

That includes the APA's tacit/telling silence on this issue: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

 

[Skylar]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

Congress condemned a study that was published in the American Psychological Association- Congress did not condemn the APA.

No idiot, read the quotes from the study. Congress tied the study to the APA and then condemned them for being silent and publishing it with their tacit approval. The APA had to apologize to Congress. It was quite the scandal. Or are you hoping people won't follow the links to the Rind Controversy and or/Cummings' book to read up on the details?....

I've read the quotes. ANd the links.

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

That's directly from your own link. You lied. Straight up lied.

Sil, if you told me the sun was shining at noon, I'd go out and check. You're completely unreliable on this topic.

 

[Syriusly]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

Congress condemned a study that was published in the American Psychological Association- Congress did not condemn the APA.

No idiot, read the quotes from the study. Congress tied the study to the APA and then condemned them for being silent and publishing it with their tacit approval. The APA had to apologize to Congress. It was quite the scandal. Or are you hoping people won't follow the links to the Rind Controversy and or/Cummings' book to read up on the details?....

I've read the quotes. ANd the links.

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

That's directly from your own link. You lied. Straight up lied.

Sil, if you told me the sun was shining at noon, I'd go out and check. You're completely unreliable on this topic.

About the only thing we can rely upon is that Silhouette will misrepresent whatever links she provides.

 

[Syriusly]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. The study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year. The APA apologized for printing the article, resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda....The controversy centered around the study “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin in 1998 (Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 22-53)....findings that willing minors often experienced such activity as neutral or positive, and evidence of psychological harm often could not be found.

Congress condemned a study that was published in the American Psychological Association- Congress did not condemn the APA.

No idiot, read the quotes from the study. Congress tied the study to the APA and then condemned them for being silent and publishing it with their tacit approval. The APA had to apologize to Congress. It was quite the scandal.l

'read the quotes from the study'? The study was published in the APA's journal. Why do I need to read quotes from the study to show that you are lying?

On July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives passed HRC resolution 107 by a vote of 355-0, (with 13 Members voting "Present", the latter all members of the Democratic Party[18]) declaring sexual relations between children and adults are abusive and harmful, and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse.[19] The condemnation of a scientific study by Congress was, at that time, an unprecedented event.[20] The resolution passed the Senate by a voice vote (100-0) on July 30, 1999[18]

Congress didn't condemn the APA.
The APA didn't apologize to Congress.

You are just lying.

Which is kind of redundant for me to point out.

 

[LaDexter]

CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT


Government funded "mental health" is similar to what the Levites did to the Exodus crowd the night "Moses" came down the mountain....

 

[Syriusly]

CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT


Government funded "mental health" is similar to what the Levites did to the Exodus crowd the night "Moses" came down the mountain....

Yep- got to cut all of that mental health funding for Veterans in true Republican fashion.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the APA needs to be brought to heel. Since it won't be dismantled, it's time for public censure Part II until it once again is forced to apologize and clean up its act if it wants its little hand to get cash from Uncle Sam..

 

[whitehall]

I didn't even know the APA was funded by the taxpayers. Maybe Trump/Congress should fund the NRA too.

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't even know the APA was funded by the taxpayers. Maybe Trump/Congress should fund the NRA too.

Not wholly, but they do lean on federal grants heavily. I just don't want to pay for stuff like what's in my signature to be signed off as "officially sanctioned child sexual abuse and mutilation".

 

[Skylar]

No, the APA needs to be brought to heel. Since it won't be dismantled, it's time for public censure Part II until it once again is forced to apologize and clean up its act if it wants its little hand to get cash from Uncle Sam..

Your authoritarian tendancies where anyone who doesn't ape your fantasies must be punished and 'brought to heel' is noted.

And do you admit to lying about the APA? Because you did. Congress never condemned the APA unanimously. Or at all.

You made that up. If your argument to support your authoritarian bend had actual merit, you wouldn't need to lie to support them.

 

[Silhouette]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. The study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year. The APA apologized for printing the article, resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda....The controversy centered around the study “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin in 1998 (Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 22-53)....findings that willing minors often experienced such activity as neutral or positive, and evidence of psychological harm often could not be found.

No, the APA needs to be brought to heel. Since it won't be dismantled, it's time for public censure Part II until it once again is forced to apologize and clean up its act if it wants its little hand to get cash from Uncle Sam..

And do you admit to lying about the APA? Because you did. Congress never condemned the APA unanimously. Or at all.

You made that up. If your argument to support your authoritarian bend had actual merit, you wouldn't need to lie to support them.

The nice thing about direct quotes and links is that people can follow them and read them to see which of us is lying...

 

[Skylar]

1998:
The Rind Controversy

For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. The study was published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year. The APA apologized for printing the article, resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda....The controversy centered around the study “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin in 1998 (Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 22-53)....findings that willing minors often experienced such activity as neutral or positive, and evidence of psychological harm often could not be found.

No, the APA needs to be brought to heel. Since it won't be dismantled, it's time for public censure Part II until it once again is forced to apologize and clean up its act if it wants its little hand to get cash from Uncle Sam..

And do you admit to lying about the APA? Because you did. Congress never condemned the APA unanimously. Or at all.

You made that up. If your argument to support your authoritarian bend had actual merit, you wouldn't need to lie to support them.

The nice thing about direct quotes and links is that people can follow them and read them to see which of us is lying...

Here's the direct quote from your own source that demonstrates the lie to your claim:

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

The Rind Controversy

You claimed that the APA was condemned unanimously by congress. Your own source indicates that the report was condemned. But not the APA.

And you know you're lying. As you intentionally omitted this passage from your own citations of your source, even after it had been pointed out to you.

You lied. You continue to lie. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have to.

 

[Silhouette]

People have eyes Skylar. Were you aware of that?

 

[Skylar]

People have eyes Skylar. Were you aware of that?

Yup. Its why I quote the passage that reveals your lies that Congress unanimously condemned the APA.

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

The Rind Controversy

You keep pretending that if you don't acknowledge this passage exists, that no one else can see it.

Laughing...how's that working out for you?

 

[Silhouette]

Potato Potaato. The APA was the organization who apologized for the censure. It was quite the scandal.

 

[Skylar]

Potato Potaato. The APA was the organization who apologized for the censure. It was quite the scandal.

Its significant enough that you've carefully omitted any citation of your own source that confirms that the APA wasn't condemned by congress.

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't be lying to support it.

 

[Silhouette]

Poor little lawyer ^^ has his undies in a bunch. He's mad because people have eyes and they can read.

 

[Skylar]

Poor little lawyer ^^ has his undies in a bunch. He's mad because people have eyes and they can read.

Laughing.....you were caught lying, red handed. Your own source contradicts you.

"The House accordingly passed an amended version of the bill, which condemned the report itself but not the APA."

The Rind Controversy

Any other lies you want to make up? Spoiler Alert: A good argument wouldn't need them.

 

[Silhouette]

The report was published with the graces of the APA. Your word games only apply in a legal arena. However, taxpayers funding this kiddy-diddling outfit can read between the lines.

 

[Silhouette]

You do seem to want to avoid discussing WHY the Congress voted to censure the APA...oh...I mean the article that the APA published with their graces about how children being sexually molested "wasn't always that bad"....