crap police
- Thread starter ohmygodwhathaveyoudone
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,762
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Country
To be serious (rare for me!), no it would not remove the urges in the sense that without a labotomy, the thought processes will still happen, but without testicles, there is little that can be done physically.
I am pretty sure that it does. Although you may think of it as a mental process, it is triggered by hormones in the blood streem. Rather like, hunger.
When your body wants food chemical signals in the blood produce the desire to have food. (making you feel hungary). When this process is disrupted (say in the case of anorexia). Even though you haven't eaten for ages, you still don't have the urge to eat. Even though you may still have a fully functioning digestive system.
Likewise, the hormones that produce the urge to get sexual gratification stop when you get castrated. Hence you will no longer feel inclined to seek it out. You may still have the deep voice and the residual facial hair (which incidently stops growing), but you are not going to get the chemical triggers for the mental process to start anymore.
2
2scoops0406
From what I've understood, physical castration has to be coupled with chemical castration to be effective. BTW, I was looking forward to a debate about the complete legalisatrion of drugs, seems not to have happened.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,762
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Country
No, you're right. Cos we're better at talking B*LLOCKS!!
kendor said:
Awww, but I was looking forward to being able to say "My wife? Frigid as anything!" in 30 years from now. Now she'll be as rampant as an 18-year old student nurse. First they take our pensions, now our future opportunities for chauvinistic humour.
Or are these drugs to delete the paedo-gene?
Adam, I'm sorry that you're the one on whom I take this out, but this is an ignorant way of expressing DNA evidence.AdamW said:
Do you have any knowledge of DNA profiling, or of statistics, or of the use that the justice system makes of such evidence?
There are two specific problems with the way you've expressed "certainty" of identify:
1. DNA evidence cannot be used to express a certainty of a sample being from a particular suspect (or from any person come to that) - it can only be used to demonstrate that a match for a given profile would be expected to occur 1 in 'x' times in a given population.
2. The particular percentage that you chose to use, which I recognise was probably just a finger held on the '9' key, equates to a probability of 1 in 100 million. I admit that I haven't seen hard figures, but I doubt that there are ever as many people as that in the country at the same moment.
Softus this has been discussed in a previous post where even fingerprinting has been brought into disrepute but it the clever wording in that because there can be no HARD proof that each sample is unique as there has never been an extensive study to prove otherwise, that the whole legal credibility of such evidence has been brought into question.
I'm sure this isn't the first topic to touch on DNA - perhaps you'd like to guide Adam towards one of those?kendor said:
DNA evidence has nothing more to do with clever wording than any other forensic evidence - if you think that then you're ill-informed.
Secondly, when you claim the absence of extensive studies, are you aware that the Forensic Science Service manages a DNA profile database, that is the subject of continual improvment both in profiling and management?
Thirdly, to what are you referring when you claim that "the whole legal credibility of such evidence has been brought into question"?
softus for gods sake man will you listen! i explained that you will have to look elsewhere for the post which had the link and i was merely quoting the post to you not getting into any argument with you over it!Softus said:Do I take it then that you're claiming no knowledge or opinion on the matter?kendor said:
If so, what on earth was the point of your posting addressed to me
I'm claiming that i read the report and that i linked to it in another post and was merely informing you of this as i thought you might be interested i didn't expect the spanish inquisition!
I hear you now, but only because you've explained - it took you three goes.kendor said:
Rolling the eyes eh? Well, if you really find the explanation that laborious then it probably explains why you didn't provide it in the first place. If you're going to adopt a patronising stance then kindly address someone who knows less about the subject than you, not more.kendor said:i explained that you will have to look elsewhere for the post which had the link
Sponsored Links
