Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    No, I expect them to be taken seriously (by everyone except the Professionally Offended) because I find it highly likely that it's been a match for their own personal experience in the fields.
    So you’re arguing that you’ve got it right whereas the vast majority of those best in a position to know, i.e. qualified health-care professionals have all got it wrong. Even though they are virtually unanimous in the view that homosexuality is merely a natural variation of human sexuality and is not a choice. Gotcha!

    Incidentally, this is the unfortunate outcome of such misinformed bigotry, which I happened upon this morning.

    http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/0...wned-by-family

    I got a grip, a gaffer, and a best boy on my side already.
    Well your “best boy” has got it wrong about homosexuality, which is not surprising given the tribal values of the era in which he grew up.

    You have a bunch of people with worthless degrees and student debt that condemns them to a lifetime of indentured servitude during the years when they should be learning how to think.
    You are accusing virtually the entire health-care profession world-wide, i.e. tens of thousands of highly qualified individuals, of professional misconduct. If you seriously believed this you should report it to the authorities – or are the authorities all conspiring against you as well?

    BTW: I assume that neither you nor your family ever goes near a doctor, paediatrician, social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist given their “worthless degrees” and “lifetime of indentured servitude” when they "should be learning how to think" - correct?

    Well, when you start to support homosexuality as normal human behavior and angrily attack anyone who doesn't, that's a pretty good indication that the organization as a whole has either gone insane and/or is keeping its quiet due to funding pressures. Double that if most of your funding and credentialing comes from the government, triple if that government is a democracy, quadruple if that democracy's media has many prominent homosexuals in positions of power and influence.
    The only “anger” around here seems to be yours.

    It is reasonable in my view to accept the findings of the members of the APA (psychiatry), the APA (psychology), the AMA, the NASW, and the rest of the professional associations in the USA, let alone their equivalents worldwide, that homosexuality is normal, innate human behaviour for some and not a choice. The fact that this contradicts your unevidenced prejudices is irrelevant.

    The DSM-IV was never my holy book. Psychology is a science very much in development, and open to influence from all interested parties.
    It is the standard diagnostic manual for most psychiatric associations in many countries including my own, Australia. And just as all science is “a work in development” so is psychiatry but, as with all scientific knowledge, this is not to say that a great deal is not already known.
    Last edited by Tassman; 08-31-2014, 04:10 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Hi Jon!

      Okay, I'll come back to this when I have time - which won't be today!

      One point I will go ahead and make. I took issue with the misrepresentation - conflating 'moral wrong' for 'health risk/other risk' which no one had done. The argument took a couple tangents stemming from the secular issues but none of the Christians were arguing that those issues were why homosexuality is morally wrong.

      And you're right, I wasn't going to discuss in detail with someone that appeared to merely be trolling so I went after primary problem only.

      Like I said, I'll come back and do a detailed answer as soon as I can. Later!
      No “misrepresentation". Timeless Theist began by conflating 'morally wrong' with ‘health risk’ in the opening sentence of his very first post: “So what if homosexuality has an unusually high risk of HIV? So what if it could be defined as abnormal?”

      And reinforced it in his next post: “Yes, but keep in mind that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the world population, yet they're somehow responsible for 1/3 of all the HIV infections worldwide. It's pretty much impossible not to see a connection”.

      He is clearly drawing a link between immorality (as he sees it) and disease, which is just absurd. One may just as well argue that until the 1940's, when penicillin was discovered, active heterosexual behaviour was wrong because millions upon millions of heterosexuals, over many centuries, contracted and passed on terminal syphilis. And yet there wasn't the same punitive correlation between sexual activity and dire disease that we see today regarding homosexuals and HIV. It was generally classed as a “boys-will be-boys” misdemeanour - not condemned as the deserved outcome of 'unnatural behaviour'.
      Last edited by Tassman; 08-31-2014, 04:21 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Which dictionary did you find "a libertarian's just a liberal who doesn't know any math" in? Seems to me that you're equally guilty of "just mak[ing] a derisive one up because [you] doesn't like libertarians."
        I wasn't offering a definition of libertarian, I was responding to a comment with a particular context. However, upon looking at third party definitions of the words we get:

        http://dictionary.reference.com/

        Libertarian: "a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct."

        Liberal: "of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

        favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

        favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression"

        The words are somewhat different but generally amount to the same thing. A liberal, like a libertarian, are people who advocate for liberty. The dictionary doesn't bother to differentiate between the two in any meaningful way so it's up to me to fill in the gaps with regards to what those differences are, and I've largely concluded that it's a matter of poor math skills with regards to the former. Either way it doesn't seem to add up to the liberal poz myers's claim that libertarianism is "far right" and thus nowhere near his own political ideology but does closely match my own comments on the matter.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          If you're JonDay then I believe you're a libertarian, so it's surprising you'd take offense considering a libertarian's just a liberal who doesn't know any math.
          I'm not any form of "ian". My politics are purely issue-based, I have no interest in belonging to a "party". I don't recall defining myself as a Libertarian on this site in the past nor present, but if I did, it was likely just a phase. I have been coming here since I was 21 (and am now 31), we all go through stupid phases. Considering that I am generally opposed to most socialist concepts, including welfare (or at least most assuredly the misuse of), and have been for years, I find it hard to believe that I could be confused with a "liberal". Considering that in my past engagements on this site, I've participated in advocating gun-ownership rights, I find it difficult to believe I could be confused for a "liberal". In fact, I have a difficult time finding anything I've said which could associate me with the liberal concept, other than not being in opposition to certain things that the "Religious Right" concern themselves with.


          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          It's the same thing though. I don't read David Duke so I don't know what statistics he uses but I can't imagine he makes any of them up considering there are a ton of government statistics that make blacks look bad already. Plus, that's not the only thing you said, is it?
          I didn't say he makes them up. My point was that his use of them is often fallacious, by quoting things such as "blacks are more likely to commit crime" (which can be a true statistic depending on the context), but then using that to suggest that "blacks" are "bad". It's a misuse of statistics, and is a logical fallacy.

          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          "he frequency or quantity is not of issue, as the only thing that can be provided are "statistics", resulting in nothing more than a statistical fallacy"

          You objected to the use of statistics altogether then compared someone who does so to David Duke, since liberals are well known for flinging accusations of racism around to get conservatives on the defensive. Unfortunately for you, I'm agnostic on the subject of racism and very much in favor of racially trolling emtpy headed liberals whose anti-raycis's mentality is inherited via mimicry rather than the product of any coherent thought so that sort of thing doesn't work all that well on me.
          See above.

          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          That said, let's face it, the reason why you're trying to deviate from the use of statistics is because they show a clearly divergent pattern of behavior when comparing normals to deviants. Homophiles shout from the rooftops that the only difference between homosexuals in normals is the gender to which we're attracted, but since we still don't know what causes homosexuality there's no way of knowing whether its cause doesn't also result in other forms of deviant thoughts and behaviors... except through the use of statistics which show clearly that there are a heck of a lot more differences between homosexuals and normals in regards to their behavior.
          I suppose, but statistics are fallacious in determining the quality of an individual who possesses a characteristic that can be found within those statistics. Additionally, they are pretty flimsy when you divide them out. For instance, one can just as easily use statistics to show that homosexual women are less likely to contract the HIV virus, due to their lack of penetrative intercourse. Whereas, heterosexual women who not only engage in penetrative intercourse, also do so anally, and are therefore at greater risk for contracting the HIV virus.

          That's the problem with using statistics to attempt to condemn a group...they are too easily manipulated in favor of a preconceived notion. All you have to do is ignore a control, and bam, you've got the result you want. You're not even making anything up either, you're still using actual statistics...just choosing which parts to include, and how to "frame" them.

          I'm surprised you're not more aware of this, since it's something that liberals often do to try to prove how bad middle-class white males are, and how all we do is hold everyone back.
          Last edited by NotSoHumblePie; 08-31-2014, 04:45 AM. Reason: forgot closing quote tag

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotSoHumblePie View Post
            I'm not any form of "ian". My politics are purely issue-based, I have no interest in belonging to a "party". I don't recall defining myself as a Libertarian on this site in the past nor present, but if I did, it was likely just a phase. I have been coming here since I was 21 (and am now 31), we all go through stupid phases. Considering that I am generally opposed to most socialist concepts, including welfare (or at least most assuredly the misuse of), and have been for years, I find it hard to believe that I could be confused with a "liberal". Considering that in my past engagements on this site, I've participated in advocating gun-ownership rights, I find it difficult to believe I could be confused for a "liberal". In fact, I have a difficult time finding anything I've said which could associate me with the liberal concept, other than not being in opposition to certain things that the "Religious Right" concern themselves with.
            Libertarian it is then.

            I didn't say he makes them up. My point was that his use of them is often fallacious, by quoting things such as "blacks are more likely to commit crime" (which can be a true statistic depending on the context), but then using that to suggest that "blacks" are "bad". It's a misuse of statistics, and is a logical fallacy.
            Which logical fallacy is that?

            I suppose, but statistics are fallacious in determining the quality of an individual who possesses a characteristic that can be found within those statistics.
            We're talking about groups, not individuals, so I don't see the point of this comment.

            Additionally, they are pretty flimsy when you divide them out. For instance, one can just as easily use statistics to show that homosexual women are less likely to contract the HIV virus, due to their lack of penetrative intercourse. Whereas, heterosexual women who not only engage in penetrative intercourse, also do so anally, and are therefore at greater risk for contracting the HIV virus.
            I don't think you quite comprehend the chain of thought going on here. Contracting HIV in and of itself doesn't make you a worse person. Engaging in behavior that leads to contracting it (or other diseases) does. Promiscuous heterosexual women and men are just as bad as homosexual men in this area, but heterosexuals in general aren't nearly as promiscuous as gays. Lesbians generally aren't as bad, as most of their sins are against their own bodies.

            That's the problem with using statistics to attempt to condemn a group...they are too easily manipulated in favor of a preconceived notion. All you have to do is ignore a control, and bam, you've got the result you want. You're not even making anything up either, you're still using actual statistics...just choosing which parts to include, and how to "frame" them.
            I don't understand, you never actually showed that homosexuals aren't bad, you just claimed other groups are also bad, and that lesbians aren't as bad. So rather than show the problem with using statistics to attempt to condemn a group you just used statistics to create a hierarchy of bad on a particular issue. Thanks for agreeing with me.

            I'm surprised you're not more aware of this, since it's something that liberals often do to try to prove how bad middle-class white males are, and how all we do is hold everyone back.
            Incidentally, claiming that because some people misuse statistics all use of statistics is misuse is itself a logical fallacy.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman's 911 call
              So you’re arguing that you’ve got it right whereas the vast majority of those best in a position to know, i.e. qualified health-care professionals have all got it wrong. Even though they are virtually unanimous in the view that homosexuality is merely a natural variation of human sexuality and is not a choice. Gotcha!
              And judging by your referring to them as a mass, rather than as individuals, I have to conclude that not a single one of them would last 3 posts with me in any debate. They are thus easily dismissed, because you haven't brought a single one of them to fight for you, much less used any of their arguments.

              Originally posted by Tassman's DMCA takedown notice
              You are accusing virtually the entire health-care profession world-wide, i.e. tens of thousands of highly qualified individuals, of professional misconduct. If you seriously believed this you should report it to the authorities – or are the authorities all conspiring against you as well?
              If the authorities actually believed in what you say, they would have silenced me already. Since they have it, I'm going to conclude that they must be sympathetic, and you aren't calling them because you'd know they'd fail. Apparently, even when engaging in what you describe as FULL-SCALE SLANDER, I'm scarier than the medical establishment and the authorities combined

              Originally posted by Tassman's gossip ring
              BTW: I assume that neither you nor your family ever goes near a doctor, paediatrician, social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist given their “worthless degrees” and “lifetime of indentured servitude” when they "should be learning how to think" - correct?
              First two, probably not the last three, as they're mostly there to make money by managing failed individuals at government expense rather than solving their problems, which would put them out of a job. The first two are much more likely to have things like "hard science degrees" and "motivation to encourage normality," as most parents will tolerate extremely deviant behavior among other adults but have an epiphanic reaction against it when seen in children.

              Also, here's one doctor who doesn't go along with the AMA and APA, so I just completely ruined your argument right there.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                Libertarian it is then.
                If that helps you compartmentalize more easily, sure.

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                Which logical fallacy is that?
                The one presented.

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                We're talking about groups, not individuals, so I don't see the point of this comment.
                Okay.

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                I don't think you quite comprehend the chain of thought going on here. Contracting HIV in and of itself doesn't make you a worse person. Engaging in behavior that leads to contracting it (or other diseases) does. Promiscuous heterosexual women and men are just as bad as homosexual men in this area, but heterosexuals in general aren't nearly as promiscuous as gays. Lesbians generally aren't as bad, as most of their sins are against their own bodies.
                It's not as simple as that. Blacks also are shown to contract HIV at higher rates than whites. Does that mean that one should make an effort to not be black, so as to not contract HIV? No. It is the behavior that is the problem, and that behavior is not exclusive to homosexuals. Therefore, it is illogical to equate homosexuality with x negative outcome. It's a twisting of the stats to suggest that homosexuality itself is the issue, as opposed to the behavior that homosexuals tend to engage in...as well as blacks. The issue should be with promiscuity, unprotected sex, or any other high-risk factors. Since it is possible for homosexuals to engage in a lifestyle which is void of these risk factors, it is not logical to conclude that homosexuality itself is what should be avoided.

                I don't understand the phrase "their sins are against their own bodies".

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                I don't understand, you never actually showed that homosexuals aren't bad, you just claimed other groups are also bad, and that lesbians aren't as bad. So rather than show the problem with using statistics to attempt to condemn a group you just used statistics to create a hierarchy of bad on a particular issue. Thanks for agreeing with me.
                Actually, what I showed is that statistics can be twisted to convey whatever you wish, by excluding control-related details (such as pointing to statistics that show homosexual males as transmitting HIV at a higher rate than heterosexual males, but one could just as easily show a higher transmission rate of HIV in heterosexual women than homosexual women).

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                Incidentally, claiming that because some people misuse statistics all use of statistics is misuse is itself a logical fallacy.
                Luckily, that's not what I said.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  I wasn't offering a definition of libertarian, I was responding to a comment with a particular context. However, upon looking at third party definitions of the words we get:

                  http://dictionary.reference.com/

                  Libertarian: "a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct."

                  Liberal: "of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

                  favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

                  favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression"

                  The words are somewhat different but generally amount to the same thing. A liberal, like a libertarian, are people who advocate for liberty. The dictionary doesn't bother to differentiate between the two in any meaningful way so it's up to me to fill in the gaps with regards to what those differences are, and I've largely concluded that it's a matter of poor math skills with regards to the former. Either way it doesn't seem to add up to the liberal poz myers's claim that libertarianism is "far right" and thus nowhere near his own political ideology but does closely match my own comments on the matter.
                  The dictionary is not a reliable source for explaining an entire ideology. You seem to be equating the term "liberal", with the general "dictionary" definition of the word "liberalism". This is a pretty large mistake. There are a wide array of schools of thought with regard to "liberalism" (classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, so on, so forth), the majority of which have nothing to do with what is known as a "liberal" in the modern-day vernacular (at least in the United States, not sure what they do in Canadia, if that's where you're from). I would think only a slight glimpse into current American politics would be sufficient to show that a "libertarian" is nothing like a "liberal". Hence the two distinct names in the first place. The current "liberal" mindset in America, is one which borders on Socialism. The "libertarian" mindset, is closer to an anarcho-capitalist philosophy, with bit of classical conservatism, and touches of classical liberalism (which is very different from modern liberalism).

                  I'm also not sure what mathematics have to do with it, but it seems like one of those jokes that the people who tell think are funny, but are actually just lame. Like the "Far Side" comic strip.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotSoHumblePie View Post
                    If that helps you compartmentalize more easily, sure.
                    People who don't know how to classify things are usually drooling on themselves stupid.

                    The one presented.
                    But no fallacy was presented.

                    It's not as simple as that. Blacks also are shown to contract HIV at higher rates than whites. Does that mean that one should make an effort to not be black, so as to not contract HIV?
                    You sure love to shift goalposts don't you? I never said anything about gays making an effort to not be gay. They should definitely make an effort not to give in to their base impulses even if they are stronger than they are in other people. Same with blacks.

                    No. It is the behavior that is the problem, and that behavior is not exclusive to homosexuals.
                    Nobody said it is. What we are saying is that homosexuality causes that elevated behavior, in response to the moronic, imbecilic, idiotic claim that being gay doesn't pose any extra danger.

                    Therefore, it is illogical to equate homosexuality with x negative outcome.
                    No, it's perfectly logical. Dogs aren't the only animals who maul but if dogs maul people in disproportionate numbers compared to, say, cats, then it's perfectly reasonable to associate dogs with mauling.


                    It's a twisting of the stats to suggest that homosexuality itself is the issue, as opposed to the behavior that homosexuals tend to engage in...
                    They're both an issue, because the promiscuity is caused by their mental disorder. Attempting to separate the two when they are clearly correlated is what's irrational.

                    I don't understand the phrase "their sins are against their own bodies".
                    You don't understand a lot of things, as far as I can tell.

                    Actually, what I showed is that statistics can be twisted to convey whatever you wish, by excluding control-related details (such as pointing to statistics that show homosexual males as transmitting HIV at a higher rate than heterosexual males, but one could just as easily show a higher transmission rate of HIV in heterosexual women than homosexual women).
                    Except you haven't shown that. To actually make that claim you'd have to make them show that homosexuals transmit HIV at lower rates than heterosexual males. Which you can't, because your claim that you can make them show whatever you want is BS. The only way you can do that is by either omitting information or outright lying. All you've done is shown another statistical reality, that lesbians don't contract it as often as heterosexual females. You've done the exact opposite of what you claim, namely that statistics show concrete truths.

                    Luckily, that's not what I said.
                    Sure it is, you were making the argument that liberals misuse statistics therefore I shouldn't use statistics.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotSoHumblePie View Post
                      The dictionary is not a reliable source for explaining an entire ideology. You seem to be equating the term "liberal", with the general "dictionary" definition of the word "liberalism". This is a pretty large mistake. There are a wide array of schools of thought with regard to "liberalism" (classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, so on, so forth), the majority of which have nothing to do with what is known as a "liberal" in the modern-day vernacular (at least in the United States, not sure what they do in Canadia, if that's where you're from). I would think only a slight glimpse into current American politics would be sufficient to show that a "libertarian" is nothing like a "liberal". Hence the two distinct names in the first place. The current "liberal" mindset in America, is one which borders on Socialism. The "libertarian" mindset, is closer to an anarcho-capitalist philosophy, with bit of classical conservatism, and touches of classical liberalism (which is very different from modern liberalism).
                      Actually both liberal and libertarian thought stem from the primacy of liberty, they just have some differences (claiming they have nothing in common is ridiculous, they have plenty in common) with regards to what that actually means. The dictionary definition is entirely accurate, you just don't recognize it as such because being a libertarian, you don't agree with liberal interpretations of liberty in many areas.

                      I'm also not sure what mathematics have to do with it, but it seems like one of those jokes that the people who tell think are funny, but are actually just lame. Like the "Far Side" comic strip.
                      You're a joke, and I'm not laughing.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                        And judging by your referring to them as a mass, rather than as individuals, I have to conclude that not a single one of them would last 3 posts with me in any debate. They are thus easily dismissed, because you haven't brought a single one of them to fight for you, much less used any of their arguments.
                        One goes to professional associations to ascertain the official position of relevant health-care disciplines. ALL, without exception, view homosexual orientation as a normal variant of human sexuality. This is encapsulated by the World Health Organization (WHO): "Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation…Practices known as "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" represent "a serious threat to the health and well-being—even the lives—of affected people."

                        If the authorities actually believed in what you say, they would have silenced me already. Since they have it, I'm going to conclude that they must be sympathetic, and you aren't calling them because you'd know they'd fail.
                        I doubt the authorities even know you exist. But if one must choose between the unanimous, researched opinion of health-care professional associations worldwide OR the 'colourful' bias of a bigoted homophobe such as you, I would choose the former every time.

                        Apparently, even when engaging in what you describe as FULL-SCALE SLANDER, I'm scarier than the medical establishment and the authorities combined
                        From memory I have never used the phrase “FULL-SCALE SLANDER”, must be guilt that makes you think I have. As for “scarier than the medical establishment and the authorities combined”, you’re not scary at all; your tantrums and unsubstantiated generalizations are nonsensical.

                        First two, probably not the last three,
                        So you attend medical doctors and pediatricians despite their “worthless degrees” and “lifetime of indentured servitude” when they "should be learning how to think" – to quote you - and even though their respective associations hold views which you find personally offensive, namely:

                        American Medical Association: “[We] oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

                        American Academy of Pediatrics: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation … can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

                        as they're mostly there to make money by managing failed individuals at government expense rather than solving their problems, which would put them out of a job. The first two are much more likely to have things like "hard science degrees" and "motivation to encourage normality," as most parents will tolerate extremely deviant behavior among other adults but have an epiphanic reaction against it when seen in children.
                        Really! And how do you know this? Anyone who is prepared to dismiss en masse the entire health-care system world-wide on the basis of trumped-up conspiratorial accusations cannot be taken very seriously.

                        Also, here's one doctor who doesn't go along with the AMA and APA, so I just completely ruined your argument right there.
                        Fox News contributor and Glen Beck colleague; that’d be right!

                        Every group, government or professional association will have its dissenting voices and, right-wing bias aside, Dr. Keith Ablow is very much in the minority position.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 09-01-2014, 05:20 AM.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Actually both liberal and libertarian thought stem from the primacy of liberty, they just have some differences (claiming they have nothing in common is ridiculous, they have plenty in common) with regards to what that actually means. The dictionary definition is entirely accurate, you just don't recognize it as such because being a libertarian, you don't agree with liberal interpretations of liberty in many areas.
                          The majority of political ideologies in the United States stem from the primacy of liberty. In fact, the country was founded on such an ideal. The fact that two ideologies would stem from this original primacy is nothing more than a "truism". Similarly, I might say "French is nothing like Spanish", even though they both are rooted in Latin. Obviously, one could choose to say "well, they have some similarities" (as does English), but since we're not idiots and understand that statements such as "this is nothing like that", does not have to be accepted as a myopic, black and white statement. It's a general "sense" that one gets from two things that are very different. It's a way to express the significant differences more readily, despite the potential similarities. I would think that this would be something that is understood by anyone, other than the socially inept, or the overtly pretentious who are likely known to oft interject the word "actually" into conversations

                          It's simple. A libertarian is so different from a liberal, that to say "they are nothing alike" is a perfectly acceptable phrase in ordinary social communication. If you want to get technical, sure, they share some similarities, but not anymore so than any other movement, this rendering the statement meaningless. It becomes clear that the speaker is simply attempting to selectively equate a libertarian to a liberal, because they do not like either group, but also know that one group dislikes the other...creating a (very) thinly-veiled insult (and nothing more).

                          Of course that word liberalism seems to be what you're confused about. The word liberal in the word liberalism, does not inherently equate the two terms. Despite the fact that being a liberal no longer has much to do with the concept of "liberalism" as it is defined in the dictionary, you seem to be equating the two. Since liberal and liberalism are not exclusive to each other, and the word "liberalism" is what we find in your dictionary definition, it is incorrect to claim that the dictionary supports the notion that a libertarian is a liberal.

                          In the current political atmosphere in the United States, the "liberal" supports government regulation in order to maintain "personal liberty". The libertarian seeks the opposite, to remove government regulation in order to maintain personal liberty. That core difference is so significant, and so fundamental to the ideology, that they might as well be completely different. That is why I treat them as different, not because I view myself as a libertarian (I already said I don't, but maybe your reading difficulties kicked in again) and seek to distance myself from liberals.

                          I'm not a libertarian. I'm just me. I realize that you like to take the lazy approach to social interaction, and define everyone into neat little packages that you can hate or disagree with more easily, but that's only productive in your own little world. It does nothing to further any discussion, because you end up arguing with people based on what you've decided their ideology is, as opposed to what they're actually saying.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          You're a joke, and I'm not laughing.
                          That's just because you lack a sophisticated sense of humor, which is also probably the reason you thought your math joke was funny.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            One goes to professional associations to ascertain the official position of relevant health-care disciplines. ALL, without exception, view homosexual orientation as a normal variant of human sexuality. This is encapsulated by the World Health Organization (WHO): "Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation…Practices known as "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" represent "a serious threat to the health and well-being—even the lives—of affected people."
                            That is a religious and political pronouncement, not a scientific position, and requires nothing on my part other than to say "You are wrong."

                            I doubt the authorities even know you exist. But if one must choose between the unanimous, researched opinion of health-care professional associations worldwide OR the 'colourful' bias of a bigoted homophobe such as you, I would choose the former every time.
                            You keep using those words. Not sure they mean what you think they mean.

                            From memory I have never used the phrase “FULL-SCALE SLANDER”, must be guilt that makes you think I have. As for “scarier than the medical establishment and the authorities combined”, you’re not scary at all; your tantrums and unsubstantiated generalizations are nonsensical.
                            No one responds with angry accusation of SLANDERING OUR GOOD AND TRUSTWORTHY MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT to obvious nonsense or lies, they respond angrily when they either suspect it may be true or partially true, or are so afraid of the influence of the one doing the slander that they feel the need to respond now. Which is it in this case, I wonder?

                            So you attend medical doctors and pediatricians despite their “worthless degrees” and “lifetime of indentured servitude” when they "should be learning how to think" – to quote you - and even though their respective associations hold views which you find personally offensive, namely:
                            People ain't who they represented by, and most conservatives should definitely know that, given how useless their particular professional organizations have been in the face of Washington bureaucracy.

                            American Medical Association: “[We] oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
                            Does not reflect the attitude of previous doctors, and is likely forced on them by government and HR laws. Useless.

                            American Academy of Pediatrics: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation … can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”
                            Guilt and anxiety are natural risks and motivators in life. Reducing all guilt or anxiety to zero is foolish and wrong-headed. Maybe I have to put pediatricians in the 'naughty' column too, it's been a while since I've seen one.

                            Really! And how do you know this? Anyone who is prepared to dismiss en masse the entire health-care system world-wide on the basis of trumped-up conspiratorial accusations cannot be taken very seriously.
                            I'm a man with a biology degree and relatives in the field, so I have the luxury of actual experience and analysis, which of course you don't. Check your lack of privilege before talking to me on these issues.

                            Fox News contributor and Glen Beck colleague; that’d be right!
                            So apparently the APA doesn't look too kindly on those challenging the prevailing dogma, so much so that they have to be driven to Fox News in order to get any audience.

                            Every group, government or professional association will have its dissenting voices and, right-wing bias aside, Dr. Keith Ablow is very much in the minority position.
                            Publicly, yes, because the government and HR department will brook neither religious nor scientific objections to their particular diversity pets. Actual liberals who aren't deluded, under the gun, or publicly out will say things like this:

                            Originally posted by PLEASUREMAN
                            Treatment of many forms of mental illness tends to work only with a select segment who have everything running in their favor: a supportive environment, a milder form of the illness, personality characteristics that favor treatment, and so on. Most patients can only be helped so much. Some respond to treatment, while others spend their lives being "maintained" rather than really treated or cured.

                            People who lack knowledge of how psychology and psychiatry work are usually unaware of how hit and miss the treatment of mental illness is, and so it is easy to sell them on the idea that treatment of homosexuals and transgenders--or attempting to "cure" them as the left derisively and misleadingly puts it--is farcical pseudo-science at best and demented religious superstition at worst. Needless to say, conservatives, being largely ignorant of how psychology and psychiatry work, are unprepared to tell them differently: that we simply haven't come that far in treatment of mental disorders, but that management of symptoms is within reach and that there is reason to hope that further work on these disorders will uncover new, more successful approaches. After all you didn't see liberals saying let's throw in the towel on an AIDS cure because someone's shark cartilege cure didn't work.

                            But with regard to one specific area of mental illness, liberal advocates adopt an attitude of incredulity that anyone would even try to manage or treat the disorder, despite evidence that leaving it untreated and allowing the ill to spiral further into the disease--as many do--doesn't do any good. Attitudes about treating mental illness are being influenced by the most unhinged homosexual and transgender advocates, whose obsession with validating their disorder and living it out have convinced the ignorant and foolish that they aren't ill at all. This obviously isn't a very good idea, but politicization of psychology has only been growing since the 70s, and it's not surprising that few conservative-minded people are drawn to the field. (Although one should remember that psychology is a very large field which includes such areas as clinical psych, ergonomics, psychometrics, etc., not all of which are as thoroughly politicized as the layman may imagine.)

                            But the most important thing for conservatives to keep in mind is that the mentally ill cannot direct their own treatment. Whatever you want to believe about the treatment of sexual disorders, the last people who should be structuring that treatment are the ill--even conventional medical doctors are advised against attempting to diagnose and treat themselves, let alone mental health professionals.
                            So yes, I feel all right dismissing both you and the public position of the APA and AMA, all day, every day.

                            Comment


                            • Groups are one thing. Individuals are another. When I read "like a lot of mental illness, treatment is difficult." I see someone who is accurately describing the situation involved in virtually all mental illness. This hits the nail on the head.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                Groups are one thing. Individuals are another. When I read "like a lot of mental illness, treatment is difficult." I see someone who is accurately describing the situation involved in virtually all mental illness. This hits the nail on the head.
                                If mental illness were easily treatable I'm fairly sure there wouldn't be a Tweb...


                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                84 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X