Homosexuality as a disorder

[Bara_no_Hime]

I see it more as the physical attraction to *insert binary gender here* which just about half the world is attracted to. Gynephilia and androphilia are not disorders.

If you read the entire OP, you'll see that the OP states that being gay (or anything else like that) is not a disorder. However, according to a modern dictionary, it would be considered such - and so would not liking chocolate or having green eyes. His point is that the dictionary is wrong, or at least very badly worded.

Yeah, it threw me for a second too. The OP is making a "read to the end" lesson.

Your argument falls apart right here. You've defined abnormal to mean anything deviating from the normal, but without objective definition of normal, that is a logically meaningless statement.

Actually, if you read to the end, the OP makes that very point. His argument is that the dictionary definition is a bad one, and that it makes an implied attack on everyone who doesn't follow the majority.

 

[Silvianoshei]

Using these definitions, green eyes and red hair are "disorders" in the U.S. In the whittling down of definitions, the word "normal" is ultimately never dealt with.

True. But in this case normal is biologically normal. Social normality, after all, is undefinable. Hence why this is not insulting and is instead an attempt to define behavioral choices with respect to a biological standard. As ALL these sorts of definitions do.

 

[DasDestroyer]

The examples provided in 1984 were slightly exaggerated, the key word being slightly. Very many words we use we don't know the entire meaning of, or use the generally accepted one, which may not be the real one, like with your "disorder" example.

 

[Silvianoshei]

Using these definitions, green eyes and red hair are "disorders" in the U.S. In the whittling down of definitions, the word "normal" is ultimately never dealt with.

It says normal or average, I don't have to deal with normal, as I pointed out. With or you only have to meet one condition. It logically follows.

However, what I care less about is that and more about the fact that, despite my clear statement at the start of the thread, you clearly did not read the whole thing and are not posting on the topic of the thread.

Yes, this is what we are talking about, Mr. OP. If we are arguing over the definition of disorder (*as according to M-W) Then we need to talk about the definition of normal. I've already said that stuff in a previous post so I won't repost it. Just go read it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Hang on a sec. No it doesn't. We can't say that the word "disorder" is the same meaning as "behavioral choices in the minority." Disorder is a specific medical term, regardless of the dictionary it resides in. People putting together dictionaries have standards, go read my other post, lol.

Disorder, when referring to homosexuality (which has a biological significance, like obesity, or even something simple like a unibrow), is a medical term. Not a social one.

**facepalm**

That isn't the point of the thread. The OP does NOT believe that Homosexuality is a disorder. Neither does the dictionary. However, the dictionary IMPLIES that anyone who isn't in the majority has a disorder.

The OP is making a point about language using a Flame-Bait example to get views. That's it. If you go arguing medical definitions, then you've missed the point entirely.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

It doesn't matter if its a medical dictionary or not, it still matters what year it was published; definitions get updated and changed all the time.

Now you're just being daft. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is identified as the only dictionary I use in the first sentence of the OP. If you do not know that dictionary is up to date, I am shocked. Maybe it's just being in debate that makes me think of that as common knowledge, so correct me if it is not.
However, in my last post I told you it is up to date, so you had no excuse for continuing this line of discussion and I will have no further part in it.

Ooohh forgive me for being "daft" because it was found on the internet and as we all know, nothing on the internet can EVER be wrong. Just like we should believe all the smart ass trolls who post threads with titles dealing with "homosexuality" because they know it will get responses and not because they have some sort of groundbreaking or flawless argument to make.
Here was the 2011 online Merriam Webster definition...point out where it says homosexuality is a disorder again?

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex

You can't. Because you're just wanting attention. I am not going to give you any more attention than I already have. You're petty and just want to stir up shit, not make a point. Good day.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Using these definitions, green eyes and red hair are "disorders" in the U.S. In the whittling down of definitions, the word "normal" is ultimately never dealt with.

It says normal or average, I don't have to deal with normal, as I pointed out. With or you only have to meet one condition. It logically follows.

However, what I care less about is that and more about the fact that, despite my clear statement at the start of the thread, you clearly did not read the whole thing and are not posting on the topic of the thread.

Yes, this is what we are talking about, Mr. OP. If we are arguing over the definition of disorder (*as according to M-W) Then we need to talk about the definition of normal. I've already said that stuff in a previous post so I won't repost it. Just go read it.

I suppose what I said can be construed as a debate over the definition of disorder. I meant it in a more general terms of how the language can already be used to create the same affect of the dumbed down language in 1984, but in the context of the debate over the definition of disorder, that is true.

However, like I said, with "normal or average" the or means I only had to address one.

 

[Dags90]

It says normal or average, I don't have to deal with normal, as I pointed out. With or you only have to meet one condition. It logically follows.

However, what I care less about is that and more about the fact that, despite my clear statement at the start of the thread, you clearly did not read the whole thing and are not posting on the topic of the thread.

I read the whole thing through, and it doesn't actually have any directed, non-rhetorical question or discussion point. You might want to read it in full yourself. Maybe be a little less hostile and accusatory.

And "or" doesn't mean you can ditch normal. If they were synonyms you might be able to, but they're not. What do you do with things that fit the definition of "abnormal" and "average" simultaneously? Or vice versa? These scenarios are not addressed. A reasonable person should come across this problem.

It's a poor argument to say that dictionaries could lead people to think homosexuality is a disorder when you don't include the definition of normal, because it's not reasonable to skip the definition of normal. The definition of normal somewhat precludes homosexuality as being abnormal in the Merriam-Webster.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It doesn't matter if its a medical dictionary or not, it still matters what year it was published; definitions get updated and changed all the time.

Now you're just being daft. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is identified as the only dictionary I use in the first sentence of the OP. If you do not know that dictionary is up to date, I am shocked. Maybe it's just being in debate that makes me think of that as common knowledge, so correct me if it is not.
However, in my last post I told you it is up to date, so you had no excuse for continuing this line of discussion and I will have no further part in it.

Ooohh forgive me for being "daft" because it was found on the internet and as we all know, nothing on the internet can EVER be wrong. Just like we should believe all the smart ass trolls who post threads with titles dealing with "homosexuality" because they know it will get responses and not because they have some sort of groundbreaking or flawless argument to make.
Here was the 2011 online Merriam Webster definition...point out where it says homosexuality is a disorder again?

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex

You can't. Because you're just wanting attention. I am not going to give you any more attention than I already have. You're petty and just want to stir up shit, not make a point. Good day.

God dammit my purpose was already explained to you. If you read the thread you knew at the end I said homosexuality was not a fucking disorder but that definitions of disorder can be applied to it. You do not know what a logic chain is and you do not know what symbolism is.

Also, Merriam Webster is not just something "found on the internet", it is the most reputable dictionary in the world.

How thick can one person be?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

TL;DR
seriously dude, you could have said the excact same thing in much fewer words. here is an abridged version of your comment.
"Hello! I am a communist! that means I have a disorder! gay people are also not very common in places other than san fransico! that means they have a disorder! the moral of the story is 'JOIN COMMUNISM'!"

Actually, the OP states that neither of those is a disorder.

The point of the thread was A) that people don't read to the end (where he basically says that he was just kidding above, and that all his previous "arguments" are BS) and B) that the dictionary definition is badly worded offensive to anyone not in the majority of all things.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

"Average" is a human concept that has little bearing on reality, and the dictionary is not the ultimate authority- medical science has an entirely different definition of disorder.

It's not a disorder in the sense of the typical connotation we associate with the word, but it is a disorder in the sense that it is something outside what is considered "normal."

Neither of you read the part at the end did you?

I did indeed. My comment isn't aimed at you, per se, but rather at the issue you brought up. I'm supporting your point.

My apologies then.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

I've been trying to put out fires for you (since I got it and respect the point you were trying to make), but this is getting out of hand.

You set the stage for an intellectual discussion on language and how it influences people, and it seems that the Escapist community was not up to the challenge of having that very high brow and philosophical discussion.

Good luck to you, sir. May the Mods read your OP better than (most of) your respondents.

**runs for the hills**

 

[DionysusSnoopy]

By definition, homosexuality could be described as a disorder, which is defined as "an abnormal physical or mental condition", condition simply meaning "a state of being" abnormal simply meaning, "deviating from the normal or average".

So, in essence, a disorder is "a physical or mental state of being that deviates from the normal or average state of being".

So if i added a some words to the disorder definition so it read as "an abnormal physical or mental condition caused by known genetic or external (toxins, microbes, biological etc) factors"
Would you be able to manipulate it in the same way shown in the rest of the OP?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

**snip**

I've been trying to put out fires for you (since I got it and respect the point you were trying to make), but this is getting out of hand.

You set the stage for an intellectual discussion on language and how it influences people, and it seems that the Escapist community was not up to the challenge of having that very high brow and philosophical discussion.

Good luck to you, sir. May the Mods read your OP better than (most of) your respondents.

**runs for the hills**

Well, thanks anyway. I might try to post this in a similar form on Soviet Empire or, hell, maybe even one of the more philosophically inclined boards on 4chan. They will probably get it.

By definition, homosexuality could be described as a disorder, which is defined as "an abnormal physical or mental condition", condition simply meaning "a state of being" abnormal simply meaning, "deviating from the normal or average".

So, in essence, a disorder is "a physical or mental state of being that deviates from the normal or average state of being".

So if i added a some words to the disorder definition so it read as "an abnormal physical or mental condition caused by known genetic or external (toxins, microbes, biological etc) factors"
Would you be able to manipulate in the same way shown in the rest of the OP?

Not if you said known factors because it is not known for 100% certain what causes homosexuality. Other than that, it wouldn't be very different. By either major theory of homosexuality it could still apply, but since it is not known which is correct it wouldn't.

It also then wouldn't apply to people not liking chocolate and would not then apply to Communists. It would still apply to people with green eyes.

The easiest way to invalidate it would be to add "harmful" in front of abnormal in the definition because homosexuality is in no measurable scientific way harmful.

 

[Silvianoshei]

**facepalm**

That isn't the point of the thread. The OP does NOT believe that Homosexuality is a disorder. Neither does the dictionary. However, the dictionary IMPLIES that anyone who isn't in the majority has a disorder.

The OP is making a point about language using a Flame-Bait example to get views. That's it. If you go arguing medical definitions, then you've missed the point entirely.

I know, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that you cannot apply the word "disorder", so widely, which is the OP's point (i.e. if you look at these things they fit under the definition of disorder, WATCH OUT FOR DICTIONARIES) You can do that with some words, but not disorder which is defined as "An abnormal physical or mental condition" by M-W. It is a medical definition. THUS I ARGUE MEDICAL DEFINITIONS.

God dammit my purpose was already explained to you. If you read the thread you knew at the end I said homosexuality was not a fucking disorder but that definitions of disorder can be applied to it. You do not know what a logic chain is and you do not know what symbolism is.

Also, Merriam Webster is not just something "found on the internet", it is the most reputable dictionary in the world.

How thick can one person be?

Very thick. Just relax.

Look, you have to accept that the definition of disorder can be applied to homosexuality since it uses a biological standard. It cannot be applied to communism since it doesn't have a biological effect associated with it. You cannot use medical terminology in such a wanton manner. Disorder has a very specific meaning.

I get what you are trying to say, but you can't use the word "disorder" to illustrate it.

 

[drisky]

So all you are proposing is that the dictionary definition of disorder is too vague, and thats not really a big deal. Im sure the medical definition is more defined.

From wikipedia: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture.

There is no internalized distress or disability, there is some form society but that doesn't count.

You are putting way to much importance on the dictionary, and thats about all there is to it.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

So all you are proposing is that the dictionary definition of disorder is too vague, and thats not really a big deal. Im sure the medical definition is more defined.

From wikipedia: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture.

There is no internalized distress or disability, there is some form society but that doesn't count.

You are putting way to much importance on the dictionary, and thats about all there is to it.

I am highlighting how the language can be manipulated to... you know what, never mind. The culture of this site now is very different from the culture of this site when I joined. People then would've probably got what I meant, but this just isn't working.

 

[Dags90]

Well, thanks anyway. I might try to post this in a similar form on Soviet Empire or, hell, maybe even one of the more philosophically inclined boards on 4chan. They will probably get it.

When you retry, you might not want to be so dismissive of people who simply disagree with your argument. I get that you don't actually agree with the conclusion, and perhaps that's impeding your ability to defend the argument, but it has rather glaring flaws.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Well, thanks anyway. I might try to post this in a similar form on Soviet Empire or, hell, maybe even one of the more philosophically inclined boards on 4chan. They will probably get it.

When you retry, you might not want to be so dismissive of people who simply disagree with your argument. I get that you don't actually agree with the conclusion, and perhaps that's impeding your ability to defend the argument, but it has rather glaring flaws.

It might have glaring flaws to somebody like you who is educated, but ask yourself "Would most people see these flaws?"

If your answer is yes, then you have a higher opinion of the majority of the population than I do. If I am correct, and most could not (I had to look back really close to see them after you pointed them out), then such an argument could be used to manipulate the masses, which is what this is all about.