It's entirely likely you could have made your actual point (don't believe everything you hear, because people can manipulate language and meaning to trick you) using a topic that wouldn't have confused the issue as much as this has.
Homosexuality as a disorder
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, that was a very insightful post. Much more so then anything I've seen recently on this forum. Applause applause 
A lot of bigotry, intolerance and bias is embedded in our language.
This reminds me of another idea that I've reading about recently:
http://www.bewareofimages.com/blog/2011/07/less-face-more-book/
It talks about how our society has become more image based, and thus more black-and-white. The nature of images, especially commercial ones (which is the majority of what people see) is a big, direct, sensational, singular message, which is often at it's core "buy this, feel good and be happy."
I feel that the prominence of bold images like that have gave rise to the 'instant-gratification' attitude in our society today: Happiness is just one purchase, action, or drug away. You're almost there, and then it's gone.
Much culture in our society, and thus language (art, music, words, ect.) is created by large corporations. Look at all of the music, TV shows, video games and movies people consume. How much of that is created by real humans beings and not faceless entities trying to sell a product? Consumerism and the perpetual dissatisfaction that comes with it has been deeply embedded in nearly every way we express ourselves and communicate with each other, from how we talk and what we talk about to the way we dress. Wearing expensive, stylish clothes makes you feel good and makes you look like those "perfect" and "happy" people shown in the media, thus making you appear happier, and spread the idea that buying such clothes makes one happier, to other people.
A lot of bigotry, intolerance and bias is embedded in our language.
This reminds me of another idea that I've reading about recently:
http://www.bewareofimages.com/blog/2011/07/less-face-more-book/
It talks about how our society has become more image based, and thus more black-and-white. The nature of images, especially commercial ones (which is the majority of what people see) is a big, direct, sensational, singular message, which is often at it's core "buy this, feel good and be happy."
I feel that the prominence of bold images like that have gave rise to the 'instant-gratification' attitude in our society today: Happiness is just one purchase, action, or drug away. You're almost there, and then it's gone.
Much culture in our society, and thus language (art, music, words, ect.) is created by large corporations. Look at all of the music, TV shows, video games and movies people consume. How much of that is created by real humans beings and not faceless entities trying to sell a product? Consumerism and the perpetual dissatisfaction that comes with it has been deeply embedded in nearly every way we express ourselves and communicate with each other, from how we talk and what we talk about to the way we dress. Wearing expensive, stylish clothes makes you feel good and makes you look like those "perfect" and "happy" people shown in the media, thus making you appear happier, and spread the idea that buying such clothes makes one happier, to other people.
That's nice. You're a communist. Good for you. So you are saying that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has some misleading definitions. That's possible. What's your point? Are you saying that Merriam-Webster have some hidden bourgeoisie agenda to subvert the righteous proletariat revolution? That's highly unlikely.
In response, I shall sing you a song:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
In response, I shall sing you a song:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
Have you never been in a situation where words just aren't enough to adequately express what's in your head? Of course language is an imperfect system of communication, but that's not because language in and of itself is inherently insufficient. It's because people disagree with each other; any method of communication is going to become difficult when you're trying to explain what you think to a person that doesn't want to agree with you. Unfortunately it's also the only system of communication we've got. :/2012 Wont Happen said:
Put less of your faith in what words mean and more of it in how words are used. Most people assume 'normal' to mean 'themselves' and why not? What other experience do they have?
EDIT: For the record, I agree with what you're saying about how certain states of being can be defined using fallacious logic. What I mean is that a definition is not the be-all and end-all of something, it's your own belief that defines what and how you see things. I know people who honestly think homosexuality is a disease; personally I believe that all people are born basically without sexuality and that we're conditioned into our sexualities through outside influences. I get along with them because I understand that no amount of argument is going to change their minds on that, not because I don't have the language to do it but simply because they don't want to believe anything other than what they believe >>
Because of my personal views on communism, I find it abhorrent to twist an argument defending homosexuality from discrimination into one that in any way promotes your political standpoint. It's a trivial argument at best that depends on flimsy comparisons and a fundamental dishonesty of intent. I have never made the statement, nor heard the accusation made, that for one to be a communist they must somehow be mentally defective-- I simply think they are wrong. I have, however, heard the statement that homosexuality is a disorder, so at least we have some common ground in believing that such statements are blatantly false. Please refrain from exploiting the struggle of an actually oppressed minority for your own political purposes.
The thing is homosexuality is a purely social thing, it doesn't cause any problems for a person other than problems caused by society's view. At the moment society fully accepts homosexuality so calling it a disorder using medical terminology is a little bit odd. I get your point though, people should always look past fancy language and stuff and focus on what someone is actually saying.2012 Wont Happen said:
Well you are sinister after all.Joos said:
It was and is considered a disorder by psychoanalists, and IIRC a psychiatrist could still diagnose gender identity disorder if you acted transgender. That doesn't mean any of the 2 professions do or should support discrimination\violence against gays. And after all you can't possibly stop people to do what they want under their bedsheets.
Well don for constructing such a convoluted can confusing post OP.
The definition of a disorder 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.
Seeing as homosexuality does not cause subjective distress or disability and is in fact part of normal development and culture going back centuries I guess the point you're trying to make is that people will try to claim homosexuality is a disorder when it isn't.
The definition of a disorder 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.
Seeing as homosexuality does not cause subjective distress or disability and is in fact part of normal development and culture going back centuries I guess the point you're trying to make is that people will try to claim homosexuality is a disorder when it isn't.
You have an incorrect idea of disorder. A disorder is not just a deviation from the standard, it is a deviation from the perceived function of something. Disorder is, in a sense similar to the idea of a malfunction.
So the analogy with communism doesn't really work here.
I support the idea of homosexuality as a biological malfunction, because there is no evidence that it serves a biological purpose, and in fact hinders the biological function of the human being: procreation.
I'm not saying that homosexuals can't reproduce, I'm just saying that under prehistoric/ancient circumstances they wouldn't have reproduced.
The point to take away from this not whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, but rather that it doesn't make a damn difference. People shouldn't be treated negatively because of anything of which they have no control. In fact, if people came to accept homosexuality as an untreatable sexuality disorder, then maybe they'd finally realize that it isn't a "choice".
So the analogy with communism doesn't really work here.
I support the idea of homosexuality as a biological malfunction, because there is no evidence that it serves a biological purpose, and in fact hinders the biological function of the human being: procreation.
I'm not saying that homosexuals can't reproduce, I'm just saying that under prehistoric/ancient circumstances they wouldn't have reproduced.
The point to take away from this not whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, but rather that it doesn't make a damn difference. People shouldn't be treated negatively because of anything of which they have no control. In fact, if people came to accept homosexuality as an untreatable sexuality disorder, then maybe they'd finally realize that it isn't a "choice".
That's the thing with mental disorders. You can't possibly get any closer to someone's identity than their mind, and by diagnosing someone with a disorder you're telling them that their mind is 'wrong'. Another example would be savants, many of whom, if offered the choice, say would keep their gift and the problems it entails. I think if a 'cure' is available it should be offered but unless they're a threat to others, people have to be left to decide whether they want their entire identity to be altered or not.
Besides, if we were to 'cure' people whether they liked it or not, what would the implications be? If mental 'normality' was enforced whether people wanted it or not, surely other kinds of 'normality' would have to be given the same value, unless there's a valid reason to make the mind a special case. Odd hobbies? You need fixing. Look funny? You need fixing. Too intelligent or not smart enough? You need fixing. View the world differently; miss thing others don't but see hidden details of your own? Fixety fix.
Besides, if we were to 'cure' people whether they liked it or not, what would the implications be? If mental 'normality' was enforced whether people wanted it or not, surely other kinds of 'normality' would have to be given the same value, unless there's a valid reason to make the mind a special case. Odd hobbies? You need fixing. Look funny? You need fixing. Too intelligent or not smart enough? You need fixing. View the world differently; miss thing others don't but see hidden details of your own? Fixety fix.
I must say I like the way that your point is sorta proved throughout the thread...
It was a point I myself was very aware of because... well because I know something about politics. Pretty much all of it is just arguing semantics and basing your points off of misreadings.
It was a point I myself was very aware of because... well because I know something about politics. Pretty much all of it is just arguing semantics and basing your points off of misreadings.
Ahhhaahhh!Batou667 said:
I was hoping someone else would see this! It is a genuine fear of mine that one day paedophilia will have people campaigning for it.
Obviously there are major differences between homosexuality and paedophilia; namely the fact that gays are both consenting adults and paedophilia is rape.
Sooooo here's hoping that open mindedness doesn't go too far. Remember 'If you open your mind to much, your brain will fall out'.
The definition of disorder you used is one i've never heard of before. The one i'm aware of, is this one:
"a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction"
I've never seen disorder used as a term to mean "Different from everyone else". I looked at the site you suggested, the definitions it gives are these:
1: to disturb the order of
2: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
I know this is a thread about the misuse of language. But I think the only person who's skewed the language is you.
"a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction"
I've never seen disorder used as a term to mean "Different from everyone else". I looked at the site you suggested, the definitions it gives are these:
1: to disturb the order of
2: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
I know this is a thread about the misuse of language. But I think the only person who's skewed the language is you.