| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
YawningAngel
n00b
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I wonder what cure exists for her mental illness.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madchaz
l33t
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 972
Location: Quebec, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll give you an hint.
It's small, flies very fast and leaves a long metal tube with the help of an explosive substance.
Apply once right between the eyes. Repeat is necessary
_________________
Someone asked me once if I suffered from mental illness. I told him I enjoyed every second of it.
www.madchaz.com Under heavy reconstruction. Bring a hardhat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YawningAngel
n00b
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not legal over here bro  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
actually, if you think about the simple definitions which are used to describe medical conditions, either gay is a "social choice" (which may be suppressed or enhanced by environmental factors) or it's a "genetic trait." genetic traits as a whole don't have a negative connotation... for example, having brown eyes is a genetic trait. the question then becomes whether it's part of a subclass of genetic traits called "hereditary diseases." assuming it's not social, it has to be hereditary. so now we're looking at whether gay is a disease. google defines disease as "A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury." it's not "simply a direct result of a physical injury." for specific locations, you're talking about the sexual attraction portions of the brain for the most part. the symptom or signs are pretty clear -- a desire for companionship and/or engagement of intercourse in a manner physically incapable of reproduction. the only question is whether it's a disorder. there are a lot of contexts for google's definition of disorder, but you're primarily looking at "confusion", "disruption of normal physical or mental functions" and "abnormal condition". i think it's safe to say that many gays often self-identify as "confused" early on in their mental acceptance of their own homosexuality. i think that with only a small portion of the population (<10%) being gay, it's also easily describable as "abnormal." and since it definitely inhibits procreation, i think it's fair to say it disrupts normal physical and mental functions. in other words, if it's not a social choice, it's no less of a disease than say, achromasia.
so conclusively, gay is either a social choice, or a hereditary disease. i'm sure that's not politically correct, and people won't like it, but hereditary diseases don't give a fuck whether you're happy about them or not. disliking your dandruff or cancer will not make it go away. i think the conclusion people don't like from this is that because it would prospectively be hereditary, it can also potentially be "cured" or otherwise "prevented."
of course, a cure doesn't require that political correctness wraps it up in any particular language. it just requires that we detect the causal factors and minimize them. we already do that with down syndrome babies in most industrialized nations -- the hospital can pre-screen the fetus for detectable conditions, and usually offer an abortion when the child would likely be born with a life-debilitating condition. this practice has become so widespread that down syndrome support and research groups in the US have repeatedly (and stupidly) tried to make this illegal as their membership bases have started to dry up over the last 10 years.
the only solace i could provide is that if it is indeed not a social choice, the only practitioners who should be doing anything should be actual doctors... not these religious gay-cure-camp whackjobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | founded US-style evangelical churches |
| Quote: | Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. "Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free," Abi told the Observer.
"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus." |
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | actually, if you think about the simple definitions which are used to describe medical conditions, either gay is a "social choice" (which may be suppressed or enhanced by environmental factors) or it's a "genetic trait." genetic traits as a whole don't have a negative connotation... for example, having brown eyes is a genetic trait. the question then becomes whether it's part of a subclass of genetic traits called "hereditary diseases." assuming it's not social, it has to be hereditary. so now we're looking at whether gay is
...
...
...
of course, a cure doesn't require that political correctness wraps it up in any particular language. it just requires that we detect the causal factors and minimize them. we already do that with down syndrome babies in most industrialized nations -- the hospital can pre-screen the fetus for detectable conditions, and usually offer an abortion when the child would likely be born with a life-debilitating condition. this practice has become so widespread that down syndrome support and research groups in the US have repeatedly (and stupidly) tried to make this illegal as their membership bases have started to dry up over the last 10 years.
the only solace i could provide is that if it is indeed not a social choice, the only practitioners who should be doing anything should be actual doctors... not these religious gay-cure-camp whackjobs. |
Original research of such quality and distinction clearly deserves a Palin award for the advancement of human knowledge:
http://www.aperiplus.co.uk/images/professor-palin.png
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
are you saying you disagree with the conclusion that "social choice" + "genetic trait" covers 100% of possibilities of the cause of homosexuality, or does the logic offend your sense of reality-denying political correctness exactly as i said it would? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | are you saying you disagree with the conclusion that "social choice" + "genetic trait" covers 100% of possibilities of the cause of homosexuality |
Once you remove social choice, we're nearing something that makes sense.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | are you saying you disagree with the conclusion that "social choice" + "genetic trait" covers 100% of possibilities of the cause of homosexuality, or does the logic offend your sense of reality-denying political correctness exactly as i said it would? |
Do you know anything at all about genetics? If not, how can you claim to make "genetic" arguments?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
pjp, this is just basic total causational logic from elementary school venn diagrams. if 100% of homosexuality is caused by genetics, then 100% of homosexuality is caused by the supergroup of "genetics + social choice" or even "genetics + happy meals". it's semantics, and that's exactly why the PC douchebags are pissed.
if there was demand for it, we could cure brown-eye-ism by treatment, vaccines, or breeding the trait out, just like we're doing with down syndrome now (yes, i'm aware that maternal age is the largest factor in down syndrome, but there are also genetic factors). so if homosexuality is indeed genetic, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to do the same. dislike it if you want. it's reality.
i will just add that mcgruff's position is so preposterous it does not merit a response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | so if homosexuality is indeed genetic, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to do the same. dislike it if you want. it's reality. |
I don't disagree, but it is 100% social choice that it would even be considered. Some genetic anomalies are positive, so who is to say homosexuality isn't? People making social choices.
I'd say it should be within a parents right to "correct" characteristics which could be detrimental. Choosing a tall, blonde, blue-eyed child seems to be vanity, not medically justifiable. But choosing to not have down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, etc. are "medically justifiable." Since ethical medical practices are already addressed, I see no reason this couldn't be as well. Lacking any medically justifiable reasons, sucks to be an ignorant bigot, or worse, the child of one.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | are you saying you disagree with the conclusion that "social choice" + "genetic trait" covers 100% of possibilities of the cause of homosexuality, or does the logic offend your sense of reality-denying political correctness exactly as i said it would? |
It could be genetic && environmental, there's no straight one or the other. Environmental factors may include some local social influences which doesn't persecute homosexual behaviour (like this stupid bitch is attempting), but overwhelmingly, the primary environmental cause will be abnormal hormone levels in the mother's womb during critical sections of brain formation which causes the foetus' newly forming neuron networks to use the female DNA for constructing them.
Homosexuality may be a biological mistake (a disease, if you will), but god/drugs/abuse isn't a solution, you can't go in and replace chunks of brain you disagree with because it offends your sense of religious and social norms. That's fascism.
Their abnormality doesn't affect their ability to lead otherwise healthy lives, and the species doesn't need population growth because we're the least endangered species in the solar system, and their sexual preference doesn't effect anyone else other than them. So it's simply not anything which requires a 'cure'.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | big dave wrote: | | so if homosexuality is indeed genetic, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to do the same. dislike it if you want. it's reality. |
I don't disagree, but it is 100% social choice that it would even be considered. Some genetic anomalies are positive, so who is to say homosexuality isn't? People making social choices.
I'd say it should be within a parents right to "correct" characteristics which could be detrimental. Choosing a tall, blonde, blue-eyed child seems to be vanity, not medically justifiable. But choosing to not have down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, etc. are "medically justifiable." Since ethical medical practices are already addressed, I see no reason this couldn't be as well. Lacking any medically justifiable reasons, sucks to be an ignorant bigot, or worse, the child of one. |
but it sounds like we're in agreement that homosexuality is largely, or even completely genetic (i suspect some bandwagoners/rebels-without-a-cause might try out homosexuality by choice but that is, by definition, even more marginal than the gay population as a whole).
now we're just debating whether homosexuality is a "disease" or not. i'm saying that it is, by definition, because homosexuality has actual negative biological effects. the negative biological effects of homosexuality will not magically disappear because people don't like the sound of it. those effects will not magically become positive via social acceptance of homosexuality. and the mere fact that people can resist some of those negative effects doesn't make them disappear... it just means those effects aren't debilitating. the point is that biology doesn't care what is politically correct.
if it is indeed biological in any way, i think it should be perfectly legitimate for someone to seek treatment (ironic if the left argues against choice), if they do so knowingly, intelligently, and freely. at the same time, i think that treatment should meet scientifically proven medical standards... not these religious psycho-bullshit sessions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
One theory that intrigues me is this theory that chimaerism might cause homosexuality.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YawningAngel
n00b
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's a stupid theory, homosexuality is far too widespread for that to be the case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YawningAngel wrote: | | That's a stupid theory, homosexuality is far too widespread for that to be the case |
It's like 2% of the population. Hardly "widespread".
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellbringer
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | think it's safe to say that many gays often self-identify as "confused" early on in their mental acceptance of their own homosexuality. i think that with only a small portion of the population (<10%) being gay, it's also easily describable as "abnormal." and since it definitely inhibits procreation, i think it's fair to say it disrupts normal physical and mental functions. in other words, if it's not a social choice, it's no less of a disease than say, achromasia. |
Many kids define themselves as confused for many reasons besides homosexuality, small portions of the population are super intelligent (and thus abnormal) but that doesn't mean they are sick and gays are capable of reproduction because if gay is a "genetic" trait then, by definition, they must be capable of reproduction or there wouldn't be any gays today.
_________________
There is a lot of novelty and truth in what you say, but that which is true is not novel and that which is novel is not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellbringer
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: |
now we're just debating whether homosexuality is a "disease" or not. i'm saying that it is, by definition, because homosexuality has actual negative biological effects. the negative biological effects of homosexuality will not magically disappear because people don't like the sound of it. those effects will not magically become positive via social acceptance of homosexuality. and the mere fact that people can resist some of those negative effects doesn't make them disappear... it just means those effects aren't debilitating. the point is that biology doesn't care what is politically correct. |
Which negative biological effects?
_________________
There is a lot of novelty and truth in what you say, but that which is true is not novel and that which is novel is not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm out of toilet paper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hellbringer wrote: | | big dave wrote: |
now we're just debating whether homosexuality is a "disease" or not. i'm saying that it is, by definition, because homosexuality has actual negative biological effects. the negative biological effects of homosexuality will not magically disappear because people don't like the sound of it. those effects will not magically become positive via social acceptance of homosexuality. and the mere fact that people can resist some of those negative effects doesn't make them disappear... it just means those effects aren't debilitating. the point is that biology doesn't care what is politically correct. |
Which negative biological effects? |
for starters, a strong and statistically proven biological imperative against reproduction. homosexuality doesn't make it impossible to reproduce, but diseases are rarely 100% all-or-none. meanwhile, attempts to get around this, like artificial insemination in particular, are in effect a cure/treatment for the "disease" that have already been socially accepted.
additionally, homosexuality can affect certain sectors of the brain that analyze risk. it's well known that uncurable STDs in male homosexual circles regularly double hetero- circles, and often approach near 100% affliction in certain locales. yet knowing this, homosexual males will still join these groups and engage in extremely high risk behavior that marginalizes the rate that heteros do the same.
in both cases, one can fight/treat/workaround the compulsions, but that's no different than doing the same to the urges associated with OCD or aspergers.
people can find this stuff insulting all they want. but that doesn't change the fact that these are reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellbringer
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: |
for starters, a strong and statistically proven biological imperative against reproduction. homosexuality doesn't make it impossible to reproduce, but diseases are rarely 100% all-or-none. meanwhile, attempts to get around this, like artificial insemination in particular, are in effect a cure/treatment for the "disease" that have already been socially accepted.
|
You keep asserting it's a disease but you have not addressed any of the points I raised before. Not everything that makes reproduction a little bit more difficult is actually a disease.
| Quote: | additionally, homosexuality can affect certain sectors of the brain that analyze risk. it's well known that uncurable STDs in male homosexual circles regularly double hetero- circles, and often approach near 100% affliction in certain locales. yet knowing this, homosexual males will still join these groups and engage in extremely high risk behavior that marginalizes the rate that heteros do the same.
|
So lesbianism is not a disease then, only male homosexuality? Do you have any prove that it "can affect certains sectors of the brain that analyze risk"? Any peer reviewed study? How is it different than taking any other risky activity that many straight males take? Also can some paper please backup the "it's well known" part? Male homosexuals probably have higher STD because anal sex has a higher chance of transmitting than ordinary sex.
| Quote: |
in both cases, one can fight/treat/workaround the compulsions, but that's no different than doing the same to the urges associated with OCD or aspergers.
|
Except gay people can actually live a pretty normal life.
| Quote: |
people can find this stuff insulting all they want. but that doesn't change the fact that these are reality. |
That doesn't change that inventing stupid obviously flawed theories will lead other people thinking you are a homophobic loony.
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered the fourth). The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences as well as the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal human sexual orientation.[3] It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people, by contrast, has been shown to have such effects.[3] In spite of this, some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior. Contrary to mainstream scientific understanding, some of these sects and organizations characterize it as a "choice".[4] |
But of course Mr. big dave is probably much more versed in all this subjects than the American Psychiatric and Psychological associations.
_________________
There is a lot of novelty and truth in what you say, but that which is true is not novel and that which is novel is not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | additionally, homosexuality can affect certain sectors of the brain that analyze risk. it's well known that uncurable STDs in male homosexual circles regularly double hetero- circles, and often approach near 100% affliction in certain locales. yet knowing this, homosexual males will still join these groups and engage in extremely high risk behavior that marginalizes the rate that heteros do the same. |
Do you have any sources for homosexuality and risk-taking? Or did you (oh the irony!) just pull that out your ass?
Risk-taking behaviour is positively selected (up to a point). It's a good strategy and a good example of Dawkin's selfish gene idea. It may be better for an individual to be cautious but that's not the case for the genes which pass through them. Selfish genes can afford to take risks with individual carriers if it they are more favourably propagated overall. It's kind of like the Russian army strategy where individual soldiers lives are just pawns to be spent to buy victory.
So, if risk-taking were associated with homosexuality (you haven't shown this) homosexuality would be an advantageous trait.
However, you're missing an obvious question: doesn't sexuality in general lead to risk-taking behaviour and not specifically homosexuality?
In short, your arguments are kinda gay.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's obviously a cure for it, because there are no homosexuals in Iran.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | but it sounds like we're in agreement that homosexuality is largely, or even completely genetic |
That works, as long as it includes the hormone levels in utero (I'd forgotten about that possibility). That seems more likely to be the issue than Darwinian genetic mutation. (I clarify because I'm not certain, but think the two are different).
| big dave wrote: | | now we're just debating whether homosexuality is a "disease" or not. i'm saying that it is, by definition, because homosexuality has actual negative biological effects. [...] the point is that biology doesn't care what is politically correct. |
Some people are born deaf, blind or without appendages or limbs. Those aren't diseases though. So what specifically makes homosexuality a disease?
| big dave wrote: | | treatment should meet scientifically proven medical standards... not these religious psycho-bullshit sessions. |
Then, yes, we're pretty much in agreement. I'd prefer it not be allowed until society learns to mind their own business in sufficient numbers. I think there is still too much stigma associated with it to allow fixing it.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
