Remove this ad
First  Prev  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
Posted 3/19/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

I find it ironic that you counter the argument with an unrelated notion of a human benevolent action. Often the existence human benevolence is said to compensate for the degree to which we, despite being intelligent beings, resort to violence, hate and discrimination of those who are different. The irony here is that animals lack the ability to comprehend these concepts, yet homosexuality goes unnoticed and without concern from the point of view of those animals.

So apparently despite being gifted with our huge, complex brains we still are inferior to the rest of the animal kingdom when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of those around us.


Lala thinks you just proved Lala's point. Animals lack the ability to comprehend these concepts, and shouldn't be compared to humans when it comes to behavior. Just because it is a natural desire, does not mean it is okay. Otherwise you are condoning pedophilia, where pedophiles use little children to fulfill their sexual desires.
Then you're behaving worst than other humans with better reasoning skills, when your committed a red herring fallacy by yourself overarching homosexuality as something to be feared as paedophilia, without sufficient justification. While according to DSM IV here, homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder, whereas paedophilia OTOH still is.
43259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 3/19/12 , edited 3/19/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

I find it ironic that you counter the argument with an unrelated notion of a human benevolent action. Often the existence human benevolence is said to compensate for the degree to which we, despite being intelligent beings, resort to violence, hate and discrimination of those who are different. The irony here is that animals lack the ability to comprehend these concepts, yet homosexuality goes unnoticed and without concern from the point of view of those animals.

So apparently despite being gifted with our huge, complex brains we still are inferior to the rest of the animal kingdom when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of those around us.


Lala thinks you just proved Lala's point. Animals lack the ability to comprehend these concepts, and shouldn't be compared to humans when it comes to behavior. Just because it is a natural desire, does not mean it is okay. Otherwise you are condoning pedophilia, where pedophiles use little children to fulfill their sexual desires.
If I proved your point then you would agree with the closing sentence that is really the crux of my argument. Which is that creatures such as lions, apes, deer, dogs whatever have a virtue that humans lack, so perhaps it is US who are inferior. You are obviously offended by comparing humans to animals, yet seem to not realize my comparison deprecates animals down to human level not the other way around.

174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/12 , edited 3/19/12

DomFortress wrote:

Then you're behaving worst than other humans with better reasoning skills, when your committed a red herring fallacy by yourself overarching homosexuality as something to be feared as paedophilia, without sufficient justification. While according to DSM IV here, homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder, whereas paedophilia OTOH still is.


The reason homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia is because they threatened the psychiatry organisations with violent tactics. Originally it was lined up along with pedophilia. Lala will not be deceived by your tactics.

174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

If I proved your point then you would agree with the closing sentence that is really the crux of my argument. Which is that creatures such as lions, apes, deer, dogs whatever have a virtue that humans lack, so perhaps it is US who are inferior. You are obviously offended by comparing humans to animals, yet seem to not realize my comparison deprecates animals down to human level not the other way around.


Lala thinks you're lying to yourself. If society were to condone human behavior based on other animals' behavior, then society is opening gates for many other unacceptable actions. Lala has seen a dog eat its own poop, an Lala has also witnessed a cat attacking a person.
Posted 3/19/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Do you fear lazy-eye just as you would fear homosexuals? Hence you would try to correct an error.

And there's irrefutable evidence when it comes to the existence of homosexuality; you and I are arguing about it. Whereas the monotheistic Christian God is historically proven to be man-made.

Finally, you're right that you've proven just how much more ignorant, weak, and superstitious you can be as human. You can't even hunt for your own meal, much less yourself saving others.


Lala believes you're twisting and ignoring a lot of Lala's points. But Lala doesn't mind.

#1: Lala would like to know your basis on saying that the act of correcting lazy-eye is due to phobia.

#2: Lala never said there's no evidence for homosexuality. Lala was asking for evidence of homosexuality being as common as heterosexuality. Lala believes you couldn't provide evidence, so it's fair for Lala to not believe what you're saying.
That's again your attempt at red herring fallacy. The topic is homosexuality, not lazy-eyes.

And how about the fact that homosexuals are being bullied? That's as strong as an evidence as how you're insensitively yet intentionally ignoring the existence of homosexuality within humans. It's so common that they are getting bullied just like other social minority groups.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/12

DomFortress wrote:

That's again your attempt at red herring fallacy. The topic is homosexuality, not lazy-eyes.

And how about the fact that homosexuals are being bullied? That's as strong as an evidence as how you're insensitively yet intentionally ignoring the existence of homosexuality within humans. It's so common that they are getting bullied just like other social minority groups.


#1: If Lala is not allowed to compare homosexuality with lazy-eye in order to make a point, it is hypocritical for you to compare humans to animals.

#2: Just because homosexuals get bullied, does not make being homosexual okay. Some people get bullied for being really mean to others, that doesn't make it okay to be mean. Oh but according to you that's a fallacy. Lala believes the educational system should prevent bullying on top of preventing encouragement of homosexual behavior.
Posted 3/19/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Then you're behaving worst than other humans with better reasoning skills, when your committed a red herring fallacy by yourself overarching homosexuality as something to be feared as paedophilia, without sufficient justification. While according to DSM IV here, homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder, whereas paedophilia OTOH still is.


The reason homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia is because they threatened the psychiatry organisations with violent tactics. Originally it was lined up along with pedophilia. Lala will not be deceived by your tactics.
Wrong, when you lied about the historical fact on how and why it came to be.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread.... [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well."

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).(citation)




LalaSatalin wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

If I proved your point then you would agree with the closing sentence that is really the crux of my argument. Which is that creatures such as lions, apes, deer, dogs whatever have a virtue that humans lack, so perhaps it is US who are inferior. You are obviously offended by comparing humans to animals, yet seem to not realize my comparison deprecates animals down to human level not the other way around.


Lala thinks you're lying to yourself. If society were to condone human behavior based on other animals' behavior, then society is opening gates for many other unacceptable actions. Lala has seen a dog eat its own poop, an Lala has also witnessed a cat attacking a person.
Animals also condone heterosexual behaviours that's got nothing to do with procreation, but I don't see you condemning that. That's insufficient justification.
Posted 3/20/12 , edited 3/20/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That's again your attempt at red herring fallacy. The topic is homosexuality, not lazy-eyes.

And how about the fact that homosexuals are being bullied? That's as strong as an evidence as how you're insensitively yet intentionally ignoring the existence of homosexuality within humans. It's so common that they are getting bullied just like other social minority groups.


#1: If Lala is not allowed to compare homosexuality with lazy-eye in order to make a point, it is hypocritical for you to compare humans to animals.

#2: Just because homosexuals get bullied, does not make being homosexual okay. Some people get bullied for being really mean to others, that doesn't make it okay to be mean. Oh but according to you that's a fallacy. Lala believes the educational system should prevent bullying on top of preventing encouragement of homosexual behavior.
Humans are another species of social animals, it's not a comparison.

Also, red herring fallacy isn't the same as hypocrisy. So stop putting words in my mouth or lying about what I actually didn't say.

Finally, homosexual behaviour isn't mean nor antisocial like bullying is, therefore you lack sufficient justification for your belief.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, when you lied about the historical fact on how and why it came to be.



Lala did some research to clarify what she knows:


"In May 1970, hundreds in the antipsychiatry movement joined gay activists in forming a human chain barring psychiatrists from entering the American Psychiatric Association's 124th annual meeting. During a similar disruption the following year, gay activist Frank Kameny grabbed the podium and declared war on psychiatry for its DSM classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder."


Lala will not be deceived by biased reference leaving out important parts.


DomFortress wrote:

Animals also condone heterosexual behaviours that's got nothing to do with procreation, but I don't see you condemning that. That's insufficient justification.


Lala thinks you know that you aren't making sense. Lala never said that anything animals do is not allowed by humans. Lala simply said it is not okay to think that anything animals do, humans are allowed to do
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

Humans are another species of social animals, it's not a comparison.

Also, red herring fallacy isn't the same as hypocrisy. So stop putting words in my mouth or lying about what I actually didn't say.

Finally, homosexual behaviour isn't mean nor antisocial like bullying is, therefore you lack sufficient justification for your belief.


#1: It is a comparison. It is a comparison to another species.

#2: You said Lala can not compare with lazy-eye, but you compared with animals. Lala thinks that is the definition of hypocrisy.

#3: Lala was simply saying that just because bullies pick on homosexuals, does not mean that homosexuality should become accepted.
Posted 3/20/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, when you lied about the historical fact on how and why it came to be.



Lala did some research to clarify what she knows:


"In May 1970, hundreds in the antipsychiatry movement joined gay activists in forming a human chain barring psychiatrists from entering the American Psychiatric Association's 124th annual meeting. During a similar disruption the following year, gay activist Frank Kameny grabbed the podium and declared war on psychiatry for its DSM classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder."


Lala will not be deceived by biased reference leaving out important parts.


DomFortress wrote:

Animals also condone heterosexual behaviours that's got nothing to do with procreation, but I don't see you condemning that. That's insufficient justification.


Lala thinks you know that you aren't making sense. Lala never said that anything animals do is not allowed by humans. Lala simply said it is not okay to think that anything animals do, humans are allowed to do
Where is the citation of your information is based upon? Or did you just took this essay here regarding "the history and evolution of the antipsychiatry movement" out of context. How intentionally deceiving of you.

Finally, you still lack sufficient justification on why you condemn human homosexual behaviours.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

Where is the citation of your information is based upon? Or did you just took this essay here regarding "the history and evolution of the antipsychiatry movement" out of context. How intentionally deceiving of you.

Finally, you still lack sufficient justification on why you condemn human homosexual behaviours.


Lala thanks you for completing the citation. The website Lala was looking at did not contain that last sentence, which concludes Lala's point.


Wanting the protests to stop, the American Psychiatric Association formed a task force, which, by a vote of 58 percent, officially deleted homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973.


Lala does not condemn the behaviors. Lala simply discourages homosexual activity to be accepted as normal in public, because it is not.
Posted 3/20/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Humans are another species of social animals, it's not a comparison.

Also, red herring fallacy isn't the same as hypocrisy. So stop putting words in my mouth or lying about what I actually didn't say.

Finally, homosexual behaviour isn't mean nor antisocial like bullying is, therefore you lack sufficient justification for your belief.


#1: It is a comparison. It is a comparison to another species.

#2: You said Lala can not compare with lazy-eye, but you compared with animals. Lala thinks that is the definition of hypocrisy.

#3: Lala was simply saying that just because bullies pick on homosexuals, does not mean that homosexuality should become accepted.
You weren't making a comparison between lazy-eye and homosexuality, when you were making a suggestion here that homosexuality is something that needs to be corrected like the lazy-eyes.

And you still lack sufficient justification on why we shouldn't accept homosexuality.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

You weren't making a comparison between lazy-eye and homosexuality, when you were making a suggestion here that homosexuality is something that needs to be corrected like the lazy-eyes.

And you still lack sufficient justification on why we shouldn't accept homosexuality.


Lala believes you're being immaturely stubborn on this point. It was a comparison, as well as a suggestion. Lala believes that the two concepts can coexist. Also, you were the one stating that it was a fallacy, and if that were the case, Lala doesn't think it's possible for a suggestion to be a fallacy.
Posted 3/20/12 , edited 3/20/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Where is the citation of your information is based upon? Or did you just took this essay here regarding "the history and evolution of the antipsychiatry movement" out of context. How intentionally deceiving of you.

Finally, you still lack sufficient justification on why you condemn human homosexual behaviours.


Lala thanks you for completing the citation. The website Lala was looking at did not contain that last sentence, which concludes Lala's point.


Wanting the protests to stop, the American Psychiatric Association formed a task force, which, by a vote of 58 percent, officially deleted homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973.


Lala does not condemn the behaviors. Lala simply discourages homosexual activity to be accepted as normal in public, because it is not.
And what site is that? When my original information picked up what happened during and after 1973, your finding was comparatively a joke.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

And "to discourage" is synonymous with "to condemn" as is "to bar/prohibit", just as how "to encourage" is synonymous with "to condone", according to the thesaurus here. And do you know what it's also synonymous with? To "bully". You bully.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

And what site is that? When my original information picked up what happened during and after 1973, your finding was comparatively a joke.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

And "to discourage" is synonymous with "to condemn", just as how "to encourage" is synonymous with "to condone", according to the thesaurus here. And do you know what it's also synonymous with? To "bully". You bully.


#1: Lala was simply responding to you after you stated that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder while pedophilia still is, and therefore cannot be compared. Lala pointed out that homosexuality was supposed to still be considered a mental disorder, until the homosexual community threatened with violent protests as indicated in your reference.

#2: Lala believes that condemn holds the wrong implication for Lala's feelings towards the homosexual community. But Lala knows that you will not believe, so Lala won't bother trying to convince you even after already saying that Lala does not condemn.
First  Prev  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.