The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Sparko]

Normal according to societal agreed upon norms defines normal as that which is in accord with the culture. The reason for the consistent patterns, the collective and continuous experience, is because that is what the general population of a society has agreed upon as normal behavior. If the norms were different, and they were and are in different cultures, then the collective patterns would differ as well. So, how do you define what is abnormal in the absolute sense? You don't!

but is normal good?

If you had a society that said that murder was normal and legal, would that make it good?

[Tassman]

Then say it out loud Tass. You don't believe that the desire to rape children is a disorder.

Inappropriate thoughts about children are considered to be a only if they are acted upon or become obsessive. Your attempt to misrepresent the American Psychological Association as is reprehensible and completely unfounded.

Somewhat oversimplified, Seer.

You said it.

Tassman, the classifications of all those other organisations are also in dispute. I don't see how you can move a debate about the validity of those classifications foward just by pointing out those classifications.

They are not in dispute among the tens of thousands of Health Care professionals comprising many different disciplines worldwide, merely a handful of opponents very often only on religious, not clinical, grounds.

[Tassman]

I called these people "ants." Insects do not conspire, nor do they consider the type of world they wish to live in, they simply take action based on a very limited set of stimuli. Or in your case, reading material. They are thus easily compromised by those who more aggressively pursue their own interests.

But you know better, right?

Corrupt the system? Few to none of these people are sharp enough to be anything as necessary for that job as a systems analyst. It doesn't need to corrupt the system when it can placate or replace a few key judges. Those in charge of the greater leftist movement know exactly what the term 'long march through the institutions' means. The operative aphorism is 'personnel is policy.'

It is shameful that most working-class conservatives still think that Republicans and their Conservatism, Inc. leaders will fight hard for their and their nation's interests, yes. But me and you are doing a good job dispelling that myth together, wouldn't you say?

[JimL]

but is normal good?

If you had a society that said that murder was normal and legal, would that make it good?

No, not unless it actually was good for a society, which, i think you would agree, it is not. But it is not as if these notions of good and evil are arbitrarily chosen, we adopt them understanding them to be in our own best interests as a society. We call compliance with these societal norms, normal behavior only in so far as we understand it to be in the best interests of the group. We don't call the murder of an non human animal abnormal or bad behavior, we call that hunting.

[Sparko]

No, not unless it actually was good for a society, which, i think you would agree, it is not.

well if you murder all of the disabled, dumb and poor people, then you are lowering the drain on the economy and getting rid of undesirables. So I guess you could argue that murder is good for society. right? and if everyone did it, then it would be "normal" according to your definition.


Basically the holocaust was "normal" according to you.

[JimL]

well if you murder all of the disabled, dumb and poor people, then you are lowering the drain on the economy and getting rid of undesirables. So I guess you could argue that murder is good for society. right? and if everyone did it, then it would be "normal" according to your definition.


Basically the holocaust was "normal" according to you.

No, the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society. You just don't understand what is meant by society. Society means acceptance of individual differences along with comliance to the norms of the group.

[Sparko]

No, the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society. You just don't understand what is meant by society. Society means acceptance of individual differences along with comliance to the norms of the group.

It is in the best interests of the individuals of a society to eliminate the drains of that society. If there are no poor, or disabled or diseased persons, then the economy goes up, while spending less money. We all become richer while spending less.

How does considering homosexual behavior normal benefit me? I am an individual. How is it in my best interest? and what does "best interest" have to do with "normal" which is what you were defining in the first place?

[Epoetker]

Normal according to societal agreed upon norms defines normal as that which is in accord with the culture. The reason for the consistent patterns, the collective and continuous experience, is because that is what the general population of a society has agreed upon as normal behavior. If the norms were different, and they were and are in different cultures, then the collective patterns would differ as well. So, how do you define what is abnormal in the absolute sense? You don't!

You were almost coherent and straightforward there, and then you had to go and add that last sentence. But 3 out of 4 sentences that make any sense in a row ain't bad for you! Combined with you unequivocally stating a belief in the illegitimacy of contracts among consenting adults, this thread may be made legendary as "the one where Jim actually made an effort to think!"

But you know what, that last sentence is so idiotically declarative that I think it's a trap. The true insanity is in the second sentence:

The reason for the consistent patterns, the collective and continuous experience, is because that is what the general population of a society has agreed upon as normal behavior.

And here is the backwards thinking that lies at the heart of all Satanic thought processes, ladies and gentlemen! Shared social agreements, great or small, of any lasting value, always come after the collective and continuous experience of previous societies, not before. Your argument is invalid.

[Epoetker]

Your thinking is muddled. The civil rights movement, which is what the demands for homosexual equality before the law is all about, has nothing to do with the cultural hegemony of the ruling class; quite the reverse if anything. Until relatively recently the ruling class was implacably opposed to it.

Your history, like JimL's, is backwards, i.e., Satanic. The Civil rights movement, like the homosexual movement, or indeed like most liberal movements, from "immigration reform" to "spreading democracy," was an elitist movement against popular opinion. It also had the full support of the ruling class, so unless you seriously intend to maintain that George Wallace's local cops and good old boys were more powerful and influential than the US Council of Churches and the US National Guard, I would retract that statement immediately.

[JimL]

It is in the best interests of the individuals of a society to eliminate the drains of that society. If there are no poor, or disabled or diseased persons, then the economy goes up, while spending less money. We all become richer while spending less.

No we all don't become richer, some of us individuals would be eliminated and always will be, so they certainly would not become richer. You are not thinking about the society of man, you are thinking of yourself, whose imperfections might also be called into question one day. Also you are basing your idea of a better society solely on how financially wealthy we would all be.

How does considering homosexual behavior normal benefit me? I am an individual. How is it in my best interest? and what does "best interest" have to do with "normal" which is what you were defining in the first place?

Do you appreciate your individual freedom? Lets assume for the moment that homosexuality is a natural condition and that, for the sake of argument, you yourself are homosexual rather than just homophobic. In such a case would it be in your best interests as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? The way in which considering homosexuality normal benifits you and society is that you can be assured that in that society your freedom to be who you are will also be respected.

[JimL]

You were almost coherent and straightforward there, and then you had to go and add that last sentence. But 3 out of 4 sentences that make any sense in a row ain't bad for you! Combined with you unequivocally stating a belief in the illegitimacy of contracts among consenting adults, this thread may be made legendary as "the one where Jim actually made an effort to think!"

But you know what, that last sentence is so idiotically declarative that I think it's a trap. The true insanity is in the second sentence:



And here is the backwards thinking that lies at the heart of all Satanic thought processes, ladies and gentlemen! Shared social agreements, great or small, of any lasting value, always come after the collective and continuous experience of previous societies, not before. Your argument is invalid.

And your argument is neither valid nor invalid since you haven't given one. When criticizing anothers thought process, at least, for arguments sake, try to supply one of your own. And btw, invoking imaginary beings as the source of ones thought doesn't help your credibility standing.

[Sparko]

No we all don't become richer, some of us individuals would be eliminated and always will be, so they certainly would not become richer. You are not thinking about the society of man, you are thinking of yourself, whose imperfections might also be called into question one day. Also you are basing your idea of a better society solely on how financially wealthy we would all be.

Just thinking of myself? It was YOU who said it was "the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society."

Now you are saying it is back to the good of the society as a whole. Make up your mind. You really don't think through your arguments do you?

Do you appreciate your individual freedom? Lets assume for the moment that homosexuality is a natural condition and that, for the sake of argument, you yourself are homosexual rather than just homophobic. In such a case would it be in your best interests as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? The way in which considering homosexuality normal benifits you and society is that you can be assured that in that society your freedom to be who you are will also be respected.

Let's suppose that for the moment that pedophilia or having a predisposition toward incest (between adults not children) is a normal condition and that for the sake of argument that you want to marry your own brother. In such a case would it be in your best interest as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? blah blah blah.

And as many murders as we have in society, it seems to be a normal human predisposition. Anyone is capable of it under the right circumstances. So why should murderers be denied their right to self expression?

See how weak your argument is? Of course you don't.

[JimL]

Just thinking of myself? It was YOU who said it was "the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society."

Boy, it is hard to get through to someone that doesn't deliberate at all before answering. Your own best overall interests as an individual resides in being part of a social group, ergo we live in societies. But in order for the individual to earn those interests he/she needs to comply with the values of the society as a whole. In other words by being part of a social order you gain more than you lose, so it is in your best interests overall.

Now you are saying it is back to the good of the society as a whole. Make up your mind. You really don't think through your arguments do you?

See above. And btw, thinking through ones argument doesn't in itself mean you've got it right.

Let's suppose that for the moment that pedophilia or having a predisposition toward incest (between adults not children) is a normal condition and that for the sake of argument that you want to marry your own brother. In such a case would it be in your best interest as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? blah blah blah.

If it in some way effects the overall good of the whole of society, then yes. But that does not define it as abnormal in the absolute. Society balances the interests of the individual with that of the group. But again, that doesn't in itself define the individuals interests as abnormal in the absolute. In nature there are many animals that practice incestuous relationships. From the beginning of life the only form of sex was asexual. Would you call those practices abnormal?

And as many murders as we have in society, it seems to be a normal human predisposition. Anyone is capable of it under the right circumstances. So why should murderers be denied their right to self expression?

You thought this through did you?

See how weak your argument is? Of course you don't.

You haven't refuted it in the absolute yet Sparko, you have only defined normal/abnormal, good/evil, natural/unnatural, from a cultural perspective. Show me how you know these things to be true in the absolute.

[Epoetker]

And your argument is neither valid nor invalid since you haven't given one.

You can't argue without shared premises, which are ultimately based on shared experiences, whether in going to similar schools or speaking the same language. What sort of ass-backward experiences did you have that led you to accept all things on faith? I know faith means being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see", but it's the sort of thing that generally gets internalized for most people after experimentation and following their moral duties seriously rewards that faith.

When criticizing anothers thought process, at least, for arguments sake, try to supply one of your own. And btw, invoking imaginary beings as the source of ones thought doesn't help your credibility standing.

You, Tassman, and now even lao tzu have all made your primary arguments with a premise that fundamentally inverts realities as experienced by men with truth in their souls. You're either possessed by demons or all hitting your monthly cycle at the same time.

[Tassman]

Your history, like JimL's, is backwards, i.e., Satanic. The Civil rights movement, like the homosexual movement, or indeed like most liberal movements, from "immigration reform" to "spreading democracy," was an elitist movement against popular opinion. It also had the full support of the ruling class, so unless you seriously intend to maintain that George Wallace's local cops and good old boys were more powerful and influential than the US Council of Churches and the US National Guard, I would retract that statement immediately.