Those Liberal Social "Scientists"

[Tassman]

Did you even READ the article?

"By which I mean it's not really worth reading, but I was bored." to quote you from the other thread. What's good for the goose........

What "evidence"? You mean the numerous "studies" from incredibly biased persons who are peer reviewed by incredibly biased peers?

...by "biased" you mean studies that don't agree with your prepositions. Ah, "denial" is CP's middle name.

[Tassman]

The fact is that homosexuality is still a disorder. Regardless of what a radically liberal psychology claims.

The "fact is" that homosexuality is only seen as a "disorder" by those who want it to be for religious reasons or whatever. There's virtually no psychiatric association or related discipline in the word that views homosexuality as a disorder.

Please leave the thread.

Thanks

Oh my goodness! Jichard has the unmitigated gall to disagree with you. You never could handle effective opposition. Pity you can't produce an effective response other than just accusing your opponents of liberal bias.

[Adam]

...by "biased" you mean studies that don't agree with your prepositions.

Which "prepositions"? "from" or "by"?

[Adrift]

All this nonsense comes from idiocy I myself published about in 1970. I wrote on page 158 of "Philosophy as Science":
"At the moment, however, they are really "social anti-science" because they make generalizations based on assumptions which science can disprove."
http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1970jan-00155
Nothing has changed to make "social science" other than a laughable misnomer.

Never heard of the Mankind Quarterly journal. I was surprised to read the Wikipedia page on it. Wikipedia cites a number of pretty heavy criticism of it including that it's a "white supremacist journal", a "journal of 'scientific racism'", and that it has been criticized for being "strongly right-leaning, racist or fascist". Did you know about these critiques of the journal back then, or do you not think they are accurate for any reason?

[Adam]

That I have opinions like Chillanodon does not make me a monster. Facts are facts.

[Adrift]

That I have opinions like Chillanodon does not make me a monster. Facts are facts.

I don't know who that is.

[Adam]

aka Epoetker, someone unknown to me under that user name. I don't remember Epoetker from what little I read of him when I was inactive here, nor do I know Chillanodon from before he suddenly appeared here two months ago and almost persuaded me to keep supporting Trump.

[Adrift]

aka Epoetker, someone unknown to me under that user name.

Oh. I know who Epoetker is. Is he going by a new user name? What does he have to do with Mankind Quarterly?

[Adam]

Yes, he thundered in under the alias of "Chillanodon", but Bill the Cat spotted him as Epoetker and promptly banned him. Not before I sent him a few emails because our politics are alike, but I have no way of communicating with him further.
When I was re-reading my ten pages of "Philosophy as Science" I had this epiphany that I was reading what HE wrote. Very strange to find someone who thinks like me--but whom I regard as fundamentally alien to me, because he LIKES thinking like that, I tell the truth (however horrid) from my sense of duty.

[Adrift]

Yes, he thundered in under the alias of "Chillanodon", but Bill the Cat spotted him as Epoetker and promptly banned him. Not before I sent him a few emails because our politics are alike, but I have no way of communicating with him further.
When I was re-reading my ten pages of "Philosophy as Science" I had this epiphany that I was reading what HE wrote. Very strange to find someone who thinks like me--but whom I regard as fundamentally alien to me, because he LIKES thinking like that, I tell the truth (however horrid) from my sense of duty.

Epoetker is a racist. When you say you agree with his politics, are you saying that you acknowledge and accept that The Mankind Quarterly is a racist/white supremacist journal, and that you agree with white supremacist/racist views?

[Adam]

You're boring me now. Why is "racism" such an epithet? It's a perfectly legitimate world view, if you're talking about whether the sub-species of humans are fundamentally different. Surprise! Australian aborigines don't even have a volume concept. African bushmen don't smile or laugh. Negroids in Gabon have IQs averaging 60. Jews have higher IQs than other Whites. Am I shocking you? These are just facts of nature. I'm not a criminal to believe them.

If, in contrast, I were a member of the White Citizens Council (or more blue-collar, the Knights of the KKK) and made a daily practice of insulting Negroes, exploiting their labor, forcing them to live in poverty against their wills, then such a person would be a "racist" of the most contemptible kind. Then there are the racists who move to the lilly-White suburbs so they never have to look at a Negro. Yet they presume to look down their noses at people like me as scum, when they are "worse" racists than I am.
I am even a segregationist. I have studied Arthur R. Jensen's educational psychology at length (and published "Farewell to Behaviourism" in the Apr-June 1973 Mankind Quarterly to analyze the truths he discovered in the very act of trying to cover up truth). Negro brains are wired differently than White brains, they learn from perception; Whites, conception. They don't belong in the same classroom. Of course, most African-Americans are mixed-bloods, so there is the still insoluble problem of how to provide separate classrooms for the two types of minds. Octoroons belong with Whites in the main, but not always. And many lower-class Whites belong in the same classroom as pure Blacks! That's the fact that ruined segregationist theory; the last thing the "Poor Whites" want to think is that they are just like Negroes. So we go from bad (1950's Southern segregation) to worse (any American city of large size).
To distinguish myself from the "bad" racists, I call myself a "racialist".

[Adrift]

You're boring me now.

I asked, because I was sincerely curious if you knew what kind of journal The Mankind Quarterly was accused of being. I suppose I should have figured it out when you kept dodging the question, but I was giving you the satisfaction of the doubt that you didn't understand the question.

Why is "racism" such an epithet?

Riiight. That's all I needed to know.

[Adam]

So smug. So closed-minded.

[Jaecp]

So smug. So closed-minded.

Open it then. You evaded Adrift's original question and went off on a slight tangent. I generally enjoy reading your posts, but this is a somewhat curious thing to open up about and then not respond directly to the followup.

[Spartacus]

The fact is that homosexuality is still a disorder. Regardless of what a radically liberal psychology claims.

When the Catholic Church refers to homosexual desire as "objectively disordered," it is intended as a philosophical distinction, not specifically as a clinical diagnosis. I wonder what would happen, though, if various psychological or developmental disorders-- chronic depression, autism, and the like-- were successfully destigmatized.

On the particular topic of the OP, I'd say that people who understand just how radically different a situation or power structure might look from the outside should at least in principle be open to the idea that there is something they might miss because of ideological blinders.

We might also mention that Jonathan Haidt is one of the more articulate critics of a "coddling" campus culture. I don't think I find him entirely persuasive on that point, either, but in any case he seems to have made a gadfly of himself last year.