Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*L* You obviously don't understand what a straw man argument is. And statements of positions are based in beliefs, by the way.
Perhaps you should be discussing the statistical variation of human sexuality in a statistics forum. It's certainly strange that you'd be participating in a politics forum if you are only interested in quantifiable facts.
A statement of position can be founded on belief, but it requires no evidential support, no logical foundation.
A statement of knowledge requires evidential support and logical structure. (which was the context to which I was speaking, though it helps to read in context and not simply word pick)
You build straw mans based on the perception of what my argument is. That is, you take my point and manufacture intent, additional premises and then conclude based on your additions. This is a straw man. You create a position that I did not make so you can easily defeat it.
You lack an understanding of logical argument. You lack an understanding of basic definitions and their purpose in a discussion.
Why you do such, I have no idea. It could be that you are emotionally attached? Or it could be that you are deviously motivated? Or it could be that you are simply ignorant of the tools you use?
I honestly do not know.
As I said, if you spent more time discussing what is actually stated rather than creating the arguments of your objection, you might actually understand the points made.
A statement of position can be founded on belief, but it requires no evidential support, no logical foundation.
A statement of knowledge requires evidential support and logical structure. (which was the context to which I was speaking, though it helps to read in context and not simply word pick)
You build straw mans based on the perception of what my argument is. That is, you take my point and manufacture intent, additional premises and then conclude based on your additions. This is a straw man. You create a position that I did not make so you can easily defeat it.
You lack an understanding of logical argument. You lack an understanding of basic definitions and their purpose in a discussion.
Why you do such, I have no idea. It could be that you are emotionally attached? Or it could be that you are deviously motivated? Or it could be that you are simply ignorant of the tools you use?
I honestly do not know.
As I said, if you spent more time discussing what is actually stated rather than creating the arguments of your objection, you might actually understand the points made.
I suggest that you read Aristotle's Rhetoric as well as his Nicomachean Ethics. When convenient, you rely upon the identification of your argument, yes your argument, as episteme, which is beyond argument--"that which cannot be otherwise." You do so in order to dismiss any argument against the very argument that you are making. Examples, such as the one by the APA, have clearly be given in which the definition of normal is invoked not merely as mathematical configurations of normal and abnormal but as the binary to the pejorative abnormal. Definitions are a common topoi and thus things of rhetoric. Your statements are no mere statements of fact. You are merely utilizing the enthymeme, in which a premise or even a conclusion of the logical structure of the argument goes unstated and is left to the audience to fill in based on their values and beliefs.
We all know what lies at the heart of your argument because you are working from that all too obvious binary. You are invested in the normal/abnormal binary not because of a definition rooted in statistical deviation, but because it allows you to make the moral argument against homosexuality without having to explicitly say it. Thus, why your fellow homophobes see your argument for what it really is and why those who are not homophobes see it as well.
This is just another thread started by homosexual hating people like Luckygem, Normander and dcsld. And there will be others like them that will always moan and groan that here goes another gay thread, yet they cannot leave it alone and start another one and most of the time just so they can attack and bully gay people on this forum. This thread will evolve into an attack thread against gay people. I only read the first page and the last and it was already happening. This is getting out of hand and those that continue to attack gay people with their comments on this forum should be ashamed of their behavior and learn to act like intelligent adults. On a better note; Did anyone watch Ugly Betty tonight? It was a great episode.
I suggest that you read Aristotle's Rhetoric as well as his Nicomachean Ethics. When convenient, you rely upon the identification of your argument, yes your argument, as episteme, which is beyond argument--"that which cannot be otherwise." You do so in order to dismiss any argument against the very argument that you are making. Examples, such as the one by the APA, have clearly be given in which the definition of normal is invoked not merely as mathematical configurations of normal and abnormal but as the binary to the pejorative abnormal. Definitions are a common topoi and thus things of rhetoric. Your statements are no mere statements of fact. You are merely utilizing the enthymeme, in which a premise or even a conclusion of the logical structure of the argument goes unstated and is left to the audience to fill in based on their values and beliefs.
We all know what lies at the heart of your argument because you are working from that all too obvious binary. You are invested in the normal/abnormal binary not because of a definition rooted in statistical deviation, but because it allows you to make the moral argument against homosexuality without having to explicitly say it. Thus, why your fellow homophobes see your argument for what it really is and why those who are not homophobes see it as well.
Nice try though.
Assumptions are assumptions, no matter how we dress them up. That is, you can dress a pig up, but in the end it is still a pig.
You spend all of your time arguing your belief of my intent and purpose while completely ignoring what is stated and what is relevant to the discussion.
The only thing you accomplished with your response is to confuse most here, while still applying the same fallacious approach as before.
This is just another thread started by homosexual hating people like Luckygem, Normander and dcsld. And there will be others like them that will always moan and groan that here goes another gay thread, yet they cannot leave it alone and start another one and most of the time just so they can attack and bully gay people on this forum. This thread will evolve into an attack thread against gay people. I only read the first page and the last and it was already happening. This is getting out of hand and those that continue to attack gay people with their comments on this forum should be ashamed of their behavior and learn to act like intelligent adults. On a better note; Did anyone watch Ugly Betty tonight? It was a great episode.
Disregard the content of the argument, attack the character and feign victimization while doing it. Your claim is absurd.
When the law was created the DSM III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 3rd edition) classified homosexuality as a disease. With the publication of the 4th edition it was removed. There was great pressure put on the psychological community to have it removed. It was not removed due to a consensus. Even a consensus can be wrong. Remember there was once a great consensus that the Earth was flat but it didn't make it true.
Conservatives’ views toward science are totally distorted by the mainstream media but concerns about the public education system are correct and justified when over 80% of teachers self-identify as liberal.
Ah, poor Mr. Jackson. Even in death he can’t catch a break.
As a cognitive behaviorist (psychologist) I believe that homosexuality is a failure to successfully master one of Erikson’s eight stages of life development, specifically the fifth stage: Identity vs. Role-confusion. Erik Erikson Stages of Development No one chooses to be homosexual. But failing this stage of development means being gay will feel perfectly natural to the indivual so it is no wonder that so many homosexuals feel they were born this way. The whole human genome has been mapped and there has not been a “Gay Gene” found. It’s not genetic, it’s not a choice, it’s a learned behavioral condition.
[edit] Wow. 3 more pages were added while Iwas writing my message. This tread is going to have legs.
If you are really a psychologist, I'd be very surprised...and horrified. You've completely misunderstood and misapplied Erikson's Stages of Development if you are trying to use it to claim homosexuality is a "learned behavioural condition." You will not find your view accepted by the APA, only by those like that aberrant anti-gay religious fringe group NARTH.
This might help clear it up for you.
Quote:
The exploration of a sexual identity occurs within the context of the "presumption of heterosexuality" (Herdt 1989) that exists in American culture. Heterosexual adolescents spend little or no time considering their sexual identity as anything but heterosexual. However, the same is not true for homosexual adolescents. In American culture the homosexual is often degraded and stigmatized. This cultural context makes forming a sexual identity for the homosexual adolescent more challenging than for the heterosexual adolescent.
Following the pattern of identity development in general, homosexual adolescents may experience a period of confusion and exploration before accepting and committing to their homosexual identity. Adolescents who do not complete this process may feel isolated and guilty. This can lead to increased drug and alcohol abuse or even suicidal thoughts (Mondimore 1996). Regardless of orientation, the development of a clear sexual identity is important for the transition to Erikson's early adulthood stage of intimacy versus isolation.
Read more: Identity Development - Aspects of Identityhttp://social.jrank.org/pages/322/Identity-Development.html#ixzz0kW2jFZDo
By talking of "A Gay gene" (singular) you clearly don't understand the genetic studies, as no scientist ever claimed or expected to find a single gene that causes sexual orientation as it's far too complex. I suggest you read Mustanski's latest studies as well as all the hormonal/neurobiological/ studies.
As for your revisionist history of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM:
Quote:
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.
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.
]read more here
I'm betting you're just a student...but if not, you've got a looooong way to go before you should be allowed anywhere near any live clients, especially homosexual ones. If you are a practicing psychologist you really need to talk with your supervisor, do a LOT more study on sexual orientation, and read the APA's code of ethics.
And what's with calling yourself a "cognitive behaviorist"? That just sounds lame. CBT is just one form of therapy used by psychologists.
I know twenty years ago what I said WAS espoused as explanation for homosexuality by cognitive behaviorists. I don't know which group of psychologists holds the majority view today, if any.
I would not use the term "cured" since it has strong negative connotations. I would use a term like "changed" or "retrained" since it is a learned condition. Like all psychological learned behaviors it would be very hard to change but change is possible. It might never feel as 'right' to the homosexual as to someone who successfully mastered the identity vs. role confusion stage correctly the first time around though.
Wow. Perhaps you should also read the APA's latest 2009 report on SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts)
"The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.
Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation.
Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome."
I find it hard to believe that you're really a psychologist. If you are, you're certainly out of step with the consensus on whether or not sexual orientation can be changed.
This is just another thread started by homosexual hating people like Luckygem, Normander and dcsld. And there will be others like them that will always moan and groan that here goes another gay thread, yet they cannot leave it alone and start another one and most of the time just so they can attack and bully gay people on this forum. This thread will evolve into an attack thread against gay people. I only read the first page and the last and it was already happening. This is getting out of hand and those that continue to attack gay people with their comments on this forum should be ashamed of their behavior and learn to act like intelligent adults. On a better note; Did anyone watch Ugly Betty tonight? It was a great episode.
They get the Pink Bunny Award because their batteries just NEVER seem to run down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That and Biggest Loser
