Senal

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.

I don't think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?

Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?

There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.

For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.

I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?

That's a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.

"Deviations from the norm" would imply that there is a specific baseline "norm" to point at, when it's much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.

Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.

ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.

This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.

It's not a

"You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label" kind of thing,

it's more

"You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category"

Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs "some other thing" is a whole other giant kettle of fish.

And musical "talent" can have many sources, depending on your definition.

The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever

It's commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.

Look up what they used to call "Hysteria" and what that enabled them to justify as "medical procedures".

I'm sure there are people who legitimately think it's some sort of illness but i'd put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.

but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?

Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.

My personal opinion is that anything we do is "natural" as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.

Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.

It also heavily depends on your definition of "abnormal", for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?

Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”

They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.

The strict definition of the word abnormal isn't particularly useful here , it's only when it's given context that it makes sense.

My view is that the word "abnormal" when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.

If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by "normal"), then you might get more positive responses.

but that is the concensus is it not?

As far as i understand it, no, it is not.

They should pay for prophylactic counseling?

Yes, because prevention is superior to treatment after the fact in both outcomes & overall cost.

Though it seems you have a differing understanding of "Medically Necessary" to my own so i suspect we won't agree on this.

"For profit healthcare" is a misnomer is should be called something like "profit equilibrium maintenance : healthcare edition"

The best outcome for a "for profit" is profit, not healthcare. Given the choice between larger profits and better healthcare outcomes the profit will win out, every time.

Fair enough, i could probably also do with being a bit less sarcastic to things that might just be honest mistakes.

As a genuine question, what point are you maintaining, I've lost the thread and don't know which one you mean?

Wait, seriously....no..that can't possibly be true...

You do understand that the word trump exists outside of the name.... Right?

Oh my, im glad you didn't read the rest of it, so many complicated words.

Good luck, you are absolutely going to need it

You probably want to keep to DM's if you don't want conversation on a public message board.

Though I suppose a demonstrated lack of understanding of how public message boards work gives me my answer so, thanks.

Mathematically, probably yes.

Ethically and morally, debatable.

If you are going to be basing arguments on statements of fact your comparison should be factual.

One is subjective opinion and one is relatively objective fact ( assuming actual correctness and there not being some weird exception like a subset language or something ).

Unless you are personally the global arbiter of what is and isn't homophobia, in which case ignore me.

To be clear, i'm asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

when you say :

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has "nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism."

or was that just poor phrasing ?

Describe "real" rationality ?

I genuinely can't infer what you mean from that statement.

That's a lot of words to say "my beliefs trump basic science".

Peer review reproduction is a bit of a shambles tbh, so not the silver bullet people make it out to be in some fields, agreed.

So let's leave the science aside for now and focus on what you are proposing.

"Just eat less" is about as productive as "Just don't be sad" or "Just stop drinking alcohol", technically correct but woefully inadequate as a practical solution for most people.

edit: before you get even more angry i'm not saying that eating less and exercising more doesn't work, actually read the statement.

Aside from anecdotes and "trust me bro", what knowledge have you shared so far, what solutions ?

I'm legitimately willing to listen to something you can even halfway prove.