You’re wasting everyone’s time by saying you’ve given the evidence but then not just repeating the evidence.
I’m not a homosexual. I suspect you might be, given how sure you are about their demographics without needing to reference any research. The only way to be so sure of that without research is first hand experience, right?
“You are ungappy with my standards, I am unhappy with yours“, no, I have standards and you don’t. Everyone with standards agrees with my standards: support it with research. That’s what it looks like to have standards about a question like this.
Well, I can see this affects you emotionally. That’s natural, it’s a pretty horrifying subject.
To answer the previous poster: the reason I ask is that it may give us a solid ground on which to build a less abstract discussion, one way or the other. Trauma is frightningly common, it’s almost guaranteed that Freud himself was a victim. He was still a pivotal psychologist.
I won’t take your “gappy homosexual” answer at face value, if you don’t mind, as I believe you meant it rhetorically.
If this was a response to my post, guess what you didn’t respond to any point made.
Then in general: you focused on the word ‘believe.’ In philosophy that word generally is not the verb form of how some everyday speech uses ‘belief’. Something people are certain of without evidence. In philosophy the term is used rather differently. There are justified beliefs and unjustifed ones, for example.
But let me change the question since you seem unfamiliar with that.
What leads you to assert that all perversion is caused by sexual abuse?
What reasons are there for considering this knowledge rather than just a claim?
Was that supposed to be gappy or was it meant to be happy?
The answer is nothing though. What you write is about what you make it about.
If you are not writing about being a gappy homosexual, then it has nothing to do with it.
Interesting proposition, but thats an endless rabbithole.
You could call matter a perversion because it was supposed to all balance out with antimatter and fade into nothing but energy.
You could call being born a perversion because the default state is not being alive.
You could call life a perversion because thats absolutely not how matter is supposed to work.
You could call even self-awareness a perversion because its the product of abstract information processing and thus a glitch of your brain.
This leads to the next question: Do you propose that perversion is not supposed to exist?
Need it be eradicated and fought?
The entirety of existence and universe from its very start to its very end is full of perversion if you go by the definition you proposed. Are we arguing that everything needs to return into a state equilibrium and proverbial nothingness?
What’s the point in arguing about it? All you are doing is quibbling over whether it’s in the lower or higher nineties. It doesn’t invalidate anything that I’ve said. Saying statistics ‘don’t mean anything’ because of an estimated number of ‘unreported’ cases (impossible to prove) is just pathetic. Obviously ‘non reporting’ is going to be female as well as male. Why are you assuming that all the ‘non reporting’ is committed by women?? I never once said that NO women commit sexual assault, but the numbers are so small compared to men that no one in their right might could call it a ‘female crime’. You don’t seem to have any problem with the 100% claims of someone else on here, and she’s saying that it’s true because ‘God’ told her that
Yes. On the other hand you could speculate that purpose only becomes possible with matter. So purpose itself is then a perversion?
I only remember being. I can’t see how my default state is not existing.
For something to have a default state it must exist?
There definitely is a case to be made for self awareness as perversion. Like Rust in True Detective does.
But on the whole, all these examples illustrate my point; why is homosexuality perverse and not being itself? It just like, occurs.
Whats more the question is if it harms people.
Homosexuality as such does not. Rape does. But so does creating manifestations in the national landscape to rub everyone’s face in your sexual practices and then call them fascists for not being all too enticed about it;
That may even be the real perversion, the closest thing to being actually uprooted from grounds, that the most radical of these lbtq activists may be unfamiliar with actual sexual pleasure, and only get pleasure out of having it as an identity, as a reason for feeling special, and simply do not have the criteria in their lives to even fathom that people might find it displeasurable to look at their ugly shit.
I think that that which harms other people should be contained. So rapists should be imprisoned, and someone who has sex with an actual child is kind of a rapist by definition as an actual child literally doesn’t have the mental instruments to non/consent.
I also think that peoples sexuality should not be enforced on other people.
It was google-dictionary’s first definition.
So I found that interesting,
The second definition it gives of perversion is deviance from norms. By that standard, it becomes just a matter of culture.
I think the universe is inherently ‘sexual’ in a broader sense, made out of attraction, and I think that homosexuality is just one reflection of this, and heterosexuality is the norm because it leads to synthesis and procreation, which is a more advanced aspect of the universe.
I think it is lower than the 90s but what a weird thing to say. You are continuing the ‘argument.’ You could roll model: or act like you suggest others act.
I didn’t say statistics don’t mean anything. In fact, my response used statistics. 2) Actually there are pretty good statistics about the unreported cases, when you compare surveys to reporting to the police. 3) Why are you pathetic? Is there a reason you nearly always insult anyone you disagree with?
I think you mean the non-reporting is more common with women perpetrators. If you meant what you wrote, well I didn’t say that.
Actually there are statistics that show that men are less likely to report sexual abuse in general than women and then when the perpetrator is female even less so. Also there is evidence that women boys more than has been reported, especially to the police. It might have helped if you read what I wrote.
The only person I can think of who said 100% is Mary-Poppins and I’ve disagreed with her a number of times, and directly related to her 100%. So, it must be someone else who for some reason you don’t mention. I’d ask but I’ll go back to avoiding your posts.
Insults, not-reading, poor arguments. You and Mary-P make a nice pair.
Well, if you find the fortitude to go back to the relevant message and find this answer, and have anything to respond, I will happily discuss it with you!
If you go back to that post, and still cannot see it, then I’m afraid no amount of discussion will do.
Perhaps you should learn to read then. The word ‘commnitted’ wouldn’t sanely be used to apply to a victim of a non-reported crime. Plus, given the vast difference in REPORTED statistics between men and women then the only logical assumption to make (since you are into assumptions) is that the unreported offenders are nearly all men as well. Logic really isn’t that hard.
Again, you made a lot of assertions. What do you base those assertions on? Yes, I read that post. If you go back and read that post yourself, and still cannot see that it is many claims without justification, then I’m afraid we are at an impasse right now.
Where did you get this information?
Or this claim?
You compare it to starvation without justifying that these phenomena function structurally the same. Also it isn’t a parallel. Starvation is not getting enough food to survive. Perversion can have any degree of sex or pleasure or even what is confused with pleasure if that is what is happening. It’s another fallacy of analogy unless you justify that these two phenomena are structurally the same somehow.
Claim without justification.
This sounds neo-freudian, but let’s pick the nine months. Where’d ya get that number of months? If its gestation related, let’s see the sources of that knowledge because I don’t think you’re right at all. It’s certainly not justified here, just claimed.
so you claim, but justify this. The research shows otherwise.
Even if you were somehow more correct than the studies out there, you’d need to show that’s why they are hated. Has nothing to do with, for example, people acting in ways the other sex should move, or what it feels like to see same sex kissing, and so on.
Anyway. You made a bunch of claims but that does not an argument make.
You have
unsupported causality, made up statistics and circular reasoning.
But of course you’re insulting.
I don’t expect anyone to agree. The more anybody understands what I’m writing, the more agreement will seem entirely superfluous. These are existing threads of psychological study that I have weaved. Anybody knowledgeable enough will simply study the weave, judge its quality.
All this talk of agreement, belief. I think you misunderstand what peer review is for. It’s not meant as a seal of guarantee of truth for the layman. It’s meant to help researchers stay abreast of what each other is doing.
So the question is; are you annoyed that I am trying to convince you, or are you annoyed that I am not?
My reasoning is fairly clear, simple, and traditional. Complain if you want. It’s your dollar.
Well thats what im saying. How far do you want to take the definition of “disruption of somethings original purpose“. If you wanted to, there is ample opportunity to argue that purpose is perversion since everything strives towards negation and equilibrium. A state of having no purpose.
There are layers and levels but lets put it this way: The stuff you consist of. The atoms, the energy, the matter. It has been here for trillions of years if not longer, in a state that is devoid of “you”.
Everything you consist of has a default state of not being “you”.
So are “you” are perversion of the universe?
As for taking it so far that we speak of existence itself, thats a great question.
Some argue that nonexistence is not even a function of this universe because matter cannot be destroyed. It can be endlessly transformed and even dispersed. But never removed.
What if i were to say that the default state of the universe is the 0 dimensional dot?
You are not wrong about that. Its pretty much correct.
But this context has no morality, ethics, good or bad to it. Everything “occurs”. Everything that can be, “is”. Homosexuality occurs the same way geniuses and saints occur, or for that matter murderers and pedophiles.
Homosexuality is not perverse or bad or anything just because it occurs. Its a fact of nature. It simply is.
As usual the problem is how big of a net you cast.
Does it harm anyone if i am born a homosexual? No. How would it? How could it?
Does it harm anyone if i claim myself to be a homosexual? Well… my closest human relationships, my parents and such might have to readjust. Might hurt their expectations. Does it HARM anyone though? No.
Does it harm anyone if i start to speak up for the “rights” of homosexuals and start to make demands towards the rest of the world, trying to change society legislatively? If i start to “carve” a part out of the world for my own preferences and norms?
Yes. Friction and debate starts here.
Does it harm anyone if i become an LGBT activist and start to “educate” 8 year old children on how its perfectly normal for them to be attracted towards my @@@@ and i start teach them how to do a rimjob safely and correctly? Yes. Yes, there is a good chance that this could harm people. Including me. For a good reason too.
I think the same way because it is actions that should be punished and not thoughts.
There are caveats and middle grounds, but ultimately i think the same thing. If someone causes harm, that harm should have consequence.
But going ahead of harm and trying to make blanket statements about entire groups of people will inevitably land you in a position where you have swept up innocents who had done absolutely nothing and are also not guilty of anything you are projecting onto their group.
Im willing to almost say that this is my universal view about sexuality in general. Whether its a hetero, a gay or even a pedophile, it should always come down to the same question: Was there harm?
If no, then what exactly are we talking about?
I’d use the word duality.
Yes. Positive and negative forces.
And yes. Of course the entire universe is like that in a broader sense.
This is in fact an all permeating law of this existence. It remains true to physics, biology, psychology, sociology and WAY more.
Take away one side of the duality, and everything comes to a standstill.
Whether its an atom, an engine, a cell, a newborn’s motivation or a welfare state: Whether you remove the positive or the negative, everything stops and you will be left with something that is completely, totally and inherently inert.
This is one of the things i find rather curious, cause there is hardly any mainstream knowledge circulating about this. That life and pretty much everything can only exist in the eye of the storm between good and bad.
Trying to exclude the bad things and negative experiences from one’s life does just as much damage as the opposite.
