2 ms·

>Convinced, as a scientific establishment, that your theories/dogmas about being straight/gay are correct, and subjecting the "sick" into electroshocks is not p

>Convinced, as a scientific establishment, that your theories/dogmas about being straight/gay are correct, and subjecting the "sick" into electroshocks is not persecution? That's exactly right! The intent behind the medical practices you list is not to oppress, but to cure. It's misguided, horrific, tragic, etc., but persecution it is not. >What's the definition of persecution you are using that doesn't include such cases? The usual one. Citing Merriam-Webster: 1. to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief 2. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) The key point is that persecution is generally understood to require some sort of punitive or retaliatory intent, which is not at all the case of the practices you mention. Moreover, you seem to be confusing "the scientific community" with "the political community", the latter of which is largely responsible for the misuse of scientific discovery in cases of actual persecution. N.B.: none of this was done in the name of science. To say that science has persecuted mankind to the extent that religion has is patently absurd. In fact, and with my sincerest respect (really!), much of your above posts are absurd, conflating political/ideological persecution with varying forms of misguided medicine, recklessness, short-sightedness, etc. To be sure, these are all Bad Things, but persecution is a rather narrowly-defined concept, especially in colloquial use.

coldtea 10y ago
>The intent behind the medical practices you list is not to oppress, but to cure. It's misguided, horrific, tragic, etc., but persecution it is not. That's wrong. For one, the church also did legitimately believe that they were curing (saving the soul, etc) of those they persecuted. So the "good intentions" of those doing such acts is not the defining criterion. Second, such science was used to promote political and moral agendas (there was nothing to cure in a homosexual, and even less in more blatant cases, e.g. putting people in favor of black civil rights or women's rights/suffrage in psychiatric asylums or shock treatment). Here's but one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis There are of course other places that used similar techniques (from USSR and Nazi Germany to Britain, nordic countries and beyond). >Moreover, you seem to be confusing "the scientific community" with "the political community", the latter of which is largely responsible for the misuse of scientific discovery in cases of actual persecution. The scientific community was (and still is in various cases) complicit in adopting the political ideas (or promoting them in the first place), assisting those in power with scientific (or "scientific") theories and diagnoses, and enforcing them in practice. It was actual doctors, with degrees et al, that did those things, not politicians...

coldtea 10y ago

>The intent behind the medical practices you list is not to oppress, but to cure. It's misguided, horrific, tragic, etc., but persecution it is not. That's wrong. For one, the church also did legitimately believe that they were curing (saving the soul, etc) of those they persecuted. So the "good intentions" of those doing such acts is not the defining criterion. Second, such science was used to promote political and moral agendas (there was nothing to cure in a homosexual, and even less in more blatant cases, e.g. putting people in favor of black civil rights or women's rights/suffrage in psychiatric asylums or shock treatment). Here's but one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis There are of course other places that used similar techniques (from USSR and Nazi Germany to Britain, nordic countries and beyond). >Moreover, you seem to be confusing "the scientific community" with "the political community", the latter of which is largely responsible for the misuse of scientific discovery in cases of actual persecution. The scientific community was (and still is in various cases) complicit in adopting the political ideas (or promoting them in the first place), assisting those in power with scientific (or "scientific") theories and diagnoses, and enforcing them in practice. It was actual doctors, with degrees et al, that did those things, not politicians...