6 ms·
The correct response is that "disease" doesn't carve reality at the joints. The sort of people that would call homosexuality a disease are doing it so they can
by solveit 8y ago
The correct response is that "disease" doesn't carve reality at the joints. The sort of people that would call homosexuality a disease are doing it so they can then conclude "therefore, it must be cured". They're taking a noncentral example of "disease" and wildly generalizing.
See also: "MLK was a criminal and therefore was bad/should be locked up", "Taxation is theft and therefore bad", etc etc
- cameldrv 8y agoVery good point. I studied a lot of Philosophy in college, and the postmodernist movement drove me nuts, but Foucault had a very good point in his paper on mental illness, that mental illness is socially constructed. The way I'd formulate the definition of a disease is that it's an atypicality that has a significant negative impact. What's a negative impact though? That's a value judgment, and most everyone has a value system that agrees in cases like cancer, but not on homosexuality. It's even situationally dependent. There is evidence that soldiers that measure higher on measures of psychopathy are more effective in conventional combat because they do not hesitate to kill.
- peteretep 8y agoand: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-mad...