3 ms·

> Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either

> Is there any possible evidence anyone could show you which would convince you this position is wrong? For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either show me that entrenched media and political organizations aren't exacerbating existing, previously rather benign, divisions in society. And creating new ones. Or, you'd have to convince me that I'm interpreting what I'm seeing in American politics and public life, the wrong way. It would be a tough sell, but is theoretically possible. For the other part, perhaps I overstated my case with the "320 million groups", but with regard to the contention that there are two buckets in direct opposition that Americans are naturally sorting themselves into - no, I don't think you can convince me of that. At least, I'm not sure how. > I don't know, do you think people choose to be straight or bi? Do you think a straight person could choose to be gay, or either of them choose to be bi, or vice-versa(-vice-versa)? Because if you can't really choose to be another way, it isn't a choice the way the term is used in this context, and you're being obfuscatory. I think people choose to be straight or bi or gay in much the same way people choose to be good at math, or enjoy science fiction. Which is to say, some of it is innate, and some of it might also be upbringing, or other environmental factors. I guess 'choice' isn't the right way to put it as you say, I'm just not convinced it is 100% genetic in every case. And, I mean, you often hear that sexual orientation is more of a continuum rather than a binary choice (or ternary, or whatever). And if that's true, then it seems there is an element of choice involved. To what degree, I can't say. But, I will remind you that you're completely ignoring my point on that, which is that it doesn't fucking matter. Even if it was 100% free choice and a straight person could choose to be attracted to the same sex instead, or vice-versa[0], it should have no bearing on anything at all, other than what happens in that person's bedroom. And that person should be able to come out as gay, and marry their partner of choice, etc etc., and suffer absolutely no social or legal or workplace or whatever repercussions at all. Obviously. You're demonstrating my point here. I am quite confident that when it comes to LGBT issues, you and I would agree on just about every single item of actual consequence. But, because I apparently hold a few guiding principles as opinions, which you don't agree with (which, by the way, are absolutely open to debate and not set in stone at all), instead of looking at me as an ally, I'm an adversary instead. So it goes with much of America these days. [0] (for the record, I do not believe this is the case, but for the sake of argument...)

cbd1984 12y ago
> For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either show me that entrenched media and political organizations aren't exacerbating existing, previously rather benign, divisions in society. And creating new ones. Or, you'd have to convince me that I'm interpreting what I'm seeing in American politics and public life, the wrong way. It would be a tough sell, but is theoretically possible. How about convincing you they weren't doing it deliberately, but instead were chasing ratings using controversy and not caring about long-term societal results? > For the other part, perhaps I overstated my case with the "320 million groups", but with regard to the contention that there are two buckets in direct opposition that Americans are naturally sorting themselves into - no, I don't think you can convince me of that. At least, I'm not sure how. Fair enough. I think the two-bucket thinking is wrong, myself. > I am quite confident that when it comes to LGBT issues, you and I would agree on just about every single item of actual consequence. Except, perhaps, one: Do you think people should be able to sell reparative therapy, which is billed as a way to make gay people straight? (No, it's never used to make straight people gay, and I've never heard of it being applied to bis or asexuals.) If you think being gay is due even in part to environmental factors, then reparative therapy would have to be able to do something according to your hypothesis; however, it's been shown to be completely ineffective, which is evidence for the 'completely innate' hypothesis. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
- deciplex 12y ago
  > If you think being gay is due even in part to environmental factors, then reparative therapy would have to be able to do something according to your hypothesis. This is false. Even if sexual orientation is due in part to environmental factors, that does not imply mutability once established. To answer your question, I don't think it should be allowed in principle - probably not for anyone but particularly not for minors. The effectiveness of the treatment has not been established at all, for one, and it causes a variety of disturbing side effects in people in the form of serious mental health issues, regardless of the outcome of the 'treatment'. For that matter, since sexual orientation is not a mental health issue in the first place, it's impossible to justify treatment even if it is effective. If reparative therapy were a pill, and I were the FDA, there is no way in hell it would pass human trials. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even make it to human trials. This is complicated somewhat by the fact that psychological treatment (i.e. as opposed to psychiatric treatment which involves medication) is more lightly regulated in many jurisdictions, if at all. Perhaps that should also change. But especially in the case of minors, and especially for reparative therapy in particular, where in the overwhelming majority of cases parents are clearly not approaching it from the perspective of what's best for their child - no it should not be allowed. > How about convincing you they weren't doing it deliberately, but instead were chasing ratings using controversy and not caring about long-term societal results? I don't think that's exclusive to using media for social control. In fact, it's sort of an important part of it, since you need everyone paying attention and giving all the bullshit the undue consideration it totally doesn't deserve. To be clear, I don't think there is a single grand conspiracy to bring all of Western civilization under the control of a handful of oligarchs, and that this conspiracy involves media control. Rather, I think that various psychopaths in positions of power are involved in various petty conspiracies with other psychopaths, and some of these people happen to own media organizations. And, probably some of them have also convinced themselves that in fact they are involved in such a grand conspiracy - it would be something to point out and laugh at if the effects of it weren't so awful.

cbd1984 12y ago

> For the "fanning the flames" part, you'd have to either show me that entrenched media and political organizations aren't exacerbating existing, previously rather benign, divisions in society. And creating new ones. Or, you'd have to convince me that I'm interpreting what I'm seeing in American politics and public life, the wrong way. It would be a tough sell, but is theoretically possible. How about convincing you they weren't doing it deliberately, but instead were chasing ratings using controversy and not caring about long-term societal results? > For the other part, perhaps I overstated my case with the "320 million groups", but with regard to the contention that there are two buckets in direct opposition that Americans are naturally sorting themselves into - no, I don't think you can convince me of that. At least, I'm not sure how. Fair enough. I think the two-bucket thinking is wrong, myself. > I am quite confident that when it comes to LGBT issues, you and I would agree on just about every single item of actual consequence. Except, perhaps, one: Do you think people should be able to sell reparative therapy, which is billed as a way to make gay people straight? (No, it's never used to make straight people gay, and I've never heard of it being applied to bis or asexuals.) If you think being gay is due even in part to environmental factors, then reparative therapy would have to be able to do something according to your hypothesis; however, it's been shown to be completely ineffective, which is evidence for the 'completely innate' hypothesis. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

deciplex 12y ago
> If you think being gay is due even in part to environmental factors, then reparative therapy would have to be able to do something according to your hypothesis. This is false. Even if sexual orientation is due in part to environmental factors, that does not imply mutability once established. To answer your question, I don't think it should be allowed in principle - probably not for anyone but particularly not for minors. The effectiveness of the treatment has not been established at all, for one, and it causes a variety of disturbing side effects in people in the form of serious mental health issues, regardless of the outcome of the 'treatment'. For that matter, since sexual orientation is not a mental health issue in the first place, it's impossible to justify treatment even if it is effective. If reparative therapy were a pill, and I were the FDA, there is no way in hell it would pass human trials. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even make it to human trials. This is complicated somewhat by the fact that psychological treatment (i.e. as opposed to psychiatric treatment which involves medication) is more lightly regulated in many jurisdictions, if at all. Perhaps that should also change. But especially in the case of minors, and especially for reparative therapy in particular, where in the overwhelming majority of cases parents are clearly not approaching it from the perspective of what's best for their child - no it should not be allowed. > How about convincing you they weren't doing it deliberately, but instead were chasing ratings using controversy and not caring about long-term societal results? I don't think that's exclusive to using media for social control. In fact, it's sort of an important part of it, since you need everyone paying attention and giving all the bullshit the undue consideration it totally doesn't deserve. To be clear, I don't think there is a single grand conspiracy to bring all of Western civilization under the control of a handful of oligarchs, and that this conspiracy involves media control. Rather, I think that various psychopaths in positions of power are involved in various petty conspiracies with other psychopaths, and some of these people happen to own media organizations. And, probably some of them have also convinced themselves that in fact they are involved in such a grand conspiracy - it would be something to point out and laugh at if the effects of it weren't so awful.