Toribash
Originally Posted by protonitron View Post
The fact that people with ADHD are not necessarily treated differently unless they can't handle it and end up causing trouble. To put this back on topic here is an analogy: If someone is gay then discrimination (the type you have talked about) against them is unjustified since the "disorder" to use your terminology has not caused any problems. If someone is gay and continuously hits on heterosexual guys who he knows he is making feel uncomfortable then he should probably seek some sort of specialist help because he is causing a problem. Now you might think this fits with your argument that discrimination is acceptable but I believe the same goes for heterosexual guys hitting on women, if they end up making people feel uncomfortable and don't care if a girl isn't interested then he should seek specialist help on account of causing a problem and making people feel uncomfortable.

You are right that as someone with ADHD I a) take medication and b) see specialists but you failed to mention the fact that nobody really enforces my medication, I have it as an option and I just carry packets of tablets around with me for when I need to concentrate, my dad chooses not to and is not discriminated for ADD at all. I see a specialist once a year so I can continue taking medication, it costs money to see them and it is a private company in my case. It isn't just a case of refusing or accepting medication, if I didn't want to take medication I could probably just continue with my life and nobody (except my close family and aforementioned specialists) would care until I started acting annoying.

In other words, you are comparing two things which are rather different and you don't understand one of them very well. Prejudicial discrimination is not the same as discrimination where discriminant has to ask to be discriminated beforehand. If a gay guy asks for medication to neuter them and is willing to pay for the prescription then sure, your analogy works, but I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I understand, but I don't think we are both on quite the same page as to what constitutes discrimination.

I think that many gays would not be happy with being offered medication, even if they are allowed to refuse. The insinuation that being a homosexual is a problem that needs to be fixed is discrimination. As your link illustrated, however, there is some cases where a patient is declared mentally incompetent and forced medication is allowed. To me just because you have the right to refuse, does not mean it's not discrimination. That's my opinion.

The key point for me are that it's identified as something that should be fixed.


That's for explaining your argument. You may think I asked for explanation just to fuck with you, but I did it because I wanted clarification.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
The fact is that ADHD is just an extreme at the end of a spectrum, some people will never be offered treatment or even know about it since it is pretty much a normal character trait which can get out of hand. If there was a situation where homosexuals were offered medication as soon as they were found to be homosexual even if the trait wasn't getting to the point where it was problematic in everyday life then this would be a more extreme case of discrimination than that of medication of ADHD since ADHD is very rarely diagnosed unless the behaviour is actually problematic. ADHD is tested through behavioural symptoms and people are unlikely to notice such symptoms in everyday life unless they are causing a problem.

If you are going to ague that since ADHD is a disorder it is inherently problematic and that unproblematic cases are not really ADHD then the comparison between it and homosexuality breaks down at the point where some homosexuals just keep quiet about it.
-----
Now lets focus on another analogy perhaps since this one isn't working very well.
Last edited by Zelda; Feb 16, 2015 at 05:13 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?

The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.

The logic behind my argument is the default position that all things should be legal until sufficient reasons are found to ban them, not the other way around.
If you disagree with that we disagree on a fundamental level.
Comparing homosexuality with criminality is an insult. Ignoring “do not harm others” clause makes no sense because it is the reason why those things cannot be compared.
Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
You're asking questions that you leave unanswered. Don't step abstractly around the point you're trying to make, come out and say it. If you truly believe what you're saying is correct and, as you mention later, we'll look pretty stupid in 40 years, then get the last laugh by saying explicilty what you're hinting at.

Sure, my point is that the argument is weak and arbitrary. It asserts that normalization is the future and so we should accept it so we don't look stupid. It makes no attempt to explain why people should jump on the bandwagon, simply that we should if we aren't stupid! Is this really a valid argument? We should do X for fear of looking stupid?

This "logic" can be applied to everything and anything. I won't accept it.

Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
I'm going to assume you're against gay marriage, possibly trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and afford a hopefully reasonable retort.

You can assume I'm here to challenge people's arguments and make sure they are consistent and logical.

If it makes it easier for you, feel free to assume whatever you want. If your assumption causes problems I'll challenge it in the future and we can discuss it further.

Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
The major weakness of your implied argument is whether homosexuality causes harm. Your only example to support that it is the political unrest that the gay rights movement has caused in several countries. The problem with this assertion is that it's assuming they would be harmful by default and cause unrest anyways. Would that be true? Hard to say, as homosexuality in the modern era has existed almost solely in a hostile environment, with threat of ostracism, both socially and economically, and death. And in such an environment, discontent and unrest is not uncommon amongst any group. So it would be rather unfair, and illogical, to assume that homosexuality is harmful solely based on a revolt against the social order.

I don't think I implied such a thing, I just challenged the assertion that it was harmless. Here is my reply to RedPanda who made the same point (albeit not as well):
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
I'm just challenging the assertion that homosexuality is harmless. If we were to tally up the good and bad aspects, would we really come up with a net positive impact? I find it somewhat hard to believe, there's very rarely any discussion about the positive aspects of having a society where homosexuality is normalized, but there are often very specific complaints from people about why they dislike homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
Bringing criminality into this discussion, and saying why do we punish criminality but shouldn't punish homosexuality if they are both genetically linked is a red herring at it's finest. That being said, I'll take it on briefly before never touching it again, as it's irrelevant. Criminality, by definition, is conflicting and detrimental to society. Homosexuality was once synonymous with criminality, but that was based on religious views to sodomy. In a modern take, there is nothing inherently conflicting about homosexuality with society, other than the current pursuit of rights. Criminality is still conflicting with society. There are not enough similarities between homosexuality and criminality's influence on society to use them as suitable parallels for the sake of this argument.

I think you missed the point. Both homosexuality and criminality are essentially determined by the same things (biology, hormones, social factors). Your attack seems to be specifically against drawing any parallel. Although I think it's fine to draw this parallel, you can replace "criminality" with anything that is determined by biology/hormones/social factors. For example, obesity, mental illness, etc.

The point was to illustrate that the same argument can be applied to a wide range of things, and so we should decide whether it's a good argument or not: "Banning X or limiting the rights of X is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." where X is something that is determined by biology/hormones/social factors. Is it a good argument or not? Is it an argument that can ONLY be applied to homosexuality, or is it a universal argument?

You say no, it's not universal, because criminals may be criminals, but they are detrimental. There's also the second cause about harm though, so I think that filters out criminals of most kinds anyway.

Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
Lastly, another red herring that I will address only once, we treat mental disorders because, in the majority of situations, they are detrimental to and/or unwanted by the afflicted. The vast majority of people with mental disorders are those with anxiety and depression, and a near entirety do not want to have those disorders. The relatively few people with more difficult disorders like schizophrenia or dementia often lack the cognitive capabilities to realize their situation, but the disorder is actively detrimental to their well-being, often robbing them of their abilities to care for themselves. The similarities between homosexuality and mental disorders stop at genetic disposition. The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection. And homosexuality is not detrimental to a person's well-being.

You make some fairly wild claims: "The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection.". Do you have a particular study that shows this?

Also again it seems to come down to "is it detrimental", which has not particularly been discussed in the case of homosexuality, and in the broader LGBTQIA+++ sense (eg MPD or dysphoria are seen as "normal" and acceptable despite being detrimental). Should we deny normalization of transexuals or otherkin or multiple systems?
-----
Originally Posted by Redundant View Post
The logic behind my argument is the default position that all things should be legal until sufficient reasons are found to ban them, not the other way around.
If you disagree with that we disagree on a fundamental level.

No, we agree on that point.
Originally Posted by Redundant View Post
Comparing homosexuality with criminality is an insult. Ignoring “do not harm others” clause makes no sense because it is the reason why those things cannot be compared.

How exactly is it an insult? You know I'm not saying homosexuals are criminals, right? It's just a parallel. You wouldn't be insulted by driving past a sewage treatment plant, would you?

I did not ignore that clause, read my post.
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Feb 16, 2015 at 05:39 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I suppose I misinterpreted you then. That is what I was referring to.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?

Ok, I am willing to be the first to try to think of ways which homosexuality can detriment society. I might not be very good at it.

-I'm pretty sure but-sex is rather dangerous in terms of infections and stuff, and although but-sex isn't just for gay guys, it is bound to increase if more people become homosexual.
-This link is full of shit but it looks like 1 or 2 of its points might actually have some degree of relevance or validity.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Redundant View Post
I suppose I misinterpreted you then. That is what I was referring to.

Meaning: "Apart from that criminals cause harm, their situation can be seen as similar to homosexuals", not "who gives a shit if they cause harm".

Originally Posted by protonitron View Post
The fact is that ADHD is just an extreme at the end of a spectrum, some people will never be offered treatment or even know about it since it is pretty much a normal character trait which can get out of hand. If there was a situation where homosexuals were offered medication as soon as they were found to be homosexual even if the trait wasn't getting to the point where it was problematic in everyday life then this would be a more extreme case of discrimination than that of medication of ADHD since ADHD is very rarely diagnosed unless the behaviour is actually problematic. ADHD is tested through behavioural symptoms and people are unlikely to notice such symptoms in everyday life unless they are causing a problem.

If you are going to ague that since ADHD is a disorder it is inherently problematic and that unproblematic cases are not really ADHD then the comparison between it and homosexuality breaks down at the point where some homosexuals just keep quiet about it.
-----
Now lets focus on another analogy perhaps since this one isn't working very well.

I'm not going to argue specifics, I don't really think it's relevant as to the exact nature of ADHD or it's diagnosis, or whether medicating homosexuality would be considered more discriminatory than medicating ADHD. I disagree with some of what you said, but honestly it doesn't matter.

Both can be seen as traits of a person, that's the extent of the parallel.

I am not going to argue that ADHD is inherently problematic, I'm going to argue that it is often treated as a problem. No matter how extreme your homosexuality is, you aren't going to be medicated.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Regarding that photo that was posted from the parade. I find the man in the photo stupid, and probably needs help. You can't judge all homosexuals based on one man. I don't act at all like he does. You would NOT be able to tell I was gay until I brought up that I was gay. Every gay is different, just like every straight person is different.
Bottom line, there is no problem with being a homosexual as long as you don't tell other people that they have to accept your beliefs, just like there's no problems from being religious or Democratic or Republican. In America, every man has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

So if slobbing a knob is how you pursue your happiness, more power to you.
What is everyone's opinion on a gay couple having a child?