Here I hope to illustrate my original post and its intent. I will make commentary but will do so outside the quote, leaving the original quote intact, thus I might not be accused of backpedaling. By all means, compare to my original post if you think I've made changes.
I encourage you to do two things, and you will find that applying these principles will open your mind to many other debates: first, pretend you never read the original post; imagine you are reading it in the light I have repeatedly told you it was intended; second, make sure you read every word, not just the most recent commentary, or you are certain to return to your former conclusions.
Consider, dear Cobb, that Ender might not be a bigot, that he might not have changed his story at all, but that perhaps you have misunderstood him. And for future exercises, I encourage you to challenge your views often, even arguing on behalf of the opposite POV at times. You'll learn something, and you might better understand where your opponent is coming from.
darth_ender said:
Here's one that is sure to offend.
When the DSM IV (the manual for diagnosing psychiatric conditions, 4th edition) came out, homosexuality was removed.
In the DSM III, homosexuality was considered a disorder. See? Something changed, based on society's change of views.
Very recently the DSM V came out, changing transsexualism so that it in itself is not a psychiatric disorder, but the dissatisfaction with one's body which doesn't match one's internal gender is the disorder.
Another more recent change, reflecting more recent changes in views.
While I am not here to argue the morality or anything of such things, I wish to point out the politics and imprecise nature of psychiatric conditions.
End of paragraph one, which is often where one summarizes the point he/she will argue, as I have done in this sentence.
While we know why we have a heart, why it beats, what is going wrong when it beats incorrectly, what may cause cardiac conditions or what effects cardiac conditions may cause, etc, we know so very little about psychiatric conditions. When someone is having congestive heart failure, they receive a diagnosis based on the root cause, not the subsequent fluid buildup in lungs, lower extremities, lab results, etc. However in psychiatric conditions, we do not label based on the root cause, but rather the manifestation. So for whatever biological reasons a person may be severely depressed or seeing things that are not there, no matter how varied the root cause, they will receive a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. My point: psychiatry/psychology is a far less precise science.
A sub-point that illustrates the main point.
How is this relevant? Well, with such imprecision, it allows for a society to redefine psychiatric conditions with ease, depending on the prevailing winds of societal wisdom. Today, as Bruce Jenner transitions into Caitlyn Jenner, transgender rights and acceptance are at the forefront of many minds, particularly those who consider themselves very open-minded.
Introducing an example, neither arguing for or against it.
So let me challenge that open-mindedness. Are these changes always right? Or perhaps do they not go far enough?
In other words, I am challenging both those who consider themselves liberal and conservative today. Is accepting Bruce Jenner and other transexuals the pinnacle of acceptance and tolerance, or is it in fact not accepting enough, as there may be others out there we today condemn, yet in the future might accept. Do I know what these newly accepted demographics might comprise? Nope. However, I can give some hypothetical examples, not because I necessarily think they should or will be accepted, not because I believe they are morally equivalent, but because they might illustrate my point of how views, both political and psychiatric can change.
For instance, the differences in sexual orientation are in many ways analogous to the differences between normal adults and pedophiles.
I knew this would offend initially, but I believed that a little rational discussion would show that I am not equating. Imagine this letter I made up.
"Dear Mom and Dad,
I have to confess something I've hidden for years. I have a different sexual orientation. I do not find the same people attractive that you have always thought I did. I have tried to hide it, suppress it for so long, but I no longer can. I have wanted to wish it away, knowing the social ostracism I will receive having come out, but I couldn't. I don't want this, but it's who I am.
Your loving son"
Now I made this up, but were you to read it for the first time, you would likely applaud the coming out of a homosexual male. But what if I were to tell you that this is actually the letter of a pedophile? You might be shocked, even disgusted that this pedophile would show his face. And even if you are not so judgmental, others certainly would be. Nevertheless, the attraction these people feel is very real, and thus I said it was analogous. Is every analogy perfect? No. I read three parables of Jesus today, and obviously I value his teachings tremendously. However, if one digs not too far, it is easy to find where the analogy does not fit. But if we are only looking at the point at hand, not delving into certain aspects, then the analogy works for the purposes intended.
There is a huge difference that infringes upon my analogy which you and Ryan McAvoy have already presented: consent. I agree wholeheartedly, 199%. Homosexuality should be both legal and socially acceptable, while pedophilia should not. One is between consenting adults and leaves no victims. Pedophilia does not.
However, I used this analogy for the reasons I illustrated with the letter. There are similarities. And I used the historical justification and the idea of parental consent not because I believe these will return (I certainly hope not), but to create another parallel: there is historical precedent, much as people have shown precedence in historical homosexuality and transsexualism. Could things swing towards permitted pedophilia, at least in certain circumstances? I hope not. But they just might.
This however is not equating the two.
I am certain this will cause offense, but the parallels are many, regardless. The big difference is that it is socially wrong for adults to have sexual relations with children. Similarly, there are those who wish to have sex with animals, or sex with close relatives, but such things are not acceptable socially.
The first analogy was not my point, as you seem to make it, but rather an example to illustrate my point, and here I've provided two others, including one which violates no one's rights: incest between consenting adults. Do I think these are equal to homosexuality? Nope. Do I think they should be socially acceptable? Nope. Could they be permitted at a later time? Who knows? Maybe. Most easily I could actually see the incestuous example.
Now imagine a future society where we are more sexually open. Children are permitted to have sex with adults starting at the age of 9, perhaps with parental permission. People are permitted to get extra close to their pets, and the siblings are permitted to be partners. And over time, the psychiatric diagnoses that accompany these conditions are changed to suit public views. And of course there are those who do not approve of such behavior, but they are just close-minded and condemned for their bigotry and narrow-mindedness.
Here I am pointing out that we today don't like these ideas. But what if these changes in society do come to pass? Will we resist? Will psychiatry change to match?
Do you feel these are extreme examples? There are societies, even primitive societies, where all young men (of minor age) must give oral sex to an older man in order to achieve their own status of manhood. There are societies where hallucinations are actually seen as visions, insight that those without schizophrenia lack. These things are seen as natural, and with further research, and with political favor, these things might even be seen as evolutionarily beneficial, just as the more pressing issues of today are now being explained as beneficial to human evolution.
More examples, one non-sexual in nature, but showing that society and psychiatry are linked.
My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder.
My final point above, which I now fear I had not clarified enough. And I should have stated it with greater emphasis on the tie to psychiatry. However, I stated it in the initial paragraph and in the paragraph immediately above.
Now below, I make what I intend to be a side note to my real point, perhaps strong enough to be considered a secondary point, but clearly not occupying enough of my argument to be my main point.
There are those who are cruel bigots, and I certainly don't feel such is appropriate. But while my views have liberalized quite a bit in recent years in these areas, I still feel I must defend those who believe such behaviors are not natural. There is plenty of justification for those views, and many of them are not bigots in spite of their beliefs. If you find some of the behaviors I suggested above offensive, just consider how those views may change some day, and just consider how resistant you might be to those changes.
It was probably unwise to end my whole argument on this, because it appears this was taken as my main point. Well, I promised I wouldn't make changes, so here we are, hopefully with sufficient clarification. My secondary point is that there are people, many conservative Christians for example, who are resistant to the changes in what is sexually acceptable. In many ways I disagree with them and actually agree more with you, Cobb. Nevertheless, I sympathize with them. And I was encouraging people like you to sympathize with them as well.
You see, one day, there are bound to be more changes, both to society and to psychiatry. Perhaps I hit the nail on the head with some of them. Perhaps I missed completely and there will be other changes instead. It is even possible that those changes might include a reversal of opinion, with homosexuality and transsexualism being labeled as disorders again. Perhaps the changes will not even be sexual in nature at all! But it really doesn't matter because I was simply using illustrative, hypothetical examples.
But one day, there will be changes now unforeseen. My secondary point: are you sure you will be accepting of such changes? If not, then cut those who are resistant now some slack. If they are bigots and cruel, that is one thing, and fight their bigotry, but one need not fight their disagreement with the simple resistance to the change in moral definition itself.
I hope I've made myself clear. If not, I give up, and you may continue to hate my guts and think of me as a homophobic bigot if you like. You don't know me. You don't know those with whom I socialize, and thus you can make your own prejudiced conclusions if you like. But I think I've made my point clear, and you can take it or leave it.
Have a nice day :)
