Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (105393)	5/28/2005 10:51:49 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think one problem in this discussion stems from calling psychiatry a science. That's just my opinion. Studies of psychology and brain-function in general can be conducted scientifically, but what goes on in psychiatrists' offices isn't science, except one does hope that science hovers over the writing of prescriptions. Doesn't mean psychiatry or psychoanalysis hasn't been helpful to a lot of people, but it's surely not science; and it wasn't science, but was the subjective attitudes of shrinks as individuals and members of their subcultures that first caused homosexuality to be designated an illness. The fact that there was no evidence substantiating this assumption wasn't important to (or even noticed by!) those who made the original call until times changed. So I would, personally, say that subjective attitudes about looking at the science, or lack of it, behind the decision to call all homosexuals "sick" (as opposed to homosexual) evolved with, were part of, were influenced by, socio-political factors. The analogy with other forms of unscientific bias is a good one, imo.

To: Grainne who wrote (105393)	5/28/2005 11:13:51 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

(Sigh) I'm not really wanting to do down the homosexual road, but I must point out that disapproval of behaviors of individuals or groups does not constitute bigotry or prejudice. These highly-charged words should be reserved for irrational hatreds and/or overt intent to discriminate or harm. You seem to near the point where you think opinions should be regulated, if not punished. You may have difficulty understanding me, but I have difficulty understanding how you, as a professed liberal, could have come to such a view. BTW, perhaps you could show me where I disputed the APA findings???