(November 18, 2015 at 3:40 pm)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: We're not talking about me taking things out of context.

At what point did I ever claim you were?

Quote: We're talking about people who accuse others of misinterpreting the bible. They're the ones who are looking at the context,

Sometimes.

Quote:we're talking about people who misinterpret the bible. You're basically saying that there is no misinterpreting what it says, unless you take what it says out of context.

If someone quotes a passage "John 3-16" for instance and says this is proof of God's Omni-benevolence. When it is not, it is the context that will properly frame what the passage indented meaning is. it is then up to the indivisual to incorporate all of the context or to remain with what they want to understand.

The only other option (which is not a biblical misrepresentation) is to say the bible says "X" when in fact it does not. this is fabrication not misrepresentation.

Quote:You don't seem to understand what subjective means. Something can be written one way, but mean something totally different to two different people. This is tacitly true.

which again can be clarified with a contextual over view. Unless one simply wishes to remain 'wrong.'

Quote:So they're not mentally ill, but the hundreds of people who commit mass shootings in america, have been stated by president obama himself as mentally ill. Right.

Here's the crux of your problem. You have lost touch with the fact that a person's title or social rank does not enable them to change or become the standard of how the English language is purposed and used. You assume that Obama is, one using the word correctly, and two his use of the word infact covers your own use of the word. When it does not.
How can we know this for sure? It's called a dictionary.
Mental-illness:
1. any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mental-illness

it references psychosis so we look up that word:a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=i...gws_rd=ssl

And then the next word it represents is neurosis:
a relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality.
Which one could then assume a sever neurosis would lead to some confusion with reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ULaO3LL5eI

So then we can ask is Obama using the term correctly. The answer is yes in this instance, because in every example of 'mass shootings' Reality, is dictated by US Law concerning the murder of it's citizens. These guys all believed they had some other authority that allowed them to murder without consequence or were forced/required to take the actions they took.

which on the surface may sound like what the muslims are doing, but they are not.

Why? Because unlike those in whom Obama are referring, Muslims in the middle east/ISIS or the Taliban are not subject to the terms of 'US law' or Western Laws to define 'reality.' What they do may seem crazy to you, but that is only because you believe the laws you live by are the only valid laws on the planet.

When in fact the only thing validating 'western laws/values' is our collective might as a coalition of nations and our collective popular culture which defines our morality. In essence Our might makes our laws/reality right, for all of those under them. Which is a very slippery slope, because in 1930's Germany, Hitler's might made his laws right, until someone mightier challenged and defeated him.

Therefore to say all religious or even all muslims are mentally ill is small minded foolishness. So small infact that most of the time we give it a pass. But, when we begin to think that our laws our current value system is the gold standard and can not ever be challenged then those who think that way (well intentioned or not) step over to that mind set that marched Jews into death camps, and fly planes into buildings. Do not allow the society to suck you up into the same pitfall that consumes those you oppose. That your 'reality' is the ONLY right way to live and all other be damned. Otherwise you become what you profess to hate.

Quote: I still don't see the concrete difference between someone who's mentally ill and an Islamic extremist. That is beside the point though, because I was saying the definition of mental illness is arbitrary and could easily be applied to whatever suits the agenda of whoever arbitrates the term.

drich Wrote:-or Your defination for mental illness is wrong, Your defination of 'normal' is corrupt, and/or the identification of a 'flawed' human being falsely puts the idea in your head that you are in a position to judge anyone. the problem your having but don't quite get is that you assume that your world view/culture has more 'moral value' than theirs does. It may here, but in their part of the world your 'values' will get your head chopped off by a rusty knife. And the only thing keeping your head on your shoulders at the moment is our might in this part of the world makes what we believe right.

But that all is being challenged isn't it?

Quote:You realize the word corrupt means dishonest, right? I'm not being dishonest, I'm saying what I honestly think.

it can also mean:
change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ne+corrupt

Quote:You're quite cynical, aren't you 
(in response to the words I bolded) I never said that, you're making that up. (in response to the second sentence I bolded) again, I don't think that, you're making that up. I agree that their values are barbaric and they would likely behead me for what I'm saying. That is another way we cool look at them as "mentally ill", judging by the nature of the way the phrase is used. People can call anything mentally ill, especially lgbt people, which is actually what inspired me to make this thread, was seeing the way transgender people are labeled mentally ill, as well as gay people, or strangely, people with fetishes. 

People can and do call anything mentally ill, however it does not mean the term correctly applies.
The word has a definition and that definition has parameters the defines it. If the subject fits those parameters then the term is used correctly. This means in some cases a member of the lgbt community could indeed be correctly identified as mentally ill because of their involvement with any of the things you listed. it all depends on whether or not their reasoning for their involvement satisfies the parameters of the definition. No other inputs or 'feelings' of this word should matter.

People (like you in this thread) do not use words correctly anymore. They use words in accordance to how the rest of society 'feels' about a given word. Your LGBT soap box reasoning being a great example. you can't possibly vindicate ALL of the LGBT community from being mentally ill, you can't even speak for the majority, because the definition of mentally-ill demands a personal evaluation on an individual basis for each and every person who is to be considered apart of the LBGT community. The only way you could speak for everyone is to change All laws/Normality to include what is currently identified as a Psychosis or Neurosis as 'normal.'

Like wise you can't say all religious are mentally ill, unless you could account for every religious person on the planet via an official evaluation to find them Psychotic or severely neurotic..

-or you change the parameters of the word 'normal' to exclude any activity a religious person may take part in that you do not, no matter how that activity currently relates to psychotic or neurotic behavior, thereby allowing you to re-define their religious behavior as being psychotic or Neurotic. (Which is what you've actually had to do to come to your conclusion)

Again, a simple contextual reading of the word in the proper light will clear all misinterpretations.

drich Wrote:Cute...
In a religion thread, you call all religious people mentally ill, but you don't actually have the stones to stand behind your words, or even the want or will to be challenged in anyway. "I don't want a debate i just want to expand on.." Your own personal level of douche baggery. Come back when you grow a pair.

What happenes when you and your world view/morality is in the minority, and the new normal is to hunt people like you down force them to worship Alah or die? Remember your definition of 'mental illness' is based on what is 'normal human behaivor.' So would that make you (one who runs from alah) mentally ill.

If you wish to expand on something maybe work on a few absolutes to include in your 'morality' so when the tide of soceity's 'normal/pop-morality' changes, you don't have to accept the wicked changes society says you must make..

Quote:Oh, so you're trying to sway me with words like douche bag.

the word douche bag in context was to force a challenge/debate you did not want to have after calling everyone who does not believe as you do 'mentally ill.'

Quote:Looking past that, you actually validate my point. I was saying that the definition of mental illness is arbitrary and subjective, so it could be applied to "people like me" or anyone for that matter.

As I explained earlier it is not. It has a fixed definition based on 2 parameters which I defined. I then showed that all 3 definition depend on what a society defines as 'reality.' This is the only variable, where the definition of 'mental-illness' can change.

What I further explained is that 'you people' (people who use words incorrectly.) you use words based on their social feel rather than on their definitions and parameters that make up those definitions. This is not the fault of the word , but a non contextual/misinterpretation (per your OP) of the word.

Quote: I was making a analogy to mental illness, but I also was saying that you can easily call a religious person mentally ill. They have an affliction that effects their ability to look at things logically,

logic is not a parameter of mental illness. Again, I point to the definition.

Often times for the mentally ill they are stuck behind strict logic. again the variable being reality, and what defines reality for them. It is the demand of logic that forces a mentally ill person to shoot up a school, because his corrupt reality, driven by strict logic demands the death of his class mates even if he himself may or may not want to do this act.

Quote: because everything they think is just a reflection of what some book says,

And if God is real, and as the book says interacts with his followers?

Quote:plus their beliefs get altered to mean whatever they interpret the bible to mean. This is another example of how the bible can be interpreted subjectively, and used to support whatever position you have.

not if it is read in context. the bible was written, meaning it has a beginning and a end. therefore has a flow and finite direction to its message. If one reads it as it was written then one can only come to the place the author/ HS intended. If one however skips around and cuts and pastes different verses together from all over the book, then yes you are right, it can be made to say anything. But who can honestly do that with any other book and not be called a fraud?

Quote:That's because when you pair whatever stance you have with belief, you automatically are given a free pass to be as ignorant and mindless as you want. It's a huge misnomer, that belief is equal to something deeply important. It's arbitrary, completely undermining to critical thinking.

The same can be true with or without the bible. I would contend that it is far easier to undermind 'critical thinking' without any absolutes in your life. Just look at how without the absolute a dictionary you changed the meaning of a well defined and well established word just so you can 'feel' righteous about speaking up for the LGBT community.. How much critical thought when into that hot bag of mess?

The word douche bag was to force me to challenge and debate you? Fuck off.

---

Man, I'd rather have a discussion with someone who actually makes sense. I have nothing to gain from arguing with a Christian. It's just a waste of time.

(November 19, 2015 at 8:11 pm)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: The word douche bag was to force me to challenge and debate you? Fuck off.

---

Man, I'd rather have a discussion with someone who actually makes sense. I have nothing to gain from arguing with a Christian. It's just a waste of time.

..which brings us back to why I used that word...

It was the panic stop button you were imbedding into the conversation just incase you were opening a can a worms you couldn't get the lid back on. (You could always bail citing personal attack and pretend that you are the better person)

I did not want you to paint yourself in a corner and not be able to claim some sort of moral high ground or some 'superior intellectual non religious reasoning' after calling all religious people mentally ill and then proceed to justify it with reference to president Obama's use of the word would defiantly put you in the position of unchallenged authority in all 'civil' conversations.
 
good Job their sport, on being the total opposite of a douche!

aujksryfg

Read Williams & Sternthal (2007), the link is in my sig.

Quote:

Quote:we're talking about people who misinterpret the bible. You're basically saying that there is no misinterpreting what it says, unless you take what it says out of context.

If someone quotes a passage "John 3-16" for instance and says this is proof of God's Omni-benevolence. When it is not, it is the context that will properly frame what the passage indented meaning is. it is then up to the indivisual to incorporate all of the context or to remain with what they want to understand.

The only other option (which is not a biblical misrepresentation) is to say the bible says "X" when in fact it does not. this is fabrication not misrepresentation.

Quote:You don't seem to understand what subjective means. Something can be written one way, but mean something totally different to two different people. This is tacitly true.

which again can be clarified with a contextual over view. Unless one simply wishes to remain 'wrong.'

Alright, I decided that I have enough energy today to try to respond to this. You said yourself a little later in your own post that people's morality is governed by the society that they live in. You said that the only reason I think isis is doing something wrong is because I live in a society where we see it as wrong, you're calling my point of view ethnocentric.I forget who said it (I think it was you), but someone said that islamic extremists are actually interpreting their bible correctly, because it says in the Koran that you should kill non believers. That is an explicit example of how the bible (or koran or whatever the fuck you want to call it), can be totally subjective in it's interpretation. It's funny how you basically back up my own point, but then try to spin it as me being ethnocentric.

Quote:

Quote:So they're not mentally ill, but the hundreds of people who commit mass shootings in america, have been stated by president obama himself as mentally ill. Right.

Here's the crux of your problem. You have lost touch with the fact that a person's title or social rank does not enable them to change or become the standard of how the English language is purposed and used. You assume that Obama is, one using the word correctly, and two his use of the word infact covers your own use of the word. When it does not.
How can we know this for sure? It's called a dictionary.
Mental-illness:
1. any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mental-illness

it references psychosis so we look up that word:a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=i...gws_rd=ssl

And then the next word it represents is neurosis:
a relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality.
Which one could then assume a sever neurosis would lead to some confusion with reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ULaO3LL5eI

So then we can ask is Obama using the term correctly. The answer is yes in this instance, because in every example of 'mass shootings' Reality, is dictated by US Law concerning the murder of it's citizens. These guys all believed they had some other authority that allowed them to murder without consequence or were forced/required to take the actions they took.

which on the surface may sound like what the muslims are doing, but they are not.

Why? Because unlike those in whom Obama are referring, Muslims in the middle east/ISIS or the Taliban are not subject to the terms of 'US law' or Western Laws to define 'reality.' What they do may seem crazy to you, but that is only because you believe the laws you live by are the only valid laws on the planet.

When in fact the only thing validating 'western laws/values' is our collective might as a coalition of nations and our collective popular culture which defines our morality. In essence Our might makes our laws/reality right, for all of those under them. Which is a very slippery slope, because in 1930's Germany, Hitler's might made his laws right, until someone mightier challenged and defeated him.

Therefore to say all religious or even all muslims are mentally ill is small minded foolishness. So small infact that most of the time we give it a pass. But, when we begin to think that our laws our current value system is the gold standard and can not ever be challenged then those who think that way (well intentioned or not) step over to that mind set that marched Jews into death camps, and fly planes into buildings. Do not allow the society to suck you up into the same pitfall that consumes those you oppose. That your 'reality' is the ONLY right way to live and all other be damned. Otherwise you become what you profess to hate.

I already addressed this in the last response. 

Quote:it can also mean:
change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ne+corrupt

Whatever, kind of beside the point.

Quote:

Quote:You're quite cynical, aren't you 
(in response to the words I bolded) I never said that, you're making that up. (in response to the second sentence I bolded) again, I don't think that, you're making that up. I agree that their values are barbaric and they would likely behead me for what I'm saying. That is another way we cool look at them as "mentally ill", judging by the nature of the way the phrase is used. People can call anything mentally ill, especially lgbt people, which is actually what inspired me to make this thread, was seeing the way transgender people are labeled mentally ill, as well as gay people, or strangely, people with fetishes. 

People can and do call anything mentally ill, however it does not mean the term correctly applies.
The word has a definition and that definition has parameters the defines it. If the subject fits those parameters then the term is used correctly. This means in some cases a member of the lgbt community could indeed be correctly identified as mentally ill because of their involvement with any of the things you listed. it all depends on whether or not their reasoning for their involvement satisfies the parameters of the definition. No other inputs or 'feelings' of this word should matter.

People (like you in this thread) do not use words correctly anymore. They use words in accordance to how the rest of society 'feels' about a given word. Your LGBT soap box reasoning being a great example. you can't possibly vindicate ALL of the LGBT community from being mentally ill, you can't even speak for the majority, because the definition of mentally-ill demands a personal evaluation on an individual basis for each and every person who is to be considered apart of the LBGT community. The only way you could speak for everyone is to change All laws/Normality to include what is currently identified as a Psychosis or Neurosis as 'normal.'

Like wise you can't say all religious are mentally ill, unless you could account for every religious person on the planet via an official evaluation to find them Psychotic or severely neurotic..

-or you change the parameters of the word 'normal' to exclude any activity a religious person may take part in that you do not, no matter how that activity currently relates to psychotic or neurotic behavior, thereby allowing you to re-define their religious behavior as being psychotic or Neurotic. (Which is what you've actually had to do to come to your conclusion)

Again, a simple contextual reading of the word in the proper light will clear all misinterpretations.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying about mental illness. I am saying that religiousness itself is a mental illness. The fact that you have, and I quote you in your own words ":a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality." a delusion about reality yourself. You think there is an all powerful presence on our earth, that seems to me to qualify as being out of touch with reality. You have the fucking audacity to say that LGBT people are "correctly identified as mentally ill", then say that we're just using our feelings to dictate our opinions. You know why people get so fucking upset at people who say LGBT people are mentally ill? People get upset because it is such a fucking unfounded claim, you have absolutely no criteria for defining it, you fucking insult a large number of people, including myself for our fucking preferences in sexuality.

Quote:

Quote:Looking past that, you actually validate my point. I was saying that the definition of mental illness is arbitrary and subjective, so it could be applied to "people like me" or anyone for that matter.

As I explained earlier it is not. It has a fixed definition based on 2 parameters which I defined. I then showed that all 3 definition depend on what a society defines as 'reality.' This is the only variable, where the definition of 'mental-illness' can change.

What I further explained is that 'you people' (people who use words incorrectly.) you use words based on their social feel rather than on their definitions and parameters that make up those definitions. This is not the fault of the word , but a non contextual/misinterpretation (per your OP) of the word.

Bold mine 
and I showed why you're wrong.

Quote:

Quote:I was making a analogy to mental illness, but I also was saying that you can easily call a religious person mentally ill. They have an affliction that effects their ability to look at things logically,

logic is not a parameter of mental illness. Again, I point to the definition.

Often times for the mentally ill they are stuck behind strict logic. again the variable being reality, and what defines reality for them. It is the demand of logic that forces a mentally ill person an isis member to shoot up a school shoot up paris, because his corrupt reality, driven by strict logic demands the death of his class mates even if he himself may or may not want to do this act.

 
I fixed what you wrote for you. The fucking unbearable quoting system is fucking up my words and I don't know why.

Quote:

Quote:because everything they think is just a reflection of what some book says,

And if God is real, and as the book says interacts with his followers?

Quote:plus their beliefs get altered to mean whatever they interpret the bible to mean. This is another example of how the bible can be interpreted subjectively, and used to support whatever position you have.

not if it is read in context. the bible was written, meaning it has a beginning and a end. therefore has a flow and finite direction to its message. If one reads it as it was written then one can only come to the place the author/ HS intended. If one however skips around and cuts and pastes different verses together from all over the book, then yes you are right, it can be made to say anything. But who can honestly do that with any other book and not be called a fraud?

Quote:That's because when you pair whatever stance you have with belief, you automatically are given a free pass to be as ignorant and mindless as you want. It's a huge misnomer, that belief is equal to something deeply important. It's arbitrary, completely undermining to critical thinking.

The same can be true with or without the bible. I would contend that it is far easier to undermind 'critical thinking' without any absolutes in your life. Just look at how without the absolute a dictionary you changed the meaning of a well defined and well established word just so you can 'feel' righteous about speaking up for the LGBT community.. How much critical thought when into that hot bag of mess?

You're asking me if god is real? What kind of rhetorical question is that? You're asking me what would it be like if god was real and interacting with his followers? You're the one making that assumption, so it's up to you to define that. We've already gone over the context thing, I've proven you wrong. Then you talk about the LGBT community again, which I gone over in the previous paragraphs. 

---

My ] key is broken.

(November 22, 2015 at 10:08 am)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: Alright, I decided that I have enough energy today to try to respond to this. You said yourself a little later in your own post that people's morality is governed by the society that they live in. You said that the only reason I think isis is doing something wrong is because I live in a society where we see it as wrong, you're calling my point of view ethnocentric.

That is the correct usage of the word.

Quote:I forget who said it (I think it was you), but someone said that islamic extremists are actually interpreting their bible correctly, because it says in the Koran that you should kill non believers. That is an explicit example of how the bible (or koran or whatever the fuck you want to call it), can be totally subjective in it's interpretation.

But again, ONLY IF the reader is not willing to apply whole contextual instruction given by the Koran. Which is what a 'moderate' muslim must do to remain moderate. As I said before a full reading and application of the Koran like the bible only produces one type of believer. (albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum.) to be anywhere in the middle or to the other extreme in either case means one has to ignore a contextual reading of their holy Scripture.

Quote:It's funny how you basically back up my own point, but then try to spin it as me being ethnocentric.

No, your point is that anyone who reads the bible or Koran can come up with their own interpretation. I am saying unless that person is willing to suspend or flat out ignore/misrepresent what has been written their can only be one out come. The problem is, very few people who have their own interpretation have indeed read the bible or Koran with the idea of only applying what it says. People like that tend to read only looking for passages that supports their beliefs. That is why so many of them cobble together cherry picked verses to build a single doctrine.

As far as you having been identified as an ethnocentric individual, that has nothing to do with how people read the bible. You have been identified as ethnocentric because your 'morals' have been decided by the pop culture you are apart of. This is further confirmed by the fact that you do not seem to disagree with anything 'society' has deemed moral, eg. Homosexuality, Abortion, slavery ect.. (you guys all were cut from the same cookie cutter.) Why do you not question any of thing society tells you is right or wrong?? Do you foolishly believe that everything western society is indeed right is truly right?

No, you do not question anything Because nothing in your system of values and morality that transcends the power you have give popculture or it's morality. You have no absolutes. Only what culture teaches you. So without anything absolute in your life what makes you think you would not have been a hitler youth if born under 1930's german culture? Or fought for slavery in the south? or rounded up American Indians and put them in the death camps of their day?

Again nothing about you objects to whatever 'rules' you adopted from pop culture. So it stands to reason that if you have adopted absolutely everything pop culture serves up without objection then your actions would most likely be the same if you simply grew up in a different culture.. Meaning you would simply soak up whatever 'morality' society put infront of you like for instance those in the Islamic state. And the kicker is.. if you say "nut-huh, I would still hold to the values I do now." Ask yourself where would those 'values' you have now would have come from? Because nothing you believe now is an absolute/founded in anything except this very culture from this specific time period.

That is why I identified you as ethnocentric. Nothing about you says that your values go any deeper than what popular culture demands. Which again has nothing to do with how people read the bible or Koran

Quote:I already addressed this in the last response. 

Actually you tried to dismiss everything I said in your last response without having to address anything. I my last response I made it a little harder for you to try and dodge.

Quote:it can also mean:
change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ne+corrupt

Quote:Whatever, kind of beside the point.

Then why did you try and correct my usage of the term to begin with?

me Wrote:People can and do call anything mentally ill, however it does not mean the term correctly applies.
The word has a definition and that definition has parameters the defines it. If the subject fits those parameters then the term is used correctly. This means in some cases a member of the lgbt community could indeed be correctly identified as mentally ill because of their involvement with any of the things you listed. it all depends on whether or not their reasoning for their involvement satisfies the parameters of the definition. No other inputs or 'feelings' of this word should matter.

People (like you in this thread) do not use words correctly anymore. They use words in accordance to how the rest of society 'feels' about a given word. Your LGBT soap box reasoning being a great example. you can't possibly vindicate ALL of the LGBT community from being mentally ill, you can't even speak for the majority, because the definition of mentally-ill demands a personal evaluation on an individual basis for each and every person who is to be considered apart of the LBGT community. The only way you could speak for everyone is to change All laws/Normality to include what is currently identified as a Psychosis or Neurosis as 'normal.'

Like wise you can't say all religious are mentally ill, unless you could account for every religious person on the planet via an official evaluation to find them Psychotic or severely neurotic..

-or you change the parameters of the word 'normal' to exclude any activity a religious person may take part in that you do not, no matter how that activity currently relates to psychotic or neurotic behavior, thereby allowing you to re-define their religious behavior as being psychotic or Neurotic. (Which is what you've actually had to do to come to your conclusion)

Again, a simple contextual reading of the word in the proper light will clear all misinterpretations.

Quote:I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying about mental illness. I am saying that religiousness itself is a mental illness. The fact that you have, and I quote you in your own words ":a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality." a delusion about reality yourself. You think there is an all powerful presence on our earth, that seems to me to qualify as being out of touch with reality.

Seriously? Do you truly not understand that your 'reality' is NOT what the universe revolves around? That after everything I have said and shown you, that 'reality' is a subjective term? That your 'reality' is indeed just as trivial as that of a Nazi war criminal? That your 'reality' is based on nothing more than your generation's version of pop morality? One that has little more standing in 'reality' simply because it is what people want to believe as of 11/23/15. Do you not understand that in a couple of decades what you believe to be right and wrong now will be out of date? that thing you think are wrong today will be acceptable then? Unless you have some moral absolute somewhere in your life. "reality" is constantly changing. therefore the definition of mental ill-ness is also constantly changing UNLESS One has absolutles that do not ever Change.

Now granted Even if you do have absolutes you find yourself in the position of being in a position where the culture changes, and because you do not identify with the culture for your morality, you maybe identified as "mentally-ill" when some douche wrongly assumes that everything he believes is the only valid version of 'normal/reality' on the planet. Which if you are not influenced by 'peer-pressure' you can dismiss his ranting's to the pot calling the kettle black. (A retard calling you retarded.)

Quote:You have the fucking audacity to say that LGBT people are "correctly identified as mentally ill", then say that we're just using our feelings to dictate our opinions. You know why people get so fucking upset at people who say LGBT people are mentally ill?

What a intellectually dishonest leftist move that was. Take a look at what I actually said.

Quote:People get upset because it is such a fucking unfounded claim, you have absolutely no criteria for defining it, you fucking insult a large number of people, including myself for our fucking preferences in sexuality.

No, 'smarty.' I did indeed define the term clinically, and simply pointed out the obvious. In that you can not say that all members of the LBTG community are NOT mentally ill unless you are willing to change the meaning of 'reality/normal' for every single member on a person my person basis. -OR You evaluate everyone honestly and found then to be free from mental illness.

If However you lock the terms of 'reality and normal' to any set standard then ultimately someone (a rather large number) despite the sexual orientation will indeed be found mentally ill.

And yes this also means there are going to be quite a few mentally members of the TGBL community who will indeed be found to be mentally defective. As with all other walks of life and sexual orientation. To say the GLBT community is completely free of mental illness is leftist propaganda, that reeks of lies and political jockeying (Stuff soft closed minds eat up, when they are taught to accept pop morality without question or any fore thought)

Quote:As I explained earlier it is not. It has a fixed definition based on 2 parameters which I defined. I then showed that all 3 definition depend on what a society defines as 'reality.' This is the only variable, where the definition of 'mental-illness' can change.

What I further explained is that 'you people' (people who use words incorrectly.) you use words based on their social feel rather than on their definitions and parameters that make up those definitions. This is not the fault of the word , but a non contextual/misinterpretation (per your OP) of the word.

Quote:Bold mine 
and I showed why you're wrong.

How about showing me something with a little more validation that your strongly worded 'nut-huh.'

your change to my quote Wrote:logic is not a parameter of mental illness. Again, I point to the definition.

Often times for the mentally ill they are stuck behind strict logic. again the variable being reality, and what defines reality for them. It is the demand of logic that forces a mentally ill person an isis member to shoot up a school shoot up paris, because his corrupt reality, driven by strict logic demands the death of his class mates even if he himself may or may not want to do this act.

Quote: 
I fixed what you wrote for you. The fucking unbearable quoting system is fucking up my words and I don't know why.

Actually you did not 'fix' anything. You simply created a straw man. Meaning you took my argument and changed it so as to represent what you can defend.

And if God is real, and as the book says interacts with his followers?
not if it is read in context. the bible was written, meaning it has a beginning and a end. therefore has a flow and finite direction to its message. If one reads it as it was written then one can only come to the place the author/ HS intended. If one however skips around and cuts and pastes different verses together from all over the book, then yes you are right, it can be made to say anything. But who can honestly do that with any other book and not be called a fraud?

The same can be true with or without the bible. I would contend that it is far easier to undermind 'critical thinking' without any absolutes in your life. Just look at how without the absolute a dictionary you changed the meaning of a well defined and well established word just so you can 'feel' righteous about speaking up for the LGBT community.. How much critical thought when into that hot bag of mess?
[/quote]

Quote:You're asking me if god is real?

Are you still in high school? If so I can turn down the 'complexity' of what I am saying so as not to lose you.
It's not a question I am expecting you to answer correctly. It is a question that I answer my self. How can you tell? Because in the rest of the paragraph I build a point off of the answer I was expecting in that question.

Quote:What kind of rhetorical question is that? You're asking me what would it be like if god was real and interacting with his followers? You're the one making that assumption, so it's up to you to define that.

And I did. The answer being God is real, and He does indeed interact with his follwers.. Again if you are thrown off by such "complex" rhetorical questions, then I don't have to use them.

Quote:We've already gone over the context thing, I've proven you wrong. Then you talk about the LGBT community again, which I gone over in the previous paragraphs. 

---

My ] key is broken.

Uh, no. Not even close. The only thing you've proven is that you disagree a lot, you don't seem to understand how rhetorical questions work, and you haven't learned to question the foundations of your own morality.. aside from that your big move to 'prove me wrong' seems to be limited to a straw man you built stating that 'I believe all gblt's are mentally ill.' and that somehow everything else I have to say can be 'proven wrong' by your disagreement with a lie you told concerning my position...

So do you want to try again, or are you good with your failure so far?

jhjhkg

You're saying that some LGBT people are mentally ill and some aren't? I'm not talking about whether or not they individually have a mental illness, it sounded like what you were saying was that being gay lesbian bisexual or transgender is a mental illness. That's what it sounded like you were saying. I'm being an intellectually dishonest lefty? Correct me if I'm wrong but what you said was that I can't disprove that LGBT people aren't mentally ill, which clearly insinuates that you think that being lesbian gay bisexual or transgender is a mental illness. Plus, to add to my suspicion, you show no sympathy towards the issue at all, you come off as defending the right wing side, which fyi is anti homosexual.

---

By the way, if people misinterpret the bible all the time then that's just further proof that it's not a reliable source of morality. So you can be an apologetic about it all you want, but the point is it's just fairy tales and people can get some good messages out of it, but also use it to further whatever agenda they have by taking what the bible or koran says "out of context". It really doesn't matter to argue those points, because the world would be a better place without these fucking millennium old books still governing people's lives. It's psychotic.

---

"No, 'smarty.'" "Are you still in high school? If so I can turn down the 'complexity' of what I am saying so as not to lose you." "Seriously? Do you truly not understand that your 'reality' is NOT what the universe revolves around?" Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a condescending jackass. Have my eyes deceived me? 

---

It's funny how you make the whole reality is subjective argument for my views being wrong. You even said that today's cultural view of what is a mental illness could change next decade, so you're just confirming my own statement that it's totally arbitrary. It's true that in some cultures the views of what constitutes reality is different, I think in Uganda someone was put in a mental asylum for being an atheist. I've also seen the word "leftist propaganda" come out of you enough times, in regards to LGBT people to know that you're homophobic, dude. Just admit it. It's funny how you're even trying to argue with me about this stuff because to me, because I disagree with pretty much everything you say. When we don't see eye to eye on something you decide to start acting like a sanctimonious prick. Maybe I'm guilty of that a little bit too, but we're never going to agree on this.

(November 23, 2015 at 12:49 pm)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote: You're saying that some LGBT people are mentally ill and some aren't?

Yeah, That is the nature of mental illness. Being apart of one club or another does not mean you are safe from it.

Quote: I'm not talking about whether or not they individually have a mental illness,

Well, according to the definition I works so hard to provide, Mental-illness can only be accurately assessed on a person by person basis. Unless the parmeters of the definition are being changed to only include one group or another.

Quote:it sounded like what you were saying was that being gay lesbian bisexual or transgender is a mental illness.

Accually it didn't. Go back and read what I wrote. I chose my words very carfully.

Quote:That's what it sounded like you were saying.

Because that is what you wanted to hear. Again I worked very hard to take your fast and loose definition of mental illness and reassigned it's clinical definition before I spoke. and you ignored it, for your version of that word.

Quote: I'm being an intellectually dishonest lefty?

Yes, absolutely when you abandon a medical clinical definition for a political definition.
Not to mention when you fly past a detailed description for your selfrighteous strawman.

Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong but what you said was that I can't disprove that LGBT people aren't mentally ill, which clearly insinuates that you think that being lesbian gay bisexual or transgender is a mental illness.

Which again, can indeed be proved if the indivisuals in question fall with in the parameters of mental ill-ness.

Quote:Plus, to add to my suspicion, you show no sympathy towards the issue at all, you come off as defending the right wing side, which fyi is anti homosexual.

So?
Does one side or the other get to change a clinical definition just because it suits an argument?
Does one side or the other get to change what the other says just so you can vilify them and make your argument easier? No, if either side does this then that is intellectual dishonesty boarder line propaganda.

what level of self righteousness has to corrupt your mind to where you can actively lie about what the other person says so you can defend your position in an easy way? Sides do not matter here. Honor the facts. if you facts fail, then maybe your on the wrong side no matter which side your on.

---

Quote:By the way, if people misinterpret the bible all the time then that's just further proof that it's not a reliable source of morality.

didn't I already define the word misinterpret for you? The bible is in English, for all English speaking people the chance of an actual misinterpretation is very very low. What is left is misrepresentation, which again can be remedied by a contextual reading.

Quote:So you can be an apologetic

another word you need to look up.

Quote: about it all you want, but the point is it's just fairy tales and people can get some good messages out of it, but also use it to further whatever agenda they have by taking what the bible or koran says "out of context".

this is a failed argument.
Again it is based on the meaning of the word misinterpret. which is not what is happening here. What you are describing is a misrepresentation. that means a simple contextual reading puts the passage back into it's context. to misinterpret means to have confusion on actual word meanings/definations. For instance if the bible was only available in the greek, to misinterpret is to mis translate the words. But again as the bible is not written in everyday English a misinterpretation is very very rare.

Your argument fails because it is based on interpretation when interpretation has been taken out of a biblical reading. Like wise with the Koran it has only ever been available in the home language of the people who use it 'properly.' It only has been recently translated to other languages.

Quote:It really doesn't matter to argue those points, because the world would be a better place without these fucking millennium old books still governing people's lives. It's psychotic.

So you don't understand what I was telling you about 'pop morality' being subjective, without abolutes? That my foolish young friend is what is truly psychotic.

---

"No, 'smarty.'" "Are you still in high school? If so I can turn down the 'complexity' of what I am saying so as not to lose you." "Seriously? Do you truly not understand that your 'reality' is NOT what the universe revolves around?" Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a condescending jackass. Have my eyes deceived me? 

---

Quote:It's funny how you make the whole reality is subjective argument for my views being wrong.

do you not understand that I used the actual definition of the word reality to do that? what confuses you about this? I showed you what the word mentally ill really means. it was based on two other words, which I defined. both centered around one's ability to perceive reality. Then I pointed out that 'reality' changes from society to society. I also showed you that you were wrongly assuming that your society was the only right and correct version of 'reality.' And, how your blind allegiance to this society and this set of rules would leave you open to any society and any set of rules if you did not have " several 1000 year old books" to be an anchor for you. that with out some absolutes that are always true you and your 'morality' are doomed to spiral down to eventually we all become what we now hate.

Quote:How You even said that today's cultural view of what is a mental illness could change next decade, so you're just confirming my own statement that it's totally arbitrary.

Yes same conclusion, for far different reasons.

Quote:It's true that in some cultures the views of what constitutes reality is different, I think in Uganda someone was put in a mental asylum for being an atheist. I've also seen the word "leftist propaganda" come out of you enough times,

I promise you I have not used that term 3 times in the last 10 years. (on this board or any other.) Not that I am opposed to it, I just don't throw it around unless it can be used to accurately describe what is going on.
Your examples are 2 of 3 total on this board according to a search.

Quote: in regards to LGBT people to know that you're homophobic, dude.

what about homosexuals do you think it is I am afraid of exactly?

Quote:Just admit it. It's funny how you're even trying to argue with me about this stuff because to me, because I disagree with pretty much everything you say. When we don't see eye to eye on something you decide to start acting like a sanctimonious prick. Maybe I'm guilty of that a little bit too, but we're never going to agree on this.

Again, what does your inability to use the word 'mental illness' or 'misinterpret' correctly have to do with homosexuals?

Since your new I will give you the benfit of the doubt.
My view of homosexuals are they are in sin like any other person having sex outside of a sanctified marriage. No better, no worse. they are equal. that said I don't fear a homosexual anymore than I fear my 'buddy' buzzy for nailing every nasto chick that can put up with his "situation."

no better no worse still in the same state of sin.

---

Simple minded atheist move:
Can win on topic, find something you can use to attack your opponents character, that way you don't have to listen through all your self righteous name calling on how bad you are actually loosing the conversation.

Sound like anyone you know?