Originally Posted by Buff
Point of the holocaust example: look at the shit that can happen when you fail to challenge society's views.Originally Posted by KE
Point of the Galileo example: What's "right" and "wrong" isn't set in stone, nor should it be set strictly by society's standards.
Summary point: Challenging society's "right" and "wrong" instead of swallowing it doesn't mean you have a mental condition.
I used examples to illustrate a point. See above.Originally Posted by KE
See Kraco's reply before yours.Originally Posted by KE
Allow me to use an example:Originally Posted by KE
Some people are raised in countries which are dominated by a certain religion (Muslim countries for example). They're raised with, and expected to follow society's laws. One such law is that women are required to wear the Hijab in public places.
So since she's raised and bred with such and ideal within her society, she's got a mental condition if she wants (not DO, but WANT) to take it off and not wear it again?
This example is not off-topic and is a direct application for " individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness."
Originally Posted by Kraco
What is this "label"? The label of something being a mental condition?Originally Posted by KE
What you basically said up there was "if enough people thought ephebophilia was a mental disorder, then it would be a mental disorder". Of course that's true. It's as true as saying if enough people believed the earth was flat, the earth is flat. That's how "true" things are from a social perspective.
Originally Posted by Buff
I never said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about homosexuals having different brain structures or patterns. I said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about hebephiles having different brain structures or patterns.Originally Posted by KE
You said that "homophiles" have different brain structures. I believe hebephiles to also be the same." <- 2nd sentence is not based on any evidence other than you "guessing". THAT is what I was talking about.
Originally Posted by KE
Originally Posted by KE
Summary: I (KE) will label these following philias (pedo, hebe, ephebo) as a mental condition because I think they are wrong. I will continue to think this way regardless of whether society does or not, and regardless of whether the wider definition and diagnosis for "mental condition" changes conforms.Originally Posted by KE
Did I get that right? If so, then I must tell you that hebephilia not only becomes a "mental condition" "by your books" (ie they fit the requirements for a mental condition), but that it may also be the case that hebephilia is a "mental condition" "by your own definition of a mental condition".
No, KE. Morals are personal. Ethics are social.Originally Posted by KE
Again, morals are personal. Ethics are decided upon by the wider society. "I" certainly can become "we", but until that happens, it remains as "I". ie, you.Originally Posted by KE
Whether this feeling "should" or "shouldn't" be present was again, something you yourself came up with.Originally Posted by KE
In that case, you mean "wrong" to be something that is different from yourself and/or something that you dislike?Originally Posted by KE
Like how "black" people felt "wrong" to "white people"?
Originally Posted by Buff
"Groundless" was referring to the fact that you believed hebephiles to have different brain structures, which so far is unfounded. Thereby, groundless. Note that I did not say ALL your beliefs were groundless.Originally Posted by KE
This issue came up due to you defining Hebephilia as a mental disorder when mental disorders are not decided by you, but society as a whole. Putting it into "KE's own definition of mental disorders - anything that I find to be wrong", is another matter. So far, however, it has not been clear that you are using the term "mental disorder" under your own rules.
I made the assumption because you addressed nearly all of my post. By addressing what I said without saying "I don't get you", I assume you "get" me.Originally Posted by KE
I (try) not to put words into people's mouths, I don't think I've done so thus far. By saying what I said (that I'm assuming youre talking about Xan), I'm letting you know that I'm basing myself on an assumption, and allowing you to tell me whether that assumption was right or wrong.
It's the same as saying "I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I think you're talking about Xan".
And something to think about again: Society once condemned and burned people for being lefties. Not-too-long-ago, schools forced students to write with their right hands, even if they were left-handed. Is it a mental condition to then want to write with your left hand?
And so, according to what you wrote before, you can think of it as a mental condition because society used to decide on that based on majority belief?