/sci/ - Science & Math

But wait, sexual attraction and self-image are two different things.

"Facts" change with culture. Since it's becoming more popular to be accepting, disorders like those cease to be disorders at all. In the '80s, homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now it isn't. Transgenderism just got changed to "Gender Dysphoria" which isn't even considered a mental disorder

>>7651020
Sure, but why was homosexuality declassified as a mental illness or whatever it was classified as and why is transgenderism not considered a mental disorder?

>gender is a social construct
>transgenders are born like that

>>7651019
Mental disorder implies that the condition itself causes suffering in an ordinarily life. Being gay doesn't cause suffering though people harassing does. Not even being transsexualism itself causes pain though people bothering them. A mental disorder would be someone who hits himself on the head for no reason. Or somebody yelling in a store for no reason either. People who will often say gay people are a mental disorder because they really really hate you.

>>7651067
Essentially this. Theres no such thing as a disorder in any objective sense, its a subjective judgment we make about some deviation from the norm. Sometimes its a very apt judgment thats hard to argue with, other times its just based on personal aversion to something seemingly alien or 'unnatural.'

>>7651019
Because they don't hinder the effectiveness of the mind.

>>7651019
I think that that's like classifying not having one arm a disorder. Why not just give them a prosthetic and let them be happy instead of just telling them they're sick?

>>7651019
>What changed academic opinion on this?
Research and experimental evidence. Homosexuality really wasn't studied before the 20th century, not in the same way it is today. Psychology as a whole is a vastly changing field.

I know you think that it's because liberal feelings made people think it's ok to be gay, but in reality it's a bit of the opposite. Scientific evidence showed that homosexuals and transgenders weren't actually delusional or fucked in the head. They can pass mental health tests with flying colors. So progressive opinions changed.

>>7651019
>>>/i/nto>>>/t/he>>>/trash/

>>7651087
Of course. But you would still consider the man missing his arm as disabled.

>>7651096
Yeah I screwed up that metaphor. Basically mental disorders are diagnosed based on how much it hurts your life. If you give them their damn procedure and hormones and they're happy and living life then they have stopped being mentally unstable.

>>7651093
Well fags are fine but I'm still not convinced that trannys aren't fucked in the head. It just doesn't make sense. How would you be born with the brain of the opposite gender?

>>7651100
Either way, the homosexuality and transgenderism isn't the disorder, the disorder is the stress and anxiety that comes with being either/both of those things.

If you're uncomfortable living in your own body then that's the illness.

>>7651102
>Well fags are fine but I'm still not convinced that trannys aren't fucked in the head
Thanks for visiting /pol/.

>It just doesn't make sense. How would you be born with the brain of the opposite gender?
Because no matter how much you scream and whine about tumblr and feminism the fact of the matter is that sex =/= gender. The distinction between these terms has existed before the internet, hell it's existed before you or your parents or your grandparents were born.

They are born in a MALE body with a brain that works "like a woman". People are different and don't fit into black and white categories of boy and girl, it's a spectrum.

>>7651096
Yeah but would you be like
>Sup DISABLED m8. How are you doing with your PROSTHETIC ARM THAT LOOKS LIKE A REAL ONE BUT ACTUALLY ISN'T? What is life like when you're PRETENDING TO HAVE TWO ARMS WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DON'T?

>>7651102
I suppose hormones. But I still see no reason not to simply act how you want, why do you have to be a girl just because you act like the stereotype of a girl? Seems like it just makes the English language more confusing.

>>7651109
> They are born in a MALE body with a brain that works "like a woman".
I know they claim that but I asked how is that possible? You just repeated what I said. Its just not possible. And its funny because the percentage of m-f trannies who like girls is the same as the percentage of straight men. I think that proves beyond doubt that trannies are just insane

>>7651117
Sure they can do it if they want but its in the interest of science to know if they're actually mentally their birth gender

>>7651109
No, the fact that you have a mind that works a certain way and certain genitalia(notice the root there) shows that whatever sex you are can clearly think in a way that is non stereotypical. Here's an anology; if I was a white man, wore black face, stole bikes, and ate fried chicken, you would probably say I'm racist. You're the sexist one if you can't except that personality isn't linked to gender, and the things that are inherently wouldn't appear in someone of a different gender.

>>7651102
Why wouldn't it be possible? Male and female brains are different senpai, it's not that far-fetched for some biological malfunction to cause a person to be born with the wrong kind of brain for their sexy bits. So in that sense they are fucked in the head, but the best feasible solution is reassignment surgery.

>>7651122
What the fuck does gender have to do with personality? A stereotype isn't a fucking scientific fact, just because you eat fried chicken and like rap doesn't mean you're "mentally" a black guy, that's dumb and racist, the fact that you like that AND are white clearly shows there isn't a meaningful link.

>>7651128
So they should get an expensive surgery that doesn't even give them the full reproductive system of a female because they don't think like a stereotypical male?

>>7651121
>You just repeated what I said.
No you specifically said:
>How would you be born with the brain of the opposite gender?
and I was specifically correcting your terminology, because if you want an intelligent discussion about sexual and gender identity you at least have to know the difference between gender and sex.

>I know they claim that but I asked how is that possible?
Because DNA. Also because no one, and I mean no one, really knows how the human brain works. No offense but you certainly don't, and I certainly don't as well. Why is it so far fetched that a person (who is male) happens to like putting dresses on and wearing make up? And let's also assume that this same person likes to feel like they're woman and do things that women normally do such as shopping, sewing, cooking, whatever. The only reason there is a gender """issue""" with this person is because society says people who like all of those things are females, and no males could ever like that stuff. Otherwise it's literally a non issue. With all the fucked up people on 4chan I'm surprised you can't suspend your disbelief for even 1 second to suppose that a person like that could exist.

Now if you want to ask "why do they want to be called women and not men since they're male?" well I don't fucking know, that's a completely different question.

>>7651117
>btw even when you have this PROSTHETHIC im going to keep calling you DISABLED to your face and behind your back because im a serious man who always uses strict dictionary definitions and that's more important than not making people feel like shit

>>7651127
>genitalia(notice the root there)
What root?

>Here's an anology; if I was a white man, wore black face, stole bikes, and ate fried chicken, you would probably say I'm racist.
Yeah you're racist for thinking all blacks steal bikes. If you culturally identify as black then good for you. No one cares. If you feel like you can't stand your own body because you don't have enough melanin then you should see a psychologist about it.

>You're the sexist one if you can't except that personality isn't linked to gender, and the things that are inherently wouldn't appear in someone of a different gender.
And you're naive for thinking that something as complicated as personality and expression is as black and white as "boy vs girl". Some people are just different, get over it.

>>7651145
Like I've shown multiple times gender and genitalia share a root, plus why wouldn't having a personality and a certain genitalia clearly show that someone with that genitalia can have that personality trait, even if it is less common, pronouns exist as a way to tell people what genitalia you have because you can't just whip your dick out, but people also only like to fuck certain genitalia. Transgenders are just lying about that, a guy should be able to wear a dress without having to chop up their dick.

>>7651154
Exactly. A boy can act however he wants, that doesn't make him a girl, the only difference between a boy and a girl is there reproductive system, also root gen (gen)Italia (gen)der.

>>7651158
I'm starting to think I misread your post when I responded here>>7651154

>why wouldn't having a personality and a certain genitalia clearly show that someone with that genitalia can have that personality trait
It does? Some people are different though. So it's not 100% true.

>pronouns exist as a way to tell people what genitalia you have because you can't just whip your dick out
That's getting into linguistics but that's not really the purpose of GENDERED (not sexed!) pronouns.

>Transgenders are just lying about that
I really don't think they are. And a lot of evidence supports this.

> a guy should be able to wear a dress without having to chop up their dick.
I agree with you on this, I don't think SRS is very healthy, and I hope it's a fad.

>>7651047
every time

>>7651067
You cannot deny the amount of suicides the LGBT comunity has, the amount of STDs and all the fucking problems in teh comunity. This hasn't declined with even in really accepting comunities such as cali or any Scandinavian country.

It should be taken more seriously, not cataloged as a mental disorder for loony but it is not in any sense regular.

>>7651167
I don't know if you see my point. Also no that ultimately wasn't the point of gendered pronouns but that was a purpose they were serving as sort of side effect. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with acting a certain way, I'm just saying that it isn't linked to your genitalia. The point I was making with the black face thing is that is racist as it asserts that stealing bikes and eating fried chicken are things that only a black person can do, therefore he would for some reason have to identify as black, and that you should assume those things about black people if they don't actively inform you they actually identify as white, see my point? I don't think I really worded my posts well enough but all I'm saying is that gender should stay as just an indicator of genitalia, not some weird way to describe personality based on sexist stereotypes, and that if someone acts different it doesn't mean they must be the other gender on the inside, but rather they are simply that person and maybe gender doesn't determine who you are.

Everyone in this thread is missing the point.

OP if you're asking for a scientific basis, you don't need to look at psychology (which is and always has been a super subjective and fucked up soft "science", but regardless) just look to medicine.

There are numerous medical cases of humans being born with neither or both genitalia, exhibiting a combination of male and female characteristics. This is often due to some sex chromosome abnormality, which is ingrained in their DNA and cannot be changed, nor did they have any choice about it. This has challenged the idea that each person is entirely one sex or the other, a purely human construct. The problem is humans have created a language and definitions for things in a very black-and-white terminology. Biological hermaphrodites exist, and they might be considered "trans-sexual" or "trans-gendered".

Once you accept this basic fact of human biology, it really doesn't make sense to discriminate against people who choose to adopt a different gender later in life, even if they were born as one sex. It's all their personal choice, and in a country that gives people freedoms to do as they wish, it makes no sense that the default should be to discriminate against them based on an arbitrary identity they've chosen for themselves. The problem is, up until the modern era, most societies and cultures weren't aware of science and medicine and how biology really works, the black and white male/female categorizations have been deeply ingrained in mythology and religion, which people refuse to let go of. It's based on the same cultural indoctrination that told people the world is flat, and should be categorically dismissed as backward-thinking.

>>7651182
>I'm just saying that it isn't linked to your genitalia.
So am I. We're agreeing on the same things.

>>7651184
They should be able to, but it certainly isn't tied to anything else, you're just female if you have all the female reproductive parts and male if you have all the male reproductive parts. If you want to change that fine, but I don't see how it's any more justified than getting plastic surgery because you don't think you're pretty enough.

>>7651184
They still have problems odd for any average human. If we want to help them we should acknowledge they will need help beyond "yaiii we accept you fully" and end the show there. Obviously they are nor going to have 3 testicles/tits but in controlled, bully free environments, the LGBT comunity has a suiciee rate off the roof.

>>7651192
I'm saying personality, and that there's no reason to change the meaning of gender to a personality trait rather than a simple organ system.

>>7651193
You're wrong though. Scientifically speaking, sex isn't defined as your outer organs but on your inner ones. Testes mean male, ovaries female and only if your gonads have both tissues you're consisered hermaphrodite.

Having a dick, beard, mammaries, vulva or whatever has no relevance.

So if you really want to use the "correct" pronoun for anybody, you'd need a biopsy. Since this is pretty retarded and you're just going to 'assume' what they are then why not call them what they feel they are?

>>7651233
I suppose.

>>7651019
THIS DOESNT BELONG IN /SCI/ AND IT HURTS MY FEELINGS

JUST BECAUSE I'M CRAZY DOESN'T MEAN MY OPINION IS ANY LESS VALID

>>7651086
confirmed for never having met a tranny.

>>7651019
You could see them as mental disorders because in a weird way, that is what they are but we need our definitions not be completely accurate but to help us in a way.

A person with say Schizophrenia will have problems developing and that will translate to having problems with getting a job and being useful for society. People like that need to know that their condition is a mental disorder so that doctors can give them therapy and medication.

But a gay man or woman or a trans man or woman can work and be useful to society with no problem so even though their "condition" heavily deviates from the norm (mentally speaking), it doesn't affect their outcome in society.

You could say that was changed "academic opinion" was the fact that research has been conducted on gay people showing that being gay does not impair you in any way and you can still be smart or strong and succeed in various careers so there is no need to allocate finanical resources in mental centers for gay people.

>>7651121
>Its just not possible
What are your credentials in the field other than "but trannies are ICKY" again?

http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-1997-6_115

http://m.cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/12/cercor.bhu194.full

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan

http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/44586

>>7651180
>You cannot deny the amount of suicides the LGBT comunity has, the amount of STDs and all the fucking problems in teh comunity.
So people who are promiscuous and suicidal in general are mentally ill

>>7651280
>And its funny because the percentage of m-f trannies who like girls is the same as the percentage of straight men. I think that proves beyond doubt that trannies are just insane.
This was actually a great point, if they are mentally a woman, surely the percentage of m-f trans folk should be equal to that of the percentage of straight women?

>>7651297
* m-f trans folk who are attracted to men

>>7651297
Apparently not, since we already know they have the physical brain of a female.

Some other studies have suggested female sexuality is more plastic and fluid to begin with, it could have something to do with that.

>>7651280
>Sample size of 90
Lol

>>7651067
>literally imagining you were born into the wrong body
>not a neurological disorder
ayy lmao

>>7651102
Same reason people are born dumb, smart, with an extra limb or two.

>>7651087
>higher suicide rate after sex change
>implying there isnt some deeper neurological issue

>>7651302
But we don't know that anon. Both a 2009 and a 2015 study found that the grey matter in most areas of trans brains matched the volume of grey matter in birth-assigned gender. A 2010 study of the brain's white matter also found that trans brains were not quite in the normal range for either cis men or cis women, but had some attributes of both.

Various studies like this crop up regularly, each one measuring some small brain structure or function, some of them leaning one way, some the other. But the fact is that they're all relying on small sample sizes and they're almost always single studies that have not been repeated. There's a surprising amount of science on this, but in the end a lot of it is inconclusive. Brains are far too complex to oversimplify with the idea that trans brains fit into one box or the other … or even that there are only two boxes to fit into.

More importantly, all of this is talking about measured averages of the physical brain, not the confluence of thoughts and experiences that make up identity. Just because one doesn't have the brain of the opposite gender does not mean one cannot have the mind of the opposite gender, or a mind that identifies as both genders, or as neither. Identities are just as complex as brains.

>>7651311
>higher after sex change
Show me the study

>>7651312
>A 2010 study of the brain's white matter also found that trans brains were not quite in the normal range for either cis men or cis women, but had some attributes of both.
Transgenderism covers people who are in the grey area between male and female, so this shouldn't be surprising.

>>7651028
Because Psychology isn't a science and as such is very easily swayed by contemporary political opinion.

Homosexuality is natural; the perception that it is in any way not natural and healthy is a manifestation of the sickness of the super-ego superstructure of collective society. Never forget Socrates was gay. Man is something that must be overcome.

>>7651337
Couldn't agree more.

>>7651337
>Homosexuality is natural
if everyone, or even anywhere close to a majority of the population was gay, we'd go extinct you dumb fucking faggot

>>7651343
Sexuality is a continuum. You are literally retarded and have no conception of natural selection amongst tribal species. Please continue with teleological fallacies you stupid fucking monkey. :)

>>7651343
besides, appeal to nature is a fallacy, downs syndrome and schizophrenia are "natural" too

>>7651347
>Sexuality is a continuum
so is autism and that's a neurological disorder too.

>>7651349
>>7651352
reek of sexual repression.

>>7651019
Transgenders still are.
Homosexuals (and pedophiles, changed at the same time homosexuals were) are both now officially not disorders.

There is literally zero way to ever describe transgender as anything other than gender dysphoria, which is a mental illness. It will always be a mental disorder.
It's very likely in the future that homosexuality and pedophiles will be re-classified as disorders when we understand more about the biological/chemical causes of both.

>>7651375
what a brilliant rebuttal

>>7651019
The disease became airborne and now too many people have it.

>>7651019
Because unlike gender, mental disorders are literally a social construct.

Psychology only deals with your compatibility within the society in which it is practiced. If it's normal to eat babies in your society, then a lack of desire to eat babies is a mental disorder.

>>7651410
Holy fuck, this pic a real?

>>7651410
This. The Roman public thought Marcus Aurelius strange because he wasn't into young boys like all the other previous emperors. Not being bisexual was seen as odd back then.

>>7651019
>how are transgenderism and homosexuality not mental disorders.
Because they're mostly harmless. Right now medical science can barely properly diagnose things considered problematic relating to the brain, much less properly treat such things. Rather than stuff institutions full of fags, it's easier to just let them roam free until there's an actual way to repair whatever is wrong with their head that causes them to act the way they do.

>>7651410
>social relativism
fucking dumb pleb, gtfo with your liberal bullshit

>>7651067
Wrong, its not about suffering. Its about being able to fulfill the basic biological requirements for sustained life.
The number one goal of any organism is to reproduce, homosexuals cannot does this.
Therefore it is a mental disorder.

That's not really a hard or controversial way to look at it, its literally the one thing every organism needs to do, and gays can't do it.

>>7651087
Why not let a schizophrenic rule France because he thinks hes Napoleon, wouldn't want to hurt his feelings.

>>7651410
>Psychology only deals with your compatibility within the society in which it is practiced

wrong

also, your picture was staged btw.

>>7651449
Cause letting someone pretend they're a girl or boy doesn't hurt anyone. This is a terrible exaggeration. It just doesn't affect anyone.

>>7651067
>Not even being transsexualism itself causes pain though people bothering them.
>A mental disorder would be someone who hits himself on the head for no [apparent] reason
would someone mutilating their genitalia and going through dangerous surgery for no [apparent] reason not be a person with a mental disorder?

>>7651449
Yes, because the French have never let people who hear disembodied voices take command of anything.

>>7651455
I agree, people who want to get adult circumcisions should be put in mental hospitals.

>>7651454
Trans people have higher suicide rates post-op so your claim is on shaky grounds.

Also I can't take pro-homosexuals seriously regarding harm to the greater society because their metric is usually along the lines of 'gay marriage was passed one hour ago and society hasn't collapsed so your wrong, there is no danger to society'.

Also, see:
>>7651447
These people cannot complete the basic biological functions which are the basis for life existing, they are failed organisms.

>>7651067
>Mental disorder implies that the condition itself causes suffering in an ordinarily life.

This is a good starting point for a definition. But it's too limited.
By your definition a sadistic murderer doesn't have a mental disorder because killing gives him pleasure.

Please rethink your statement.

>>7651455
>People who mutilate their ears by pushing holes through them have a mental disorder
>People who mutilate their skin with tattoos have a mental disorder
>People doing things I don't like have mental disorders
wew lad

>>7651458
I agree, feminists do have too much power.

>>7651460
>These people cannot complete the basic biological functions which are the basis for life existing, they are failed organisms.

So, post-menopausal women who never popped out a kid, people who were born sterile, people who were subjected to castration through accident or injury, or just people who don't want to fucking have kids, we should gas them all because hurf durf you want to pretend you know anything Darwin was about?

Go read On the Origin of Species. Actually read it, you sack of shit.

>>7651462
>anything that becomes socially acceptable is normal and ok because of its social acceptance
so Hitler wasn't wrong..

>>7651468
You know his argument must be shit when he resorts to implying I want to gas people when all my posts have been perfectly civil.

But yes, ultimately people who fail to reproduce are failed organisms by any true definition. They are parasites on the organic system who do not ensure a future for their species. Without this basic rule being enforced organically there is no species.

>>7651469
>anything which I don't socially accept is abnormal
>but normality is totally not based on social acceptance
baka desu senpai

>>7651469
HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG

GAS THE KIKES

RACE WAR NOW

This is a strawman because gender identity ~disorder~ is a mental disorder by definition (and no serious psychologist considers transgenderism as a distinct concept from GID). Not even trannies bitching for years has managed to change the APA's mind about this.

I don't understand why you guys are upset.

>>7651468
Also its funny you raise people who choose not to birth children because the same ideological driving force behind that is also behind the rise of homosexuality, transgenderism and all other forms of antisocial behavior.

>>7651019
>caring about less than 1% of the population

>>7651469
Hitler obviously wasn't wrong to the Nazi society that accepted and supported him. But he was wrong to the rest of the world. Wow, it's almost like normality and morality are in fact determined by cultural values...

>>7651019
Because they're really isn't any practical reason for them to be. Being different from the norm does not automatically mean something is a mental disorder. And some forms of transgenderism are still considered mental disorders (or at least something in the same general category) because they do fit the criteria of a mental disorder.

>>7651047
>>7651176
It's not trans people who say gender is a social construct. Some gender roles may be, but gender itself isn't, it's mainly radical feminists that claim that.

>>7651117
>why do you have to be a girl just because you act like the stereotype of a girl
Most of them don't think like that. They may just be naturally feminine (there's obviously a reason why girls act like girls, and it may be the same thing that makes trans people feel like the opposite gender) or just act feminine as a way of basically overcompensating to try to be accepted as females.

>>7651121
>And its funny because the percentage of m-f trannies who like girls is the same as the percentage of straight men.
Actually, it's closer to 33% bisexual, 33% straight, 33% gay and 1% asexual. It's possible that hormonal influences on orientation work differently than those on gender identity. The theory is that gender identity forms based on hormone levels when you're in the womb, maybe sexuality forms based on hormone levels in early childhood. So maybe someone gets a lost of estrogen in the womb causing them to develop a female brain, but during childhood they develop as a normal male and as a result end up liking girls.

>>7651127
>>7651138
If there were studies done showing that white and black people had clear differences in brain structure, and some white people had "black" brains, then perhaps the notion of trans-racial could be taken seriously.

>>7651476
normality is based on the ability to fulfil basic personal needs, and procreate

>>7651460
>>7651447
They won't reproduce so it's fine, those that can reproduce will keep making more people that can fill the standard.

>>7651460
If that's true than it's probably because they realized it didn't make them happier. Either way there is no way to win so why not let some people cut off their dicks.

>>7651447
In evolutionary terms, you are completely correct. However what you're saying is any man or woman who does not want to have children and gets a vasectomy should also be labeled a mental disorder.

>>7651473
>implying I want to gas people when all my posts have been perfectly civil.

>But yes

You people really know how to defeat your own arguments, don't you? You go through all the trouble about preaching civility and then admit you want to gas old women and call people who've had their balls ripped off by accident 'parasites'. Very civil, you are. I go around civilly calling eunuchs worthless parasites all the time.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to read On the Origin of Species, because it's obvious by this point you don't have the slightest grip on how evolution or natural selection actually works.

>>7651469
not objectively speaking

>>7651200
What can be done to help them? If they are born fucked up you can't just change the DNA.

>>7651487
>normality is my personal definition
Yeah, I still see you aren't getting it. The world does not revolve around you and your opinions are not facts. Most people accept gays as normal now and your little tantrums don't change anything.

>>7651485
theyre not you dumb fuck, you're just so well adjusted to the concept of cultural relativism thats been forced on you

>>7651469
Opposing Marxism is never wrong. It is literally God's work.

>>7651490
>If that's true than it's probably because they realized it didn't make them happier. Either way there is no way to win so why not let some people cut off their dicks.
Again, why not support the delusions of a schizophrenic?
But seriously, please think about what you just said 'why not let some people cut off their dicks'. What about that does not scream mental illness to you?
>However what you're saying is any man or woman who does not want to have children and gets a vasectomy should also be labeled a mental disorder.
Absolutely. Its abnormal to not want to secure the future of your species. It is inherently based in self destructive and sadomasochistic traits, which are admittedly far below the surface.

>>7651496
Forced on me? It's simple observation you dumbfuck. The universe doesn't care about human morality, culture, and definitions. This is all just shit we are making up as we go along. If culture isn't relative, then prove your shitty opinions objectively and scientifically or get the fuck out.

>>7651492
I was not saying yes to gassing people.

>>7651019
Basically social pressure, for lack of a better term.

We (most/many people here) are friendless, more resilient to social pressure. That is why our opinions are less besmirched.

>>7651019
>homosexuality not mental disorders? What changed academic opinion on this? Serious question.
The gays lobbied in front of the DSM building and they changed it because they'd rather just do that than deal with the gays bullshit.

>>7651505
>Forced on me?
there's literally no other alternative viewpoint taught in schools, so yeah, you sat there as a kid and this was all you knew
>philosophy
>prove
someone hasnt done enough reading

>>7651144
It's not because they "don't think like a stereotypical male", it's because having a brain that doesn't match your body (and its hormones, etc) causes all sorts of psychological problems due to the incompatibility.

>>7651164
If the only difference is the reproductive system, why do we have things like single-gender restrooms and gendered clothing?

>>7651200
Right, but choosing not to accept them doesn't help their suicide rate either.

>>7651297
Again, it might be different parts of the brain. And there does appear to be evidence that sexuality can be altered by hormones in the teens or adulthood (where gender identity is only susceptible to hormonal influences in the womb). So it's possible if one develops a feminized brain in the womb, but grows up with normal male testosterone levels, they might be more likely to like women.

>>7651306
It is a neurological disorder, but not a mental illness.

>>7651311
It is a neurological issue, no one (except maybe Tumblr) says having gender dysphoria is "normal". But suicide rate is generally NOT higher after sex change - the main study it comes from doesn't say that, it compares post-op suicide rate to the general population, rather than to pre-op trans people. And even then it says the suicide rate difference
(again, between post-op and general population) is not statistically significant for those who had the surgery after 1989.

>>7651343
If everyone had a Y chromosome we'd go extinct too. That doesn't mean being male is unnatural. For one, natural means neither "good" nor "evolutionary positive". It just means it exists in nature. Which it does.

>>7651352
That doesn't mean that sexuality is a neurological disorder, you're committing a formal logical fallacy.

>>7651376
I think pedophilia is categorized as a paraphilia and listed in the DSM, so it's a mental disorder in a very broad sense of the term. Whereas homosexuality isn't in there at all anymore.

>>7651495
That would be correct. Except what you said is hypocritical to your viewpoint

>>7651512
>there's literally no other alternative viewpoint taught in schools, so yeah, you sat there as a kid and this was all you knew
No one teaches moral relativity in schools you dumb hick. Not to mention that simply being taught something doesn't mean that you accept it and it doesn't mean that that is the only thing you hear.

>philosophy
>prove
That's exactly my point you fucking illiterate retard. Your philosophy is just a baseless, subjective opinion.

>>7651514
How is it hypocritical?

>>7651504
We have too many people sucking up resources on the planet already. I think someone not wanting children is a perfectly reasonable to not want to bring up children.

>>7651447
That's not the definition the medical profession uses, and given that they're the ones who decide what is and isn't mental illness, your view really doesn't matter. Reproduction is a species-level rather than individual-level need, no individual has ever died from not reproducing.

>>7651460
>Trans people have higher suicide rates post-op so your claim is on shaky grounds.
Higher suicide rates than the general population, yes, but only slightly. Pre-op is much higher than general population rate.

>Also I can't take pro-homosexuals seriously regarding harm to the greater society because their metric is usually along the lines of 'gay marriage was passed one hour ago and society hasn't collapsed so your wrong, there is no danger to society'.
There really isn't any evidence that it does harm society though.

>These people cannot complete the basic biological functions which are the basis for life existing, they are failed organisms.
From a purely reproductive standpoint, yes. But pretty much no one considers that the only point of life, or something that you absolutely must have to have a valuable life.

>>7651461
They never said it had to be suffering on the part of the one with the mental disorder. Obviously a murderer's victims suffer.

>>7651469
By definition, what most people do and accept is the definition of normal. There is no 'absolute' normal (though normal doesn't mean morally good).

>>7651473
>But yes, ultimately people who fail to reproduce are failed organisms by any true definition. They are parasites on the organic system who do not ensure a future for their species. Without this basic rule being enforced organically there is no species.
So what do you think we should do with these 'failed organisms'? Gas them? Oh wait, you're trying not to sound like a neo-nazi. Besides, there are species in nature where it's been observed that some individuals choosing not to reproduce actually benefits the overall reproductive fitness of the species.

>>7651516
>Your philosophy is just a baseless, subjective opinion
you fucking idiot, you cant prove any philosophy, that doesnt make it any less logically sound. fucking autistic idiot put down the babby calc book you're struggling with and read a fucking useful piece of literature and maybe youll understand how to tackle real logical problems
fucking dense sperglord
and yes moral relativism is taught in schools did you never go or did you just fail?

>>7651483
How exactly are homosexuality and transgenderism "antisocial behavior"? And what is this "ideological driving force"? There's a perfectly logical reason to not reproduce, because we're approaching Earth's capacity in terms of resources.

>>7651522
Except its only Europeans who have plummeting birth rates and the phenomenon of vasts amount of the population not wanting to secure a future for their own people.

And yes, the future is going to look a lot brighter when white people and only white people stop having children.
How telling it then becomes that homosexuality is pushed almost exclusively in the West and no where else.

>>7651529
>How exactly are homosexuality and transgenderism "antisocial behavior"?

>>7651525
>That's not the definition the medical profession uses, and given that they're the ones who decide what is and isn't mental illness, your view really doesn't matter.
That is a rather shit argument.
>Higher suicide rates than the general population, yes, but only slightly. Pre-op is much higher than general population rate.
You are really going to need to provide a source for this. All the research I have seen says that post-op suicide rate is higher then pre-op.
>So what do you think we should do with these 'failed organisms'? Gas them?
Wow, another non argument.

>>7651531
Pretty much all of that is because the West/white countries are the most developed. It doesn't matter which races are growing and which are shrinking, what matters is the overall global population growth rate. And I'm not anti-white (I'm white myself and tend to find other white people more aesthetically attractive than other races), but I would prefer the white race to shrink and be absorbed into other races than face a Malthusian catastrophe.

>>7651535
Homosexuality just means having sex with the same sex. Nothing about doing it in public or anything. Sure, homosexuals are known to do that, but that doesn't make homosexuality itself anti-social behavior.

>>7651537
>You are really going to need to provide a source for this. All the research I have seen says that post-op suicide rate is higher then pre-op.
This is what the Swedish study cited by McHugh (I assume you know who that is) actually says.

>Wow, another non argument.
It's not supposed to be an argument. It's a question. One which I suspect you will refuse to answer.

>>7651554
a homosexual society would cease to be a society very quickly. it is inherently anti-social behavior

>>7651562
And as pointed out before, so would a society composed exclusively of males. Or a society composed exclusively of bankers. No one's saying those are anti-social behaviors.

>>7651554
>It doesn't matter which races are growing and which are shrinking, what matters is the overall global population growth rate.
Hahahaha
>And I'm not anti-white
You are disgusting and have a mental illness. Not wanting to secure the future for your species is a mental illness.

>>7651566
>society composed exclusively of bankers
there is nothing inherent to bankers that is antiscocial or would not work as a society.
>all male society
being male isnt a behavior or any type of modifiable trait. an all homosexual society isnt even as exclusive as an all male society
your parallel examples arent parallel

>>7651526
I'll take a number 3 with large fries and diet Coke

>>7651525
>They never said it had to be suffering on the part of the one with the mental disorder. Obviously a murderer's victims suffer.
It was implied, didn't have to specify.

>>7651575
>You are disgusting and have a mental illness. Not wanting to secure the future for your species is a mental illness.
Growing our population beyond what our planet can support would do the exact opposite of "secur[ing] the future for your species".

>>7651576
>there is nothing inherent to bankers that is antiscocial or would not work as a society.
Bankers aren't farmers. Where would they get their food from?

>>7651583
Pro tip: Its not European populations that are growing beyond your limit.

This is why these arguments are so pointless when the left can never accept basic facts. It is a basic fact that a future without Europeans would be pretty bleak, its not wrong to admit that.

>>7651583
anyone can grow food for themselves and hunt

>>7651588
>Pro tip: Its not European populations that are growing beyond your limit.
That's obvious. However, with international trade and all that it doesn't matter so much WHERE the population is concentrated. There's still only so much food to go around.

>>7651595
I'm referring to 'banker' as a behavior, the same way you're using 'homosexual'. There is a behavior of not growing food, which many people engage in, however if everyone does that behavior we will die out.

>>7651604
>There is a behavior of not growing food, which many people engage in
you're incorrect in thinking this way.

>>7651608
>you're incorrect in thinking this way.
You really think everyone grows their own food?

>>7651612
that's not what i said. its incorrect to think of not growing food as a "behaviour" just as it would be incorrect to think of homosexuality as an occupation

>>7651145
Ahhahahha
>because DNA

You being a kek is also because of your shitty DNA

>>7651486
Negros do have different brains from whities

>>7651623
>its incorrect to think of not growing food as a "behaviour"
Uh, how? It is a behavior, one that if everyone engaged in the species would die out. The same is true of homosexuality.

Just google some articles about how homosexuality was removed from the DSM
It was pushed by militant gay organizations & other leftists, without any thought of consequences or whatever.

It is directly responsible for high suicide rates among these "communities", because now they can go nowhere to get proper help for their mental illnesses.

The marxists elites that run our society very much want us to be a mass of mentally ill degenerates. Easier to control.

>>7651278
>there is no need to allocate finanical resources in mental centers for gay people.
Just like there is no need in trying to help trannies either? Just tell em their delusions are reality and give them estrogen?
Then pretend leftists aren't responsible when they kill themselves?

>>7651638
But if everyone did the same thing, then we would lose what makes the human race efficient.
I think homosexuality is an illness btw.

>>7651604
>There's still only so much food to go around.
The people who grow it, aka the west, is not going to be giving it away to africans or indians while we starve.

You understand you are promoting agendas that ultimately result in your own genocide, right/

>>7651638
no its not. a persons job isnt a behaviour. youre fundamentally misunderstanding

>>7651643
>It is directly responsible for high suicide rates among these "communities", because now they can go nowhere to get proper help for their mental illnesses.
There is no "proper help" that they could be getting that they're not getting now. Attempting to actual "fix" them via brain surgery would just turn them into vegetables, which I suppose you would consider a success insofar as they are no longer killing themselves or polluting your world with their degeneracy.

>Then pretend leftists aren't responsible when they kill themselves?
I suppose you think that their religious conservative parents who beat their kids and say they'll go to hell for being trans are completely innocent?

>>7651643
>capitalism is getting stronger even in China
>le marxists rule the world!!
Every time. These phenomena occur in the capitalistic west not in North Korea or the USSR you dumb conspiracy theorist.

>>7651513
If being trans is a neurological issue
How come there is no way to diagnose it by scans of the brain or tests?

>>7651649
That's my point. The argument they're using against homosexuality is that "if everyone was gay, we'd all die out." But that's true of a lot of behaviors.

>The people who grow it, aka the west, is not going to be giving it away to africans or indians while we starve.
If they're starving, they have nothing to lose. They may launch an all out war to get our food. Maybe us whites will be lucky and they'll all die leaving the whole world for us. But I wouldn't count on it. No matter what happens, we will feel overpopulation pressures one way or the other.

>You understand you are promoting agendas that ultimately result in your own genocide, right/
I'm not promoting any agenda, just stating that our world can only support so many people.

>>7651655
Ok, so forget the banker metaphor. If everyone engaged in non-farming/non-hunting behavior, we would die out. Same as if we engaged non-reproducing behavior. Yet you claim that an INDIVIDUAL who engages is non-reproducing behavior is mentally ill, yet someone who engages in non-farming behavior is not. Where is the logic? Where is the consistency?

>>7651657
>There is no "proper help" that they could be getting that they're not getting now.
Since all research into such things was ended decades ago, that's a bold assertion to be made.

South park had a good episode on this subject. Most people today are doing it for the attention & because they've been peer pressured into it.

>>7651660
Such brain scans have been done, but only for research purposes. I think the detail and level of analysis required may be too much for it to be done with every patient. Possibly as technology improves we may see more of it, and thus even more accurate diagnosis.

>>7651666
>actually claiming that South Park is a better source than actual scientific studies

>>7651664
>If everyone engaged in non-farming/non-hunting behavior, we would die out
not farming is not a behavior. especially not farming for a large percentage of the population. thats a profession. any person can hunt or farm, your assertion of a "non-farming behavior" would be akin to having a condition where a person is mentally unable to farm, such as a sever fobia or mental disorder. just not choosing to grow large amounts of produce for a living is not a behavior

>>7651675
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice too. They don't WANT to reproduce, but they can if they really need to. So it's no different than the farming metaphor.

This whole 'if everyone was gay' thing is a massive red herring.
Not everyone has to be gay for it to have negative effects and to help decrease birth rates to unsustainable levels.

>>7651664
>That's my point. The argument they're using against homosexuality is that "if everyone was gay, we'd all die out." But that's true of a lot of behaviors.
Yeah, but the final point you're missing, is that homosexuality serves no purpose. The way society works is that some do some jobs and others do other jobs, but unless they have value they are worthless.

>>7651681
>They don't WANT to reproduce
that's why their behavior is so counter to fundamental animal behavior and instinct
>So it's no different than the farming metaphor
it really is and if you can't understand that then you really have no business discussing any sort of scientific or philosophical matters. then again neither should most of the retards on /sci/

>>7651422
Bullshit. When it comes to Classical sexuality, it was only weird to get fucked as opposed to fucking.

>>7651685
The only really negative effect of homosexuality is AIDS, which is external and doesn't affect lesbians. Compared to things like birth control and demographic transition, the effect of homosexuality on birth rate is insignificant.

>>7651688
What purpose does intentionally non-reproductive hetero sex (i.e. birth control, oral sex) serve? Or should we consider that a mental illness as well?

>>7651693
So if someone doesn't want to farm, doesn't that mean they're mentally ill? Reproduction is as much of an individual-level need as farming is.

>>7651433
>thinking cultural norms are everlasting

>>7651697
European peoples have negative birth rates, homosexuality and similar mindsets which are supported by the same ideology contributes to that. We can not maintain our population in the long term, we will go extinct.
How is that not a negative effect unless you are sadomasochistic and want to see your own people die out?

>>7651700
Surely if you have to misrepresent other peoples arguments this blatantly you can recognize on some level you are a piece of shit and have lost the argument?

>>7651706
You're assuming that those low birth rates are caused by homosexuality. They're not. They're an inherent consequence of becoming a developed society. That's starting to happen in non-Western countries that are becoming industrialized as well.

Very high birth rates are needed for agricultural society (large manpower requirement to work the land, disease and hard labor means short lifespans, higher rates of infant mortality, etc). Industrialized society doesn't need that much population. It won't drop to extinction level, only to the point where the population is "ideal" for the environment.

>>7651706
>muh extinction event
Given that most recent studies suggest that less than 5% of the population is homosexual, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'd say that sites like this which prevent people from getting laid are killing us out far quicker.

>>7651712
What am I misrepresenting? Are you not claiming that homosexuals are mentally ill?

>>7651697
>What purpose does intentionally non-reproductive hetero sex (i.e. birth control, oral sex) serve?
It doesn't serve any purpose. Excessive sex, porn addiction and such is already considered mental illnesses.

>>7651700
you're assuming the people that dont farm dont do so out of inability or dislike of farming. they may have more important issues that they deal with like engineering, which brings the necessary water to farm at the level where everyone can be provided for. everyone has a job. homosexuality has no purpose

>>7651019
How do we know homosexuality and transgenderism aren't in mental order?

>>7651722
What is the purpose of oral sex? Or pornography?

>>7651715
>You're assuming that those low birth rates are caused by homosexuality.
I didn't, I said they are contributed to by homosexuality.

My argument points at real life people who are not breeding and says 'these people are contributing to the effects of people not breeding'.

Look how complex and flim flamsy your argument is in comparison. You literally deny the effect of people not breeding on low birth rates, think about that for a second.

>>7651715
>They're an inherent consequence of becoming a developed society.
absolutely nonsense

> It won't drop to extinction level
It WILL drop to extinction level because at some point you will outnumber 100 to 1 by your enemies, and then you will be conquered & destroyed.
Low birth rates are caused by DEGENERACY, feminism, homosexuality, "free love", all these sorts of left wing cultural memes.

There is also economic reasons. Expenses keep going up, crime is rampant, so people feel unprepared to have a family, etc.

>>7651719
We are talking about individuals, i.e. homosexuals not breeding.
You are talking about a made up society comprised entirely of bankers not farming.
How fucking far could you be from the point?

>>7651721
Minor amounts are not mental illness then? Minor amounts of homosexuality (i.e. have sex with your bf once or twice a year, spend the rest of your time working) shouldn't be considered mental illness either in that case.

>>7651730
Okay, I concede that I misrepresented your argument. But the point still stands that it's not enough to bring us anywhere near extinction level.

>>7651735
Yes, but there's one further difference. Homosexuality serves no original purpose. Hetero sex with birth control is a direct secondary outcome of a functioning sexual drive.

>>7651735
>Minor amounts of homosexuality
you're on the bargaining stage. just move on to acceptance that youre wrong

>>7651731
>absolutely nonsense
Care to offer an explanation why?

>It WILL drop to extinction level because at some point you will outnumber 100 to 1 by your enemies, and then you will be conquered & destroyed.
Low birth rates are caused by DEGENERACY, feminism, homosexuality, "free love", all these sorts of left wing cultural memes.
Okay, you're going full /pol/ on me but I'm going to try to answer rationally. What "enemies" are you talking about? Klingons? I'm talking about extinction of the human species, not your precious little white race. Races have been "conquered" throughout history, usually not in the sense of every last member being hunted down and destroyed (this has been attempted, but is rarely completely successful) but instead being absorbed into the conquering race. This has happened many times, it's not the end of the world. Sure, it may be painful to live through, but history is a story of rises and falls, you can't prevent that.

>There is also economic reasons. Expenses keep going up, crime is rampant, so people feel unprepared to have a family, etc.
Obviously there are economic factors, but that has noting to do with homosexuality.

>>7651734
The original argument was that a homosexual society would die out. It wasn't about individuals.

>>7651743
Posting on image boards serves no purpose. The entire premise of art doesn't serve any functional purpose. It's our likes and dislikes that separate us from being brainless ants. Anybody who's not an aspie understands this.

>>7651743
What about hetero oral sex? There is no circumstance in which that can enable reproduction.

>>7651749
Why don't you accept that even the smallest amount of oral sex or pornography is degenerate?

>>7651526
>you fucking idiot, you cant prove any philosophy, that doesnt make it any less logically sound.
Yes, philosophy is unprovable, that's because it's relative. Clearly you don't understand what "logic" means, because logic is actually a system of proofs.

And again, you are avoiding the point since you claim your moral/cultural philosophy to be non-relative, yet you can't provide a single measure of objectivity. I mean, how retarded can you be to simultaneously argue culture is non-relative and that *your version of culture* (which is outside the current norm) is the only "normal"?

>and yes moral relativism is taught in schools did you never go or did you just fail?
Give me a lesson plan teaching moral relativism then you dumb hick.

>>7651731
>duh-gen-uh-wuh-see
/pol/ is literally a meme board, you autist.

>>7651755
>What about hetero oral sex?
Same.

>>7651764
So you concede that it's just as degenerate as homosexuality?

>>7651754
>Posting on image boards serves no purpose.
It does. Exchange of ideas. Humans success is due to flow of information.

>>7651751
What we have here is essentially people who don't care about the demise of European people, many of them would both welcome and support it.
These same people are demanding degenerate practices be accepted and refusing to discuss potential negative consequences.
At the same time they promise that everything is going to be fine, no harm could come from any of this.

Why should I listen to this from someone who hates his own people and wants to bring about their demise?

What we are witnessing is widespread sadomasochistic mental illness.
If you don't care about your people going extinct, you are mentally ill.

>>7651751
>not your precious little white race.
Are you not white? It is whites who have built everything of worth on this world, you honestly don't see it as a problem if they go extinct? You think this doesn't effect you, or your family members, or your descendants?

>Care to offer an explanation why?
Because a generation ago, births were 5 kids a woman. It's not INEVITABLE, it is a consequence of deliberate policies & ideologies.

Nothing stops homos from having kids either, other than their own culture.

>>7651770
>you don't agree with /pol/, you're mentally ill

>>7651767
>"Shitposting with epic memes are saving the human race, guys."

>>7651766
Pay attention. It's a direct secondary result of a functioning sex drive.
So no, it's not at the same level of degeneracy.

>>7651770
>What we have here is essentially people who don't care about the demise of European people, many of them would both welcome and support it.
Why? What do they have to get out of it? Are they just doing it for the lulz? Face it, if the European people dies out, it's because it's what the people want. Why are you opposed to democracy?

>>7651776
Oh, is that what you were referring to by "posting on imageboards". I guess we each use them in our own way.

>>7651777
So if I get only footjobs from women, I'm helping the human race expand? Yeah, no.

>>7651777
It's a malfunction of that supposedly "functioning sex drive", in the same way homosexuality is. Neither serves a purpose. The ONLY redeeming quality of hetero oral sex is that people who engage in it frequently also engage in proper sex. But that does not make the act of oral sex any less degenerate.

>>7651781
What the hell are you babbling about.

>>7651782
No one is arguing against that. You are building a strawman in every single post of yours it seems. Get a brain.

Homosexuality is fine, a lot of organisms do that and being gay doesn't affect someone too much. But being transgender, I don't want some dude to want to be a girl, spend a massive fuck ton to change gender, and then all of a sudden want to go back. Or some dude claims to be a girl and goes into the girls bathroom and faps around.

>get home from work
>hop on computer to check /sci/
>see an entire thread of /pol/-tier shitposts
>mfw

>>7651791
You claimed that oral sex is less degenerate than homosexuality, see >>7651777. Maybe the individuals who engage in oral sex are less degenerate than homosexuals, but the acts themselves are equally degenerate.

>>7651805
>You claimed that oral sex is less degenerate than homosexuality
It is. And I wrote why.

>>7651809
Yet in >>7651791 you said:
>No one is arguing against that

>>7651811
>It's a malfunction of that supposedly "functioning sex drive"
Evolution isn't perfect.

>>7651815
Homosexuality and oral sex are both activities that serve no purpose.

>>7651019
Trans is a mental disorder. The medical term is "gender dysphoria".

>>7651817
That's what I agreed to.

>>7651797
Not sure what you have to be upset about? This is an open forum, anyone including yourself is free to post their opinion?
Why is it so damaging to you to be exposed to dissenting opinions when you have a full right to reply?

>>7651821
And that means they are equally degenerate, right?

>>7651817
>>7651821
Except homosexuality isn't an activity. But I agree to the point you're trying to make.

>>7651805
Is this argument really occurring?

Oral sex is about pleasuring a partner in a very deliberate and intent driven way, with your focus largely on them and their enjoyment. How is it even sensible to frame this in terms of "degeneracy", and what could be more intimate than putting your face and mouth to someone's genitals?

What sort of interpersonal behaviors are truly more high level?

>>7651817
Depends, if oral sex is part of a functioning reproduction based relationship then it may serve to strengthen that relationship, consequently being a positive activity.

>>7651825
Assuming you mean homo sex and oral sex.
Homo sex stems from a malfunctioning sex drive.
Oral sex stems from a functioning, albeit not perfect sex drive.

Ergo, homo sex is one step lower on the degeneracy scale.

>>7651826
Homosexual behavior is an activity though.

>>7651828
I'm only using "degeneracy" so /pol/anon can understand me.

>>7651836
One sex drive is less degenerate than the other, however the behaviors on their own are equally degenerate.

>>7651828
Yes, obviously it's about pleasuring your partner. But the same thing can be said about homosexual partners. That is why this argument is occurring.
If you define your logic based on what's pleasurable, you will soon get stumped.

>>7651843
An ill defined one.

>>7651848
That's why I rejected putting things in a framework composed of defining a degree of degeneracy.

Pleasure's definition is all that leads to difficulties. It often fails to account for human ambivalence or multifaceted emotions.

>>7651853
How is it ill-defined? It just means engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same sex.

>>7651847
>One sex drive is less degenerate than the other, however the behaviors on their own are equally degenerate.
The actions stem from a degenerate sexuality, so by inheritance the action is as well. You're applying a constricted form of logic onto it.

>>7651847
>I'm only using "degeneracy" so /pol/anon can understand me.
I'm not /pol/ish.

>>7651858
Nah, it doesn't. That's just how you defined it right now.
It could mean how gays act in general.

>>7651025
DSM-5 still says its a mental disorder.

>>7651864
>I'm not /pol/ish.
The "degeneracy" meme is almost exclusively associated with /pol/.

>>7651869
I suppose, but the most fundamental behavior of a gay person is fucking the same sex.

>>7651843
No, its love :^)

triggerwords good

>>7651100
>and they're happy
Except they aren't.

Transgender people still have ridiculously high suicide rates after transitioning.

>>7651877
>clear and defined degradation of society and its moral standards in the last few decades
>a meme

>>7651877
>The "degeneracy" meme is almost exclusively associated with /pol/.
I don't know of any "degeneracy" meme.

Ironic, because that must mean you visit that board, and are a "/pol/anon" yourself.

>>7651885
It's generally far worse before transitioning. Post-transition suicide rate is only slightly above population average these days.

>>7651891
I've visited occasionally. It's culture is widespread enough on 4chan that you become familiar with it pretty quick even if you don't go there.

>>7651019
too broad of a question
needs to be specific if you wan't to be taken seriously, mr cosby

>>7651797
>get home from work
>see entire thread of /pol/-tier shitposts
>contribute to the thread with an adam sandler gif
>mfw

>>7651891
Nobody anywhere ever used the word "degeneracy" on here before /pol/ came about. It's a shitty meme that imbeciles use to hide from rational discussion.


>"______ should be banned."
>"Why?"
>"It's degenerate."

>>7651935
>It's a shitty meme that imbeciles use to hide from rational discussion.
Says the person who is attacking one single descriptive word and ignoring everything else

>>7651950
I'm attacking an argumentative stance that is very prevalent in this particular thread. It's not worth trying to argue with a response that a toddler would give to their parents.

>>7651959
>I'm attacking an argumentative stance that is very prevalent in this particular thread.
The arguments being made in this thread are 99.999% comprised of words other than degeneracy.

But listen up:
'Degeneracy' refers broadly to the trend of social and moral degradation that has undeniably been happening in the west, largely since the 60s.
It is seen in the decline of the family, church, tradition, community and in the rise of self interest above those around you.

These things are real and undeniable.
'Degeneracy' is the word that describes these things as being negative, generally used by the right.
'Progress' is the word that describes these things as being positive, generally used by the left.

Attacking the word degeneracy is an exercise in futility.

>>7651967
>moral degradation
>undeniably
The real world isn't an episode of 'I Love Lucy', dude. True freedom allows for people to do things that disgust or bother you so long as they don't harm other individuals. Things such as sodomy laws and prohibition are prime examples of how "muh degeneracy" is a trash sentiment and carries no weight. If you think something should be outlawed solely because you don't like or agree with it, then you are in the same bag as any communist scumbag.

>>7651982
>decline of the family, church, tradition, community and in the rise of self interest above those around you
>things that don't harm other individuals
pick one

>>7651019
Why is this question literally everywhere nowadays? Who really cares in the end?

>>7651433
>social relativism
Yer talking about "Mental Disorders" ie. Psychology - there ain't nothing more relative than that.

Now if you wanna talk about what God says about it, that's another thing.

Not that this wasn't a >>>/pol/ thread to begin with.

>>7651988
>church, tradition
>good
Select uno.

>>7651967
>'Degeneracy' refers broadly to the trend of social and moral degradation that has undeniably been happening in the west, largely since the 60s.
>It is seen in the decline of the family, church, tradition, community and in the rise of self interest above those around you.
Whacky definition of a word there and a poor attempt to control language therefore.
Get out.

>>7651967
>'Degeneracy' refers broadly to the trend of social and moral degradation that has undeniably been happening in the west, largely since the 60s. It is seen in the decline of the family, church, tradition, community and in the rise of self interest above those around you.
One man's degeneracy is another man's progress.

So yeah, completely deniable.

Not that I am, per say, but this isn't an issue, and this isn't /sci/ence - this is one asshole's opinion vs. another's.

>>7652016
>One man's degeneracy is another man's progress.
Failing to recognize degeneracy is degeneracy in itself.

Delusional subjectivity is degeneracy.

>>7651988
And I suppose you're ignoring the times when church and tradition harm people? And you also seem to think "community" includes only social conservatives. That's not how it works.

>>7652041
Claiming everything is degeneracy is the most degenerate form of degeneracy. It's no different than Tumblr SJWs saying people have to stop doing things that "trigger" them.

>>7652060
I hope you're not implying that I by my one post claimed everything is degeneracy.

>>7652069
No, but the point still stands, unless you can actually offer specific explanations of why "degeneracy" is damaging, it's just another way of saying "I don't like thing so you should stop doing it."

>>7652073
I don't need to explain that why degeneracy is bad, because it's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

>>7652083
And apparently you're the only one here with a functioning brain. It doesn't matter how hard you tip your fedora, no one's going to take you seriously if you refuse to back up your arguments and instead just say the opposition is stupid. I personally feel that some of the things frequently labeled "degeneracy" are good things, and I am not mentally deficient according to any of the common measures of intelligence.

>>7652091
fucking degenerate reeeeeeeeeee

Psychology is a joke science, and the only real mental illnesses are the ones that lead to hallucinations and unstable behavior.

>>7652091
>And apparently you're the only one here with a functioning brain.
Lol no. Far from it. It is really uncommon not to recognize degeneracy.

Except maybe you can be trained to ignore it. And that may be happening to people now.

>>7652103
/thread

>>7652106
You seem to be the only one around here talking about degeneracy. Certainly no one I know IRL talks about it much.

/pol/ is one of a few things that has ruined this website.
If you disagree, you are a degenerate.

>>7652108
>Only one
You don't even know who I am and how many posts I've made in this thread.
And take your whining somewhere else.

>>7652121
fuck off bobandy

>>7652055
When does church and tradition harm anyone other than sick, subversive degenerates?

>>7652016
>So yeah, completely deniable.
Depends what your values are
If you value a country or a people surviving the next 100 years then it's undeniably bad/degenerate.
If you value the white race becoming minorities in their countries, and the eventual destruction of western society, then sure, it's progress.
A lot of these people are childless homosexual, or childless atheistic liberals.

>>7652131
>everyone who wants to do things that a 5000 year-old-script deems unsatisfactory
>"degenerates"
Literally an autistic meme lord.

>>7652108
Thats political correctness, same reason noone talks about race. All part & parcel of the same agenda.

>>7651982
You say this, but then you are saying you do not want a society, or a country, you want only anarchy.
You don't recognize harm, except when it fits your political values.
Homosexuality is a contagious illness spread largely by abuse from homosexuals.

>>7652131
actually believes that the way to preserve a free society is to force people to act a certain way

>>7652132
>what worked for thousands of years is bad because it's against my politics ;)
>Lets continue doing something that undeniably is destroying our countries & civilization because huffpo says its progress!

>>7652134
>personal freedom =/= anarchy
Communist detected.

>>7652135
The way to preserve a free society is to allow the peoples and races who never produced a free society in their existance to take over ours?

You haven't seen this "safe space" shit from liberals? I'm sure gays care so fucking much about ~free society~
brb suing a bakery for not producing my profanity covered cake.

>>7652137
>"Hey guys, I've been eating my own shit for years. I'm still alive so it must be good for you. You should be forced to eat your own shit."
Supporting a theocratic government is pretty much the most fedora thing you can do.

>>7652139
>oppose legislation that prohibits people from doing certain things
>automatically support oppressive, liberal government that prohibits people from doing things
/pol/ at its finest

>>7652127
When all your posts turn to shitposts, it's time to stop posting.

>>7652138
How does granting special privileges and benefits to a certain subversive group that hates the whole, mean "personal freedoms"?
Civilization, society, and countries are not built on "muh personal freedoms".
If gays want to be gay, they can go somewhere else.

>>7652144
>I think politics is a buffet where I can pick and choose whatever I want to claim the moral highground
kk

>>7652149
Nobody should be forced to accept gays, but the federal government should not be allowed to make any legislation that stops gays from living their lives as they wish. Typical conservative mongoloid assuming that everybody who isn't hard-right is a bleeding heart liberal.

>>7652149
so because i want freedom for all who dont harm anybody else means that i want to take away freedom from some?

alright dude

>>7652149
>>>/pol/

*cough*
Dominican boys who grow their penises at puberty

http://mentalfloss.com/article/68982/what-makes-these-dominican-children-grow-penises-puberty

>>7652153
To have a society, you have to be able to do things against the subversive elements undermining it
You ignore the fact that homosexuality is a contagious disease. That there is inherently a mental problem with them self-identifying themselves as a fucking sexual fetish. That they promote their disgusting behavior in public, and spread disease that costs extreme amounts of money to deal with.

Any sort of "give" towards homosexuals, inevitably leads towards normalization & promotion of that lifestyle.

>>7652157
Why would I care what you want? What does that matter to anyone?

>>7652166
So you are unironically against individuals doing things that are not directly harmful in their own homes? Would you legitimately endorse a police state that prevented any activities deemed unsatisfactory by the state?

>>7652174
was the US a police state before the 60's?

>>7651666
>South park had a good episode on this subject.

i like when people straight up tell you their opinions can be safely disregarded like this

>>7652166
>You ignore the fact that homosexuality is a contagious disease

lol sounds legit

>>7652175
Don't dodge my questions. This is about your ideals for what makes a country good and free.

Would you or would you not endorse a police state that raided the homes of suspected homosexuals and arrested them for their sexual activities in private?

>>7652183
imo all forms of entertainment should be banned as well. we can't have our members of society wasting their time on frivolous things like the latest episode of game of thrones. if you aren't producing offspring or working, it's the gas chambers for you

>>7652187
Heh.

>>7652183
If the cost of the nation being ~free~, is the destruction of the nation or country..
Then thats too high a price to pay, no?

If the queers keep their activities in the privacy of their homes, then so be it.
The issue is that they don't

This of course, ignores the fact that they are mentally ill.

>>7652196
If a nation must crush the principles of liberty it was founded on just to survive, then it should shatter and burn. A fascist pig like you would have no understanding on what a free nation is.

>>7652196
hitler lost lol