You do know that BB is a theory rather than proof?
The biggest problem with BB is "infinitely dense mass", if you watch my video you'll see that "infinity does not provide legitimate basis for rational thought"
When you're given a logical argument such as contradiction then you're supposed to logically refute it and prove it's not contradition.
I'm sorry but "running you mouth" is not a logical argument.
Because:
1.) I'm unable to find APA definition of "sociopathic personality disturbance" to verify it's not mental disorder.
2.) You differentiate the two but APA dictionary does not seem to.
3.) There is no way in verifying you are what you said you are - a psychology major. even though it seems...
OK man I apologize for my silly mistake (which I already corrected), but you really do not need to admit your mistake shown in post #274. (there is no need)
btw. there is a saying which says:
Didn't you made a bad mistake by saying (note bold part)
But now you catch yourself lying:
Let's not play word catching game because obviously nobody is robot, it was misunderstanding and that's how I interpret it and said "OK then".
Do you want me to officially apologize?
How is that APA does not define "sociopathic personality disturbance" but only "antisocial personality disorder" but you differentiate the two?
Can you please provide reliable source that defines "sociopathic personality disturbance"?
Wasn't homosexuality defined as sexual deviance in DSM-2...
All of this is what YOU said not me.
If you don't believe me go look post history and you'll see. :)
Answer to the question with logic since you claimed logic is "god"
No I didn't say it "could" provide an answer, I said that it should give you an answer since you said logic is "god"
I suppose you didn't read the whole thread because otherwise you would not say that.
I did say that homosexuality was removed from DSM and stopped to be "Sociopathic Personality Disturbance",
and this whole debate is around motives for being removed and whether it was justified in regard to...
OK then, but the fact is that the book was banned several times.
See also:
Banned & Challenged Classics | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues (ala.org)
Anyway, in regard to OP issue is that people should decide them self what to read, books must not be banned.
Nice to have you, I hope you're not biased in your profession.
You sound like this is ideological matter (with which I may agree) but what about the rest of the civilized world?
haha, that's exactly what the "brave new world" book talks about.
It all starts nice in the name of "Community, Identity, Stability" but this then leads to disaster, complete opposite of what's it's supposed to be.
Not because democracy is false but simply because it can't solve all the problems...
I'm familiar with logic which you claimed to be "god"
But judging by your posts it is you who is not familiar with god of another's person position?
Definitions of God - PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON (weebly.com)
You first.
It's not so much about ideals as it is about dangers that may come out of utopian-style ideology.
I suppose you didn't read summary of the book from my link?
In summary utopia leads to dystopia.
Did I not quote wikipeida?
Your vision of democracy sounds like "brave new world", which is extremely dangerous ideology for "collective well-being"
'Brave New World,' Plato's 'Republic,' and Our Scientific Regime (thenewatlantis.com)
btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book...
They are manipulated without realizing that being manipulated.
Faiths are designed so that questioning their integrity is considered loss of faith,
this produces a complexity which doesn't allow you to think rationally.
For example I asked one priest a complex question, he gave me an answer...