Library Idiocy

[SkepticThinker]

I dont see how homosexuality is a decrement in psychological or physiological functioning.

As for distrubance in behavior again I dont see it causing a distrubance in behavior.

Psychologists and psychiatrists don't see it either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

let’s retrace. You falsely stated that the Bible was promoting killing many people.

I said that it was not a valid government function.

you then went on a rant about printers.


How is your needing a printer related to the issue of the book selection of a library?

also profane language suggests that your upset rather than discussing the topic.

It speaks to the usefulness of public libraries being available to the public.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dictionary is in reference to THIS site.
We are talking about this dictionary all the time (if you go look back) because there is no pdf of DSM for download.

You're right, me too.

Which is pretty useless given that, 1) It's not the DSM and 2) The page you've cited is about Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, not homosexuality.

You seem extremely confused.

 

[paradox]

There is nothing "utopian" about it. These are the ideals the founders of this country set forth and proposed that we live by.

Unfortunately, after 100 years of industrial strength commercial advertising, the American people all think everything in the world is for and about them, now. They think it's government's job to cater to their whims always and exclusively, and to hell with everyone else.

But that's not the society that the founders envisioned. They envisioned a society wherein all of us are free to be and do as we please, so long as we do not infringe the right of others to do the same.

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 nor it can make everyone happy just like any other ideology it's not immune to everything.

When you said "collective well-being" that reminded me of "Community, Identity, Stability" mentioned in brave new world.

Yes, you quoted Wikipedia. It did not support your claim.

How exactly "it did not support my claim" please?

Your question was:

When has the ALA ever banned Brave New World? Citation needed.

My answer was:

According to American Library Association, Brave New World has frequently been banned and challenged in the United States

Brave New World - Wikipedia

Here is additional information:
Banned Books 2015 - Brave New World - Marshall Libraries

 

[Subduction Zone]

My answer was:
Brave New World - Wikipedia

Here is additional information:
Banned Books 2015 - Brave New World - Marshall Libraries

Yes, it has been banned. But here is where I have to wonder about your reading comprehension. You specifically claimed that the American Library Association banned it. They did not . They only reported that people had asked to have it banned.

They never banned it themselves, and that was your claim. Do you understand now?

 

[paradox]

That would be you. That poster is correct.
I'm a psychology major.

Nice to have you, I hope you're not biased in your profession.

The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, The Australian Psychological Society, etc. all say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

You sound like this is ideological matter (with which I may agree) but what about the rest of the civilized world?

 

[paradox]

Yes, it has been banned. But here is where I have to wonder about your reading comprehension. You specifically claimed that the American Library Association banned it. They did not . They only reported that people had asked to have it banned.

They never banned it themselves, and that was your claim. Do you understand now?

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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

For your information Freud has very heavily and widely fallen out of favor and most of his ideas have been discarded.

Those of us who don't live and the past and understand the necessity of using current sources know better.
The Case Against Conversion “Therapy”: Evidence, Ethics, and Alternatives

What Is LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy?

Conversion Therapy
Variations in sexual orientation and gender expression represent normal and expectable dimensions of human development. They are not considered to be pathological; therefore, they are not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and other accepted nosological systems (1).
...

Why Gay Conversion Therapy Is Harmful



That's basically a failure if it only works for a few. If that's the case it's more likely a placebo effect than anything from the procedure.

Freud's crap is largely and mostly worse than garbage. Seriously. Do you want to have sex with one of your parents? Probably, like most people, that is a firm no.
Why Freud Still Matters, When He Was Wrong About Almost Everything


Lacking in what? Junk "science" and bigotry? Seriously, what I looked at was just wrong and it was not easy to find many things. It's such a terrible source that it doesn't even have a complete alphabet when browsing subjects and topics.

Beat me to it! Well done.
We know we're on the same page with the Freud stuff. No psychologist/psychiatrist worth their salt relies on Freudian ideas anymore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice to have you, I hope you're not biased in your profession.

I try not to be. Training helps with that.

You sound like this is ideological matter (with which I may agree) but what about the rest of the civilized world?

As far as I know, all major recognized and credentialed psychological and psychiatric associations do not recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

[paradox]

2) The page you've cited is about Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, not homosexuality.

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 profession rather than to political motives.

Which is pretty useless given that, 1) It's not the DSM

Does DSM have authority over all physicians around the globe?

You seem extremely confused.

Confused? "a state of not being certain about what is happening"
What is happening?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose you didn't read the whole thread because otherwise you would not say that.

I've read the entire thread from start to finish.

The mere fact that it also mentions homosexuality on the page, within the framework of Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, doesn't make your case for you that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Heck, "sociopathic personality disturbance" isn't even a mental disorder. Antisocial personality disorder is though.

I did say that homosexuality was removed from DSM and stopped to be "Sociopathic Personality Disturbance",

That is incorrect.

and this whole debate is around motives for being removed and whether it was justified in regard to profession rather than to political motives.

I'm aware of your claims. And pardon me for saying but it sounds to me like you're getting all your "information" on this from far right-wing, anti-gay websites, where I've seen this stuff touted for years now.

It was justified. The evidence is what justified it's removal from the DSM as a mental disorder.

Does DSM have authority over all physicians around the globe?

I know for sure that it's used by Canadian, Australian and American psychologists and psychiatrists.

Confused? "a state of not being certain about what is happening"
What is happening?

See above.

Here is some interesting reading on the history of homosexuality in the psychiatric profession. It's a lot more complex than you seem to think:
Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality

It goes through the different psychiatric views on homosexuality and how they evolved over time (it also explains why Freudian views have largely fallen out of favour). It talks about how psychiatrists were at first resistant to changing their views, and how, yes, protesters played a part in opening up the (much needed) debate on the subject which helped set off a re-analysis of new and pre-existing evidence and prevailing views. Which led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder after many, many seminars, research reviews, conferences, votes, etc. But they didn't just remove it because protestors showed up and they just gave into them or something.
In other words, this view is based on the evidence.

 

[paradox]

Heck, "sociopathic personality disturbance" isn't even a mental disorder. Antisocial personality disorder is though.

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"?

That is incorrect.

Wasn't homosexuality defined as sexual deviance in DSM-2 which was (or still is?) Sociopathic Personality Disturbance?

I'm aware of your claims. And pardon me for saying but it sounds to me like you're getting all your "information" on this from far right-wing, anti-gay websites, where I've seen this stuff touted for years now.
It was justified. The evidence is what justified it's removal from the DSM as a mental disorder.

interesting, Right now I think of searching non-English sites just to confirm your claim and make sure I evade censorship, but it would likely be difficult and take time.

Here is some interesting reading on the history of homosexuality in the psychiatric profession. It's a lot more complex than you seem to think:
Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality

Same as above I'm thinking of finding out what research have psychiatrists done in other countries.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Dude! You claimed that a particular association which is against banning books banned it. That it has been banned was never questioned. It is as if you claimed that a particular university was against education when they only tried to teach people about those that were against education in a class.

Just admit that you made a rather bad mistake and we can move on.

 

[paradox]

Just admit that you made a rather bad mistake and we can move on.

Didn't you made a bad mistake by saying (note bold part)

When has the ALA ever banned Brave New World?

But now you catch yourself lying:

That it has been banned was never questioned.

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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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"?

Why would I provide a source that defines "sociopathic personality disturbance" when I just pointed out that it's not a recognized mental disorder?
Antisocial personality disorder is a recognized mental disorder.

Wasn't homosexuality defined as sexual deviance in DSM-2 which was (or still is?) Sociopathic Personality Disturbance?

I guess you didn't read the article I just posted for you about the history of homosexuality in the psychiatric/psychology community.

The DSM-I (which came out in 1952) classified homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disturbance" because way back then, they viewed homosexuality as pathological. The DSM-II (which came out in 1968) identified homosexuality as "sexual deviation." All of this, plus more detailed explanation is in the article I posted for you. You should read it.

interesting, Right now I think of searching non-English sites just to confirm your claim and make sure I evade censorship, but it would likely be difficult and take time.

Hmm, not sure I can help you there.

Same as above I'm thinking of finding out what research have psychiatrists done in other countries.

Just search out some peer-reviewed science journals and start reading.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

The point is that the ALA never banned the book. All they did was provide a list of books that have been banned in some places and what those books were. They themselves, did not ban anything, as you had claimed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

What? What was my supposed "lie"? Once again, your ability to understand what you read keeps appearing to be rather poor.

You were the one that claimed that the ALA banned Brave New World. I asked you when they banned it. You never supported that claim. You only showed that they said other people or groups tried to ban it. That is not the ALA banning a work. It was not a lie on my part that the banning of the book was never questioned. What was questioned was that it was banned by a specific organization. You really really need to work on your reading comprehension here.

This is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This is a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that the ALA never banned the book. All they did was provide a list of books that have been banned in some places and what those books were. They themselves, did not ban anything, as you had claimed.

Thanks. Perhaps some slightly different wording will make his mistake clear to him. But I am not holding my breath.

 

[paradox]

What? What was my supposed "lie"? Once again, your ability to understand what you read keeps appearing to be rather poor.

You were the one that claimed that the ALA banned Brave New World. I asked you when they banned it. You never supported that claim. You only showed that they said other people or groups tried to ban it. That is not the ALA banning a work. It was not a lie on my part that the banning of the book was never questioned. What was questioned was that it was banned by a specific organization. You really really need to work on your reading comprehension here.

This is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This is a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

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:

Maybe you should begin proving yourself by showing that you don’t have to prove yourself

 

[Shadow Wolf]

however APA obviously doesn't list homosexuality which is self-contradictory to their own definition,

No, it's just obvious your running you mouth and have no background or info on what you speak about. You didn't know the history of why it was struck and you seem to just not care about the reasons the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM.