I was rather relieved by your response and then saw the response, of someone trying to justify the whole question, with 'Depends on the defect. — Jack Cummins

I thought that was a joke. As in it's ok to call caucasians 'melanin defectives'. Not.

Perhaps it was a joke. That is the problem with online discussions. There is no non verbal interaction and written words can become too concrete. Perhaps none of the tension would have arisen the other night if we were in real life discussion. It may have all been melodrama.

A room full of articulate opinionated know-it-alls from every corner of the world and every political and/or religious persuasion, discussing everything under the sun? Sounds like a proper love-in. The mods would need tasers. :naughty:

My concern is that, should Socrates have raised some of the questions he did with his interlocutors in Plato’s Republic in THIS, a supposedly “philosophy” forum, he would have gotten kicked out...and then where would the discussion have gone from there, in the absence of “The Prince of Philosophers”?

Of course, Socrates did get kicked out of Athens...and out of his own life, by the Athenian powers-that-be, and modern thinkers are indignant about that, as the most extreme form of censorship, because they have been educated in the Enlightenment ideal of free speech, which was formulated to keep Socrateses from being sentenced to death...

...but in our day, supposedly more enlightened than any day in history, we must still fear the hemlock...

...of course getting banned from an internet site can scarcely be compared to being forced to drink poison, but it has the same effect on philosophical discussion. Advanced egalitarianism has not corrected the prejudices of past times and discriminatory places; it has rather replaced those old prejudices with new ones, which in turn become the new bases for prohibiting speech.

There is now, since my encounter with the rulers of this place, who I must know are now watching every word I say, a whole slew of questions, innocent and unspiteful, that I dare not ask except to my own little self, when my whole motivation when I became a member here was to have the freedom to ask them to someone else.

Technically, the first mutated, mangled, haphazardly crawling thing that dragged itself out of the primordial swamp with its little mutated fish hands, probably due to being shunned due to said mutated fish hands, was a defect. What is your point, OP.

who I must know are now watching every word I say — Todd Martin

There's only one owner of The Philosophy Forum and that's Jamalrob. The several moderators are all volunteers and do not have time to watch every word you say, let alone all the other people who may or may not be saying something objectionable. Like me, for example.

If you are lucky, other members will read your posts. If they happen to consider your comments out of order, they might flag your post. That's the extent of the panopticon.

@Bitter Crank Well, Mr. Crank, I can see you have been here forever,...which surprises me a bit considering what I, a very recent member, just experienced in this very thread. A certain post of mine was deleted forthwith, and I was threatened with a ban shortly thereafter...

...as far as the “panopticon” goes, I think I just posted a pretty good oversight of everything.

Do you not see that a title seeing a whole group of people as being defective is problematic? — Jack Cummins

Being that there's no moral stigma associated with astigmatism, I think we're safe for the time being and can speak freely on this forum about our defects without fear of censure or bannisment. If astigmatism is ever associated with immorality in some way, and the issue is politicized, we might need to :zip: .

I just don't know the exact breakdown there.

Not being able to reach the cupboard without a boost is a deficiency, as is being incapable of dunking. Is it not PC to say this? — praxis

I'm not here to call you out for not being PC. I'm just curious as to where you draw the line. Is a tall person being bad at limbo a deficiency? Should everyone be able to limbo under a certain height? If we 're going to call short people deficient then why not tall people?

Of course I don't know what you posted that merited deletion and a banning threat. Try not to gratuitously antagonize anyone. I understand (from personal experience) how satisfying landing a gratuitous rhetorical punch can be. Unfortunately there can be consequences.

A few thoughts...

One’s sexuality is often considered to be a major part of their identity, much more so than astigmatism, for example. People with astigmatism have never been persecuted or ridiculed due to this...condition. Therefore, it’s very different to be considered defective due to astigmatism versus homosexuality.

I wonder had the OP used a different word than “defect” (i.e. disorder, maladaptive, etc.) if the thread would have been deleted?

Regardless, I find excessive complaining about a deletion to be distasteful. Questioning is one thing, but arguing is not only pointless, it reeks of entitlement and arrogance. At the end of the day, we are all guests in another person’s home. We should respect their rules, or kindly show ourselves the way out. We have no right to request them to change or bend their rules on our account.

:up: whole post.

We identify deficiencies and defects for different reasons. Defects can be found just about anywhere and the world can be seen as perfect with no defects at all. It depends on intent and purpose, I suppose, or the lack of them.

When considering homosexuality as a defect I find myself trying to think of problems it may cause to anyone effected by it and possible solutions to whatever problems there may be. One issue could be that gay people can’t have biological children with same sex romantic partners. Probably no perfect solution for that but working on surrogate fathers/mothers or adoption availability may help to provide relief. In the bigger picture, if more gay people in society means fewer children, then the world would benefit from an increased gay population and the ‘defect’ could be seen as an asset.

On the dark side of considering it a defect, some may see it as such in order to shun or subjugate. Absurd, considering that whatever issues there may be with it they pale in comparison with more common human defects.

When considering homosexuality as a defect I find myself trying to think of problems it may cause to anyone effected by it and possible solutions to whatever problems there may be. — praxis

This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are.

Like what, a fucking virus? — StreetlightX

Like what I mentioned. We all got virus problems now.

Ban away, by the way, if I’m too vile.

@Pinprick. Indeed we are all guests in another’s home, just as Socrates and his interlocutors were guests of Cephalus in his home as described in The Republic, an old wealthy man whose love of speeches derived from his age, not desire to pursue philosophy, and whose devotion to the ancestral mitigated against any tendency he may have had to entertain novel or iconoclastic ideas. Had Cephalus remained in the discussion and not handed it off to his son Polemarchus nor left to attend the sacrifices, the reverence for his authority among the youthful interlocutors would have squelched any attempt to gainsay the traditional view of Justice, and this philosophical production called The Republic would not have occurred.

Every day and age has its Cephaluses, it’s representatives of authority. In ours, authority is certainly not based on ancestral or traditional beliefs, as it was in ancient and primitive societies; it is based rather on the principles of advanced egalitarianism, which seeks to make certain classes of human beings, ones often quite differentiated, at least apparently by nature, perfectly equal.

For our society to work it is imperative that the citizenry believe the deductions drawn from these principles of equality and adhere to them in speech and in deed. It was no different for the citizens of Ancient Athens. It was dangerous for Socrates and for his interlocutors to question the ancestral beliefs, just as it is dangerous for us now to question the foundations of equality. It may be unlikely now that we risk our lives in doing so, but we certainly risk our livelihoods; we may not be banished from Rome, but we can certainly be banished from an internet “philosophy” forum.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are. — StreetlightX

I think you’ve said it more than once actually, so I’ve had ample warning. Also, I honestly don’t think what I wrote is vile so will likely post more atrocious thoughts in the future, and I’m not a valuable forum contributor anyway. So if you don’t ban me I can only assume that you don’t actually believe what I wrote is vile.

Stigmatizing homosexuals like that isn' t OK, just like it wouldn't be OK to suggest someone was "affected" by being a woman or being black etc etc and then ponder the problems with that as if it were an illness or whatever. Anyway, let's finish this up. I think the feedback function has been completed here.

I did not stigmatize, and I can only envy the enlightened society that you guys live in where being a black or gay is a complete non-issue.

When considering homosexuality as a defect I find myself trying to think of problems it may cause to anyone effected by it and possible solutions to whatever problems there may be. — praxis

What are the problems it may cause for these people?

EDIT: Scratch that, nevermind responding. I didn't read your post the first time because I just stopped reading after the first couple sentence because I had no idea what you were talking about. Then when others commented I became kinda interested over the outrage but never finished reading your initial post, but I went back and read it and your answer is unbelievable so just disregard this.

One issue could be that gay people can’t have biological children with same sex romantic partners. — praxis

Some gay people consider not being able to have children (two guys, no pregnancy), and generally not having children, to be one of the major advantages of homosexual relationships. No children, maybe no house with a picket fence to paint and grass to mow, and all that. Live in the city; spend one's extra no-child cash on culture or beer or whatever. These days some people probably think that childless homosexual relationships are an unhappy failure. Screw that.

Before gay advocates ran out of compelling civil rights issues and decided to normalize gay marriage, a lot of us weren't (and still are not) interested in marriage. It isn't that we don't want to, or can't make deep and lasting commitments; we do and we can. The idea was that the relationship would last because the couple just decided to keep it going, and nothing more than that was deemed necessary.

Is homosexuality a defect? Lots of people think it is. I accept that, and hold them free to think what they want as long as they don't "frighten the horses" -- e.g., cause a public uproar. (some grand dame in the early 20th century said she didn't care what homosexuals did as long as they didn't frighten the horses.)

My idea of a workable society is one which is tolerant enough to allow people to do stuff that scandalizes socially and morally brittle people, as long as they are reasonably discreet. So wife-swapping clubs are OK as long as the swapping is conducted tastefully behind closed doors. Prostitutes can ply their trade as long as they don't stop traffic, and conduct their business according to safer sex guidelines. Jehovah's Witnesses can knock on everybody's door and offer everyone the Watch Tower magazine as long as they don't do it more than once a month, and don't insist on a long conversation. Homosexuals can cruise the parks as long as they don't make a lot of noise and don't damage the bushes.