NOTE: FIXED FOR THE 3rd TIME TONIGHT. MAYBE MORE EDITS TO COME!
Even though in the philosophy circles we've all moved on long ago, obviously the great unwashed are going to persist with various half-baked notions of this and that (so I suppose that it's gets to a point where people gotta get hurt, and get dirty with the people spreading the dirt...eh, sorry ^^;) A common meme that may be spreading its toxic pathogenic slime around the net is listed below.
"With homosexual behavior comes a whole host of very significant health and lifestyle risks. Whether high-risk conduct is a result of homosexual desires, or contributes to developing them, or some of both, is anyone’s guess. The fact remains that teens engaging in homosexual behavior are participating in a lifestyle that:
• reduces life expectancy at age twenty by at least 8 to 20 years
• increases by at least 500% the risk of contracting AIDS
• increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by nearly 900%
• increases by 4,000% the risk of developing anal cancer
• substantially increases the likelihood of smoking, having mental health disorders (other than same-sex attraction), being the victim of “domestic” violence, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse.
• substantially increases the likelihood of contracting hepatitis and other gastrointestinal infections
• substantially increases the risk of contracting bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer
• has high levels of participation in sadomasochism, coprophilia, sadomasochism, fisting, and other dangerous, deviant sex practices
• involves extraordinarily high levels of promiscuity"
It seems quite a simple act to simply dismiss them as retarded, propoganda, hate-mongering. Often I see responses like "Oh I lol at this sad meme" and several people pointing out that the facts are wrong, and counter-quoting facts. But just how useful is this? This kind of rebuttal isn't even a rebuttal- it's self-defeating. In engaging on the level that the meme presents, one inevitably subscribes to the same presumptions that the original authors and supporters of the meme hold. We should instead demonstrate how first the meme should be discredited on a principle basis, formally and comprehensively, and then after this demonstrate exactly what is relevant to what.
So what I've done here is demonstrated that while some of those facts listed in an exemplar meme below are in fact worth considering and have merit, that it is in the presentation and the interpretation of these facts that such memes fall short, and ultimately, that such interpretations of facts do not constitute grounds for a moral judgment, which so often occurs.
It might not be worth much on a social level since we are already divided into factions exacerbated by the gulf of understanding between somebody who *is* and somebody who *isn't* identifiable with particular labels. But nonetheless there are those people who feel caught in the crossfire and the fog of war, so to speak, and it would do well to at least shine some light somewhere, even if this is overlooked, such that at people are not fooled into assuming that these criticisms and considerations do not exist, and that one must either be "gay and pro-gay" or else "not gay and anti-gay", or some similarly black-and-white variation of this.
( Cut for your mollificationCollapse )I would cross-post this to
dongstyle_ltd but that journal has already got a lot of anti-heteronormative rant on it, so this would be at best be a sketchy summary of what I've already written (hell I might as well do that anyway). If you want to do yourselves a favor, take this, adapt it, use the principles, tear apart other poorly fabricated arguments that purport to using statistics, and spread the word. Any jerk-off can use statistics. However, hardly anybody knows how to interpret them correctly, and most people would thus continue to persist in their practice of weak rationalisations and errors, in the belief that they are right and cannot and will not be proven comprehensively wrong. On a moral basis, we cannot do this by simply bashing at them in the opposite direction, but rather if we undercut them and acknowledge that the content of what they say is right but their conclusions are not analogous to reality, then we can perhaps transcend their ignorance. I'm fairly confident of my ability to work with the basics.
I think I'll cross-post this to
gayfurries instead. Apologies to those of you who will read this twice or three times (like poor Strawcat) but please do not mention this on the dongstyle_ltd journal. Thanks.