As someone with a psychology degree and a conveniently handy DSM at home, that's not the definition of a disorder.

The ability of a community to persist where all members share a characteristic is irrelevant.

It is a disorder in the most basic meaning of the word - A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
I don't see that quote suggesting otherwise. I hope that clarifies what I meant.

Being different is not a meaningful definition for disorder when discussing individuals and their characteristics. And conflicts with actual medically accepted applications of the word. There's certainly no confusion or lack of order involved.

No what you mean is cleverly disguised hate-speech. You may not feel particularly hateful inside when you say it, but that's largely irrelevant. The human race has an overpopulation problem, not the opposite, so to imply not actively trying to pop out more kids is a dysfunction at a species level is ass backward wrong as well, as the basic premise is not just flawed, but 100% the reverse of reality.

At an individual level it largely doesn't matter whether someone reproduces or not, regardless of their sexual preferences, therefor with whom the may prefer to bump their naughty bits is also 100% irrelevant.

One man's orientation is another man's weird fetish, I guess.

Which man I sympathize with is left as an exercise for the reader.

If you are referring to Bachmann's quote, she was referring to "disorder" as a medical/psychological definition of homosexuality, which is patently wrong. Your own definition is only marginally less offensive than hers.

All major candidates of either party are the biggest billionaires’ whores.

/thread

You ruin my thread with your truth. I don't like our current whore and would like to get a cheaper one with fewer VD's.

We oughta vote more for independents. Let’s see if they are able to stay that way and not be corrupted. I’d love to see more of them sticking it to corporate America.

I would support that. Those that benefit from the two party system will never allow it.

Well, I would say that a lack of local-based apathy is better than just apathy for everything. Being apathetic about the whole system is one thing - it is a huge thing and where to start to try to do anything is daunting - but it is important to not be apathetic on a local level where we (you, me, the people (whomever that may be in a situation)) can make a difference effectively.

Politicians like talking about building grassroots support and that sort of thing. They aren't wrong - they just aren't really doing it themselves. Local decisions, policies, and politics matter the most, and are the most easily affected by people.

I feel sorry for most politicians; They have one of the hardest jobs out there, with tremendous scrutiny and accountability for the most trivial things. If they mess up, everyone knows, and will know for years. How much time did you spend in school learning about the tragedies of mistaken leadership, compared to learning (and remembering) the ones who did okay, excluding those few who achieved a legendary status?

Of course, some really do deserve the hate, and some probably are quite stupid, if not actually malicious. But most citizens succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect when judging politics, as it is highly visible, they have little actual understanding of its workings, and they're naturally inclined to rebel from it as a parent entity.

=/

Do you know the definition of equivocation?

They should just amend the constitution to outlaw "Un-American activities", with no formal definition of what that is. They could probably pass the amendment, as who in America would want to tolerate "Un-American activities"? No one, that's who!

Taking civics lessons from V.I. Lenin, yo.