I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:
Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!
*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).
I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.
*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.
We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:
In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.
Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.
Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....
Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.
My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.
Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:
*Actions =/= discourseFollowing your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)
The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".
Now, contrast this discourse with reality:
1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.
2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.
Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.
People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.
