Do some groups purposely invent illnesses they call "phobias" to squelch debate?

Question

If you speak out against the gay lifestyle and agenda you are labeled a homophobe and all discussion ceases because, well... you're mentally unstable.
Same with any criticism of Islam. You suffer from Islamaphobia.
The list goes on and on.
If you disagree with them you must be mentally sick, so your point is mute.
Doesn't implying someone has a phobia because they have a different viewpoint have a chilling affect on honest discussion and disagreement?

B. Kevorkian: OOPS! You're right. "Moot" it is. Thanks.

B. Kevorkian: I just noticed. It's spelled "peeve" not "peve".

Answer 1

Yes, its been used throughout time to squash debate on subjects.

The oldest trick in the book is to attack the questioner and not the question. It still works unfortunately.

If I asked why the people in New Orleans still are having problem s 2 years after Katrina. Does that make me a racist? I don't think it does.

If I state "I believe homosexuality is a sin" Does that make me a homophobe. No it doesn't. But someone will call me that because they don't know how to critically respond to what I have to say.

90% of the people who hate Bush can't back it up with anything that is relevent. Its sad really.

Answer 2

I think it has to do with our spirit of competition in this country. Or the 'win at all cost mentality' that we ingrain into ourselves and our children. You have to grow a really thick skin to get involved in any political discourse anywhere, but when you're brought up on The Three Stooges, Scooby Doo , Pinky and the Brain and Beavis and Butthead. Well whaddaya expect? I also reiterate the nonsense goes both ways.

Answer 3

Having a degree in psychology, and specializing in abnormal psychology, I find myself particularly suited to answer your question.

First we have to address the idea of abnormal behavior. In order for any behavior to be considered abnormal in the psychological sense of the word it must interfere with a person's social, professional or personal growth. Think of impact of depression or schizophrenic disorders. Pretty impeding huh?

Now we must consider the word phobia. In the psychological sense of the word phobias are persistent, irrational, narrowly defined fears that are associated with a specific object or situation.

Avoidance is a key component of the definition of phobias. This means that a fear is not considered a phobia unless the person avoids all contact with the source of the fear or experiences intense anxiety in the presence of the stimulus.

Having a phobic disorder does not make you mentally unstable. Most of those who are phobic can function perfectly fine as long as they are not in the presence of stimuli.

So, logically, someone who disagrees with homosexuality is not suffering from a phobic disorder unless they experience such great anxiety in the presence of homosexuals that they avoid contact at all costs. Avoidance is basically by necessity for inflicted people, not choice.

Additionally, it is morally disgusting to see anyone use the mental disorders of others to make a point in an argument. Anyone who uses these terms for sake advancing ones own agenda is obviously uneducated in the actual meaning of the terms they are using, the etiology of those disorders and the diagnosis and treatment that comes along with them.

Having such knowledge, when I encounter these types of arguments I immediately discount them as moot points.

In fact I actually find it quite humorous to see someone arguing from ignorance!

Answer 4

Yeah, you're absolutely right. And what's worse is that they're willing to supplement it with the craziest mental pictures they can make, once they get tired of the "phobias."

Such as if I were to say I disapprove of homosexual marriage. Someone is going to think I want to take a gun, walk right up to some guy that has AIDS and a lisp, put the trigger to his head and pull.

Its almost like when Mike Huckabee said in one of his televised appearances that he was opposed to miniskirts. The first response he got amounted to "You must want women to wear burkas (sp?) then."

Funny how those who claim to be the most "tolerant" and "open minded" have tried to kill anything that doesn't goose-step to their band.

@genmalia: That's a load of crap and you know it. I don't need you to tell me if I have denied ANYTHING.

Answer 5

I agree, to a degree.

Not all criticism of the homosexual lifestyle is "homophobic". You're right, and not all criticism about any other racial, religious, ethnic, or social group is phobic either, so you're right again.

However, one of your other answerers reminded me of an important point. In many of these issues, you have to yourself make sure that you are being open minded in your criticism. Saying "being gay is wrong because its a sin" squelches debate just as fast as calling you homophobic for feeling that way. Same with anything else. As long as anyone has the "well you must be wrong because I'm right" attitude, debate gets nowhere fast.

Answer 6

It's political spin, and a convenient way of engaging in an ad-hominem attack. It's not valid, but it's often effective.

And, while I agree with you that it's a questionable bit of rhetoric, I have nothing against the 'gay lifestyle.' It's not for me, but I have no objection to others practicing it.


(Oh, and the word is 'moot,' not 'mute.' Pet peve of mine, sorry.)

Answer 7

You mean, like the way some people label you as a socialist/communist if you're just a little bit to the left of their views? Yeah, I'm beginning to see your point now. It does have a chilling effect on honest discussion.

Answer 8

Yep.

It is equal to the homosexuality is a sin argument, or Islam is evil argument. Open discussion is one thing, random rude yelling on either side is counter productive. Im not saying it shouldnt be allowed, just that it really does show how much thought youve put into your position, and you show quickly whether or not youre worth having a discussion with.

Answer 9

Actually they are all a form of xenophobia which is a fear of what is foreign. This can apply to foreign people or what is foreign to an individual.

Those that have this kind of phobia try to control others through fear. Kind of like the abuser who terrorizes others because they themselves were or are abused.

I think this can also be applied to -isms: racism, sexism, etc.

I agree with your assessment; but why else would someone so vehemently support things like religion in schools, abstinence-only education, or specifying marriage between a man and a woman unless they were afraid of something? Inclusion and acceptance are really the only way to deny the phobia.

Answer 10

It is a tool of intimidation to get opposing view silenced.

I guess some think if you disagree with them you are automatically a bigot? Guess who sounds like the bigot?