Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

so everyone is exactly the same and everyone responds to anything the same as everyone else..??

not identically on all levels.

We all self-justify in the same way, tho we do it over different things. The more importance we attach to something, the more likely we are to unreasonably self-justify any detrimental doings towards or around that thing

Edited December 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

the soldier... thinks armies are a good thing and wars are necessary. Signs up, and loses the use of his legs... the reason he signed up hasn't changed, he's accepted what happened as a consequence of what he believed in

Hmmmm ... do you think?

I'd say he'd have swerved it if he'd have known what the consequences to him would be, no differently to you driving a car but you'd swerve the journey that you knew you'd be injured in if you could know in advance that you'd be injured in that journey.

In both cases - going to war, and driving a car - you keep your fingers crossed that the possible consequences won't be the consequences for you personally. If you do get the bad consequences, you then look to justify them in some manner rather than admit your own culpability in what's happened.

the student.... thinks University is a good idea, but doesn't get the response he was hoping for... so he rants and raves and doesn't accept anything that anyone says

I'm struggling to find any similarity really.....

The response he was hoping for but didn't get wasn't the expected consequence. It's the same.

He fucked up with his evaluation of things, as the soldier who gets injured does, and as the driver who gets injured does. It happens, and once it happens you have to go along with the consequences happily (or as happily as you can), or else you have to admit that you've fucked up.

Mostly, people don't admit that they've fucked up. They either lay the blame elsewhere (Dow), or say there's no blame (squaddie).

Edited December 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

many of us have the maturity (?) to accept things when they don't go 'to plan' and can admit errors, change their opinions, etc etc. We don't all blindly self-justify everything.

I've not said 'everything'. I've said it depends on the importance we attach to that thing, and the consequences back on us from what happens.

[abdoujaparov]

Our resident expert CONFIRMED there is no way of really telling if Peter Dow has a mental health issue so I believe to raise it is distasteful and depersonalises him. He can't even defend himself against the suggestion as it will just be thrown back at him that he would say that wouldn't he....

If Peter wants to inform us of his mental health state then fine. Otherwise I think its rude to assume or suggest anything.

[abdoujaparov]

The thing is, your diagnosis is based on difference an naff all else.

There's fuck all that you and that discipline can present to show that refusing to accept society's norms is a sign of mental illness, but that's never stopped the likes of you and that discipline from locking people up on that basis. There's a huge history of doing just that, and shows mental illness by the discipline and disciples and not the diagnosed.

Once upon a time, just getting pregnant outside of marriage was enough, and now it's rightly regarded as the scandal that it was. But all the same, psycho-bollocks has yet to apologise for that and is quite happy to continue down the line of the same baseless diagnosis until it'll all blow up in its face yet again.

It seems to me like your twenty years has seen you only learn half of what you should, tho that's the normal 'high' standards that discipline imposes on its disciples.

[abdoujaparov]

He never claimed mental illness didn't exist...

[abdoujaparov]

If you can't tell the difference between school yard taunts and name calling vs getting really personal by discussing someone's medical issues (even if they only exist in your head) then I can see why your child is home schooled. You need to get out more fella.

[abdoujaparov]

You can't go through life without offending someone. Like I said, you need to go out more...

[abdoujaparov]

Are you even remotely concerned that your opinion greatly offends me ? Didn't think so...

[eFestivals]

I know a damn sight more than you do, or ever will, about working first hand with people with extreme and enduring mental health problems. There's a world of difference between sitting in frint of your computer screen pontificating and working with people who, for example, remove their own testicles and flush them down the toilet. Or set fire to themselves. Or lacerate their genitals with broken glass because Allan is speaking to them on a broken radio....whether or not you accept that mental illness is real, there are people who suffer from paranoid, delusional and psychotic behaviour and that is entirely real

I'm glad you're paying such close attention to make your diagnosis'. It's proper professional that is.

I suggest you read rather than make it up from your head.

(even tho you're well practiced at that thru that psycho-bollocks. )

[eFestivals]

what does this amount to then?

A statement of truth that psycho-bollocks pretends to not exist.

Who's the delusional one now?

[russycarps]

In a couple of hundred years people will look back on so-called mental health "experts" with the same derision and scorn that we look upon "doctors" from centuries ago who prescribed leeches

[eFestivals]

But if you believed being gay is wrong for example, its easy to see how someone would become offended... Only given as an example...

an example, yep .... yet another example of where psycho-bollocks had it so very wrong while believing itself as science.

[eFestivals]

then he didn't accept that possible consequence in the first place

and neither did the squaddie, not really - else he'd fall within the definition of mental illness and be banged up because of it.

[eFestivals]

Neil....

tony....

Perhaps try reading what's been put in front of you at least twice?

[eFestivals]

why? Are you saying that anyone who signs up for the army without realising the possible consequences are mentally ill?

No, I'm saying that psycho-bollocks uses as its reasoning - tho only when it suits it - that people who deliberately expose themselves to harm have a mental issue of some kind.

What has someone posting in this thread that Dow has a mental illness is based on that, along with Dow being paranoid is based on that (even tho the things they're supposedly paranoid about HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! ), along with them being delusional is based on that (and not any standard self-justification).

I had a friend who is now sadly dead, who spent much of his adult life politically campaigning for similarly unfashionable ideas, on the internet and elsewhere too. He froze to death on Dartmoor, after going camping in winter: was he mad, or did he just like camping?

Some extremely ill-informed people felt he was mentally ill. They were talking absolute bollocks, based ultimately on their dis-belief that someone could care for others more than those psycho-twaddlers liked to pretend that they did.

Those psycho-twaddlers said his death proved their take on things. All it really proved was that he needed a better coat.

[eFestivals]

the only thing I can see is you saying it's all bollocks..

is that accurate?

I'm just curious

I've stated several times that I don't believe there's no such thing as mental illnesses. I believe that there are mental illnesses.

My objections to psycho-bollocks is that it has no substantive ways of identifying what is and what isn't outside of the very extreme cases, but that fact doesn't stop it making up spurious bollocks for what is and what isn't and exercising power over others by that.

[fred quimby]

I had a friend who is now sadly dead, who spent much of his adult life politically campaigning for similarly unfashionable ideas, on the internet and elsewhere too. He froze to death on Dartmoor, after going camping in winter: was he mad, or did he just like camping?

[eFestivals]

sorry about your friend...

was he mad or just liked camping...?

there might be a little more to it... I wouldn't know

He just liked camping.

There was more to it than that, but nothing that the psycho-twaddlers would have everyone believe given half a chance. They work off a tick-list, where what's on the list is worthless.

Edited December 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

In a couple of hundred years people will look back on so-called mental health "experts" with the same derision and scorn that we look upon "doctors" from centuries ago who prescribed leeches

[eFestivals]

some of them work off a tick list

they're people... there'll be good ones and crap ones

yet all of them have no rational basis for their diagnosis', outside of "well, that doesn't seem right to me".

Most are as mental in the head as the people they diagnose. Feel free to take that either way.

[eFestivals]

Not sure we should stop trying.

We shouldn't ... but neither should we credit what we have now as worth very much. It's socialisation, and not science.

[eFestivals]

some people are better at some things than others. Sometimes it come from training, or experience, or just being more sympathetic/empathetic than others.

how can anyone tell who is better when they can't agree a reasonable basis to work from to then be best at?

The whole idea of it is spurious at best.

Edited December 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

How do you see this then ?

I wonder what happens when someone takes issue with their course of treatment with someone displaying this sort of attitude?

Would actually be helpful if abdoujaparov actually informed us what his role and qualifications are... He ducked answering the question...

[eFestivals]

It'd be odd if everyone DID agree, wouldn't it?

that's nothing of what I was getting at.

The ideas they work from are clearly bollocks, and it doesn't take a genius to see that's the case. Without having a working idea of what mental illness is, how is anyone REALLY able to say who has a mental illness? And from that, how can anyone possibly know who is good at spotting or dealing with mental illnesses?

The easiest way to realise that the whole thing is a sham - or perhaps even a scam - is to consider the ideas of mental illness and how the psycho-twaddle-ists then refuse to apply those ideas in particular circumstances because it wouldn't be socially acceptable for them to do so.

What is left is a pick and mix of unequally applied ideas, where a cultural view rules the roost above any semblance of science, where passively fitting in to society like a sheep is the only sure-fire way of avoiding being diagnosed as nuts by the bigger nutters than many they diagnose.