I just don't get why you think by having a contridictary opinion about someone's chosen profession would be considered a "personal" attack. We are not our jobs mate just like we are not our bodies or the socks we wear. I am a computer programmer. If someone started railing against the evils of computer programming etc etc.
Certainly, if I said "Computer programming is a lousy profession" it would not be a personal attack. If I said "Computer programmers are destroying our society/lives/freedoms" it would be. Do you see the difference?
Seems to me this baby (300 year old) Neuro Priesthood was concocted to define the borders of "accepted" reality for the rest of us out here in the commons eh? Should we stray outside the lines we will be quickly "diagnosed" and big pharma gets a new customer.
Thousands of children each year are "diagnosed" as "insert label here" or "insert another label here" and are quickly given a lobotomy in a pill. Studies have shown that by a simple change in diet many of these kids miraculously return to normal. Not to mention the fact that humans are evolving that consciousness is evolving yet we still have a public school system based on way old out dated theories created by way old out dated minds.
I could just as easily sit here and invent a name for any human behaviour that I and my friends deemed not "normal" and if I got enough people to go along with it well then big pharma could just whip up another fucking pill for it. What fun! What power!
Do you see how here you are implying that psychiatrists are evil manipulators who exist to inflate the wallets of the drug companies? that they exist only to cause harm to perfectly healthy people who just need better diets? Not only that but your language was deliberately insulting. You might have said "Psychiatry tends to overdiagnose and overprescribe already, as supported by these studies which I've cited here and here and linked to here. Thus I feel that adding this new diagnosis would only increase the problem of psychiatric overdiagnosis." No. Instead you referred to some posters on this board as "Neuro-Priests" and strongly accused them of wrongdoing, without providing any evidence. That's unacceptable here. If you have evidence, go to the thread Haus linked and post it there. (This means don't just say "Studies show." That's not evidence. WHICH studies? WHERE? Cite them thoroughly so others can find them, or link to them. Otherwise we are within our rights to believe that you are MAKING THEM UP.)
You also say that my post was "off-topic" well I think that is up to debate if you go back and look at your original post I don't see any guidelines there about "how" to respond to it. We each have our own ways of responding to things right?
Yes, certainly we all have our own ways of responding to things. If you've read the FAQ, you know that some of them are acceptable on Barbelith and some of them are not. In fact, each forum has its own norms. In a thread that is in Head Shop, I should not have to state that I do not welcome personal attacks, that I'm not soliciting personal opinions but rather claims that are supported by evidence and reasoning, and that invoking the supernatural as an explanation is likely to get you sent to the Temple instead. I should also not have to explain what is on topic, since anyone with a modicum of internet etiquette knows you don't post to a thread until you have READ IT THOROUGHLY. If you had done this, you would know that this argument was already brought up in this thread, and it was determined that it was unsupported, a form of personal attack, and also off-topic.
That's my reading; what's yours?
This is probably where you got the idea that I was asking for unsupported opinions. I wasn't. I was asking for a reading. That means that you read the article, think about it critically, read the thread, and respond from your reasoning, supported by evidence and logic. This is different from coming into a thread, saying whatever's on your mind, and then getting condescending when people demand that you at least READ THE THREAD.
I was snippy, and I apologize for that. Please understand my position, however. This is a repeated occurrence. It happened already in this same thread, here, and Anth was better at it than you were and it was STILL off topic and unsupported. I should, however, be kinder to new posters and not go off at them like I would with an established poster making the same mistakes.
Now someone else can peer through the massive holes in the logic of your last post. I've got a paper to write. But please understand... no one is attacking you because we disagree with your position on the actual topic at hand. I don't think anyone here, including the members of the mental health care field, has actually AGREED that Stupidly Homophobic/Racist Syndrome should be considered a mental illness. What we are attacking is your reasoning, and we're only doing that to make it better. |
