You seem to be proposing that the reductionism that psychiatry/psychology work with is adequate and mandatory for everyone. That people are basically like machines, robots, and that everything they feel, think, say and do can and should be uniformed, standardized, much like in robots, and any and all differences from this norm be considered aberrations to be done away with.
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
You seem to be proposing that the reductionism that psychiatry/psychology work with is adequate and mandatory for everyone. That people are basically like machines, robots, and that everything they feel, think, say and do can and should be uniformed, standardized, much like in robots, and any and all differences from this norm be considered aberrations to be done away with.
How do we protect women from those who want to make them into Stepfordian robots?
These guys are human beings, they have rights we must respect regardless of their chosen mission in life. It's a central ethical and political question.
she's carrying half a child then, huh (at least until she fulfills your political/arbitrary criteria for "child" , at which point it becomes a "full" child)
:shrug:
actually its about the third or so time that I have been pushing for a response to how you guys conceive holding the reins of power = morally acceptable behaviour - still waiting for a response .... see below for the type of failure to respond I am talking about:
:shrug:
once again, noted how you fail to head on address how holding the reins of power orchestrates a morally acceptable behaviour.
Your fumble +2
:shrug:
You seem to have an extremely uninformed view of psychology. Do you really think that for psychiatry or psychology to work, humans must be entirely uniform?
What do you mean by "for psychiatry or psychology to work"?
It's non-controversial enough that some psychiatric approaches "work" on some people, but not on others.
What is controversial is to bring up the dislike or fear that psychiatry/psychology has toward variety among humans.
Just what I said. For it to work. Please, let's not play the semantic games.
Oh, so you do know what I meant by "work."
Oh, more pseudoscience! Yay.
Tell me, then: where is this alleged "dislike or fear" manifested? Where does this supposed variety lay?
I can't read your mind.
By declaring any behavior or outlook that seems too different, as "pathological," "abnormal," a "disorder."
Just look at people: they don't all behave the same way, nor believe the same things.
(Something, something, Burt Ward)
There is an unfortunate tendency in therapeutic practice to overstate deviation from textbook norms. To the other, though, it's more often a general practitioner (MD) that will prescribe Adderal when a proper psychologist (PsyD) or psychiatrist (MD) would understand that children are children and seek behavioral solutions.
If people were like robots, as such, there would be considerably fewer psychologists and psychiatrists. Indeed, they would be largely replaced by certified practitioners, much like a high school graduate can earn a network certification and get a pretty good job in IT. You know, like a 5-day CCNA course.
Like a Google advert if you search network certifications:
Wynn said:
There is an unfortunate tendency in therapeutic practice to overstate deviation from textbook norms. To the other, though, it's more often a general practitioner (MD) that will prescribe Adderal when a proper psychologist (PsyD) or psychiatrist (MD) would understand that children are children and seek behavioral solutions.
If people were like robots, as such, there would be considerably fewer psychologists and psychiatrists. Indeed, they would be largely replaced by certified practitioners, much like a high school graduate can earn a network certification and get a pretty good job in IT. You know, like a 5-day CCNA course.
Like a Google advert if you search network certifications:
CBDA Certificate 93% Pass - psychboot.ws
www.psychboot.ws/CBDA/
CBDA certification, 7-Day Boot Camp. "outstanding", "great", "priceless"
www.psychboot.ws/CBDA/
CBDA certification, 7-Day Boot Camp. "outstanding", "great", "priceless"
Sure you can; examples abound of someone who is partially dead or partially right. Whether that is "half" or not depends on your metric.
To return to the issue being discussed, we do consider people to be "partial." Children, for example, are not full adults; they cannot vote, cannot drink, indeed cannot exercise most of their rights. The younger they are the fewer rights they have. You can call that a "half person" if you like but most people just use the simpler designation "child" "baby" etc.
only figuratively speaking
you mean right in some things and wrong in others
no it doesn't.
The terms are exclusively either/or
red herring.
Being a child or an adult is not partial - it simply reflects their different roles in society. For instance, in many instances children are offered more protection/indemnity than an adult. This doesn't however make them "more" or "less", it simply reflects the (logical) necessity for different people in society to operate distinctly.
No, partially dead. A guy with a gangrenous leg is partially dead. Fortunately there aren't too many people who ever get to 50% dead.
No, partially right. Most layman's descriptions of aerodynamic lift are partially correct.
I realize that some people's worlds are only black and white. Most people see shades of gray.
Correct! They are not adults; it is not black and white.
Yet you understood perfectly what I meant, so perhaps mind-reading wasn't necessary.
"Work" isn't a muddy word, and the context of my comment was obvious enough for you to get it right when you used it yourself, so let's drop the pretense for once, m'kay?
Did you have anything in mind, or is this just more fearmongering nonsense?
Obviously I was talking about the alleged variety that psychology/psychiatry is reacting negatively towards. How is it manifest? For example, are you saying that depression is really just a quirk, rather than a condition? What is this variety that the profession is misdiagnosing?
You got one - those are both examples of your inability to argue honestly. You aren't stupid enough to honestly imagine anyone here has posted anything like that, and so you are engaged in lies and deceptions - possibly of and to yourself, as well as everyone here, but by now there's no excuse for that either.light said:
Good insight - an overlapping set, to a large degree.wynn said:
Are you suggesting a common psychological need to dominate, to control sexual partners and dependents, lies at the root of both female subjugation and religious fanaticism independently - so that the obvious connection is from common cause, rather than cause/effect?
In that case, you are merely talking about legal personhood. We've discussed this before. Legal personhood is indeed a very relative, very dynamic concept.
But legal personhood is not all there is to personhood.
There is also ontological personhood. Ontological personhood, unlike legal personhood, does not begin, diminish, nor expire.
For example, the legal personhood of a prisoner on death row is minimal - such a person cannot vote, cannot engage in financial transactions, cannot own property etc. He is entitled to food, shelter, some medical care, and has some other rights. However, if he were to be murdered by a fellow prisoner, that would still be murder, the murderer would be charged, tried and sentenced accordingly.
Even though the legal personhood of a prisoner on death row is minimal, his ontological personhood remains intact.
Some people are making the mistake of concluding that because a person's legal personhood is diminished, this means that their ontological personhood is diminished too - thus deeming themselves justified to mistreat such a person with impunity.
incorrect (in the complete sense - since being correct isn't a term of half measures).
Its only the infected part that is dead (in the complete sense - since death isn't a term of half measures). Assuming he hasn't succumbed to complications of the infection, he is very much alive. I imagine your attitude is highly offensive to people who have lost limbs
incorrect (in the complete sense - since being correct isn't a term of half measures).
If a description is adequate (ie fulfills the values attributed for it to be functional or acceptable) , it is correct.
describing worlds as shades of grey is about conflicting values, not half measures of being correct.
IOW it looks at in what ways specific things are correct or incorrect and throws this into the tabernacle of assessing whether a broader picture is good or bad or something in between
hence its incorrect (in the complete sense - since being correct isn't a term of half measures) to expect a child to be an adult or vice versa (unless further contextualizing information is given) ... much like its incorrect to calla circle a square or a square a circle, but this doesn't make circles or squares by and of themselves half measures (since the very terms "circle", "square", "adult", "child" etc establish what values/criteria they have to meet in order to be deemed correctly assigned)
It's common for people to desire to control eachother, in some way or another, openly or indirectly.
Whether it is men desiring to control women, women desiring to control men, children desiring to control adults, adults desiring to control children, Democrats desiring to control Republicans, Republicans desiring to control Democrats, the poor desiring to control the rich, the rich desiring to control the poor - the list goes on and on.
It's not polite to admit to having that desire, and some forms of control are socially established to be considered "normal" and "good" - but they are nevertheless forms of control, or, rather, attempts at control.
calling other people names is the closest you ever come to conceding that your argument is lost
:shrug:
Usually it begins when you are asked to explain your point of view.
A psychiatric / psychological treatment is said to "work" when it brings about results as desired by the doctor, or other people involved, or by the client/patient.
However, in that sense of "working," indoctrination, brainwashing and torture "work" too.
Ie. the real question is whether the desired results (whether they are desired by the doctors, other people, or the client/patient themselves) are really wholesome or not.
One can, for example, undergo a psychiatric treatment with the desire to suppress a particular behavior or thought pattern, and the treatment may indeed "work" - but that doesn't automatically make the desired result wholesome.
Say, treating a fear of snakes to the point where the person feels no fear and exerts no caution around them is, clearly, not wholesome.
Or, a few decades ago, self-esteem programs became popular, ones where they tried to boost people's self-esteem with affirmations. Now, more and more people think that those programs were a mistake, as people taking those programs ended up manifesting high self-esteem, but had little accomplishment (in terms of work experience and good character qualities) to show for.
Notably, the DSM.
Neither.
Who is the actual beneficiary of psychiatric diagnoses? Notably, insurance companies, employers, the legal system, relatives of the diagnosed.
Not the people who are diagnosed.
The people who are diagnosed are put into a machinery of psychiatry where they are treated as less than human.
If people are not robots, and people know this, then how come some people have the desire to turn us into robots?
Whence this desire for absolute uniformity?
Whence this "You are supposed to eat such and such, you are supposed to have sex so and so many times, you are supposed to ... If you don't, you're abornmal / wrong / mentally ill and must seek treatment, or be treated by force" ?
So you thought when I said "works," I was referring to indoctrination, brainwashing, and torture?
The desired results are things like a reduction of stress, improved confidence, more self-esteem, recovery from trauma, etc., so, yes, I'd say the desired outcomes are wholesome. And that's just run-of-the-mill stuff. What I'm curious about is what you think these doctors are trying to make people do. It seems like your opinion of psychotherapy is based on some really bad misinformation.
But that's an absurd example. For one, therapy isn't magic. Secondly, does this person who is suddenly no longer afraid of snakes also a complete idiot? Hopefully, anyone who is handling snakes in the first place isn't exerting caution based on fear, but on reason.
I'm sorry, can you cite me something that supports this? And what do you mean by "Self-esteem programs?" If you're referring to self-help books, you and I aren't talking about the same thing.
So every disorder in the DSM is not actually a disorder, but a "quirk" or likewise harmless personality trait?
Oh for the love of Christ, stop evading the goddamn questions. What is it, then? Or am I going to have to run through all the possible terms you might use for classification before you fess up?
I mean, really. Talk about dishonesty.
More baseless claims without a shred of evidence to support them. By now, one would think you'd know better than to try this shit on me, but apparently whatever it is that makes you behave in such a manner doesn't allow for adjustments.
How is it that the people who seek treatment aren't benefiting? Where is the evidence of this? How many studies have you read? What does this machinery do, exactly? How does it treat them as "less than human?" You're going to need to bring more to the table than vague, half-understood tropes spouted by people without educations. We need details, specifics, something that supports these claims you're making. Understand, wynn, or do I need to sell it to you in the form of a self-help book before you take it seriously? Put it on a scroll and let some Buddhist "wise man" read it to you?
- Status