»Thomas Szasz is an idiot«
|
|||
|
Francesca Allan: Thomas Szasz calls involuntary treatment a crime against humanity. lol, if he says that, he's making a political statement rather than a scientific one, which makes sense because, despite his lofty academic appointment, Thomas Szasz is a scientific nobody who only got famous by advocating radical political views. If Szasz had any kind of convincing empirical research program to support his views, we at MindSlavery Florida would have read about it by now. The MindFreedom International antipsychiatry organization will advocate the views of any political activist it can find in academia and mobilize its international network of non-compliant mentally-ill streetgangs to engage in rallies promoting those views. Also, Szasz is an immigrant from the formerly-communist state of Hungary, thus it is clear he has a vested political interest in obstructing the legal resources American courts and psychiatrists command. End of Transmission. posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPsychiatry and Anti-PsychiatryThomas Szasz is an idiot |
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: non-compliant mentally-ill streetgangs ROTFL posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: is an immigrant from the formerly-communist state of Hungary, thus it is clear ROTFLMAO So you're a bigot *and* an idiot. Nice! posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlavery Florida: Szasz is a Nobody  He's is/was a Professor in New York posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: He's is/was a Professor in New York Szasz is also one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known. posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Francesca Allan: Szasz is also one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known. Just because MindFreedom International agrees with him doesn't make him great. Typical antipsychiatry propagandist: anything or anyone who advocates antipsychiatry automatically becomes great. Anyone who tries to oppose antipsychiatry automatically becomes a cretin, idiot, or bigot. It is obvious MindFreedom International is trying to influence the public's impression of science through political activism, and meeting with little success, thus MindFreedom attack websites like this or sabotage them like that cult has done with Wikipedia to spread their lies. As for "one of the greatest humanitarians," Gandhi would eat him for lunch with curry. 
Gandhi was a master of MindSlavery brand psychiatry (TM) . posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW, this guy is definitely a Freudian: Szasz himself conducts a traditional psychoanalytic practice for individuals with problems of living; there is nothing in his writings to suggest that he has any experience with or ever treats patients with serious mental illness. Also, check this out: The myth of mental illness: Schizophrenia and other mental disorders are simply semantic artifacts and do not really exist. While people behave and think in ways that are very disturbing, this does not mean they have a disease. To Szasz, calling a behavior a disease is like calling a whale a fish. It's a category error. To be a true disease, "it must somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion." How convenient for antipsychiatry that this "great humanitarian" with no clinical experience in schizophrenia claims that the illness that nearly killed me (before I was on any medication) doesn't exist! In rebuttal, I claim his expertise and scientific standing don't exist. Who's the "idiot," the patient who nearly dies from an illness or the doctor who tells him that illness doesn't exist? Although, I must admit, Szasz is not as stupid as his followers: Szasz gets royalties every time they buy one of his books, while his followers like IMO new user "Francesca Allan" are dumb enough to promote him for free!
posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: Just because MindFreedom International agrees with him doesn't make him great. But that's not what makes him great. Szasz is absolutely correct when he says that mental illness isn't an illness at all. All disease must have an underlying tissue pathology. But none has ever been proven for psychiatric disorders. posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: It is obvious MindFreedom International is trying to influence the public's impression of science through political activism, and meeting with little success, Actually, we're trying to get the public to open their eyes and be aware of what drives psychiatry. And we've been phenomenally successful. MFI has consultative roster status with the United Nations. posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: claims that the illness that nearly killed me (before I was on any medication) doesn't exist! I don't think anybody would argue, Holy, that you weren't ill, although the concepts of illness and health are very murky. The issue is that the source of that "illness" didn't originate in your biochemistry. It's far more likely that your biochemistry changed as a result of your illness. I have no doubt that the kind of behaviour that you display here -- your paranoia, your offensiveness, your rage -- are "schizophrenic" in origin. posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: Gandhi was a master of MindSlavery brand psychiatry (TM) . On the contrary, Gandhi would have been horrified to see the level of your hatred. posted by Francesca Allan |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry knn, I am going to go offtopic again here because I need to answer this. Francesca Allan: I have no doubt that the kind of behaviour that you display here -- your paranoia, your offensiveness, your rage -- are "schizophrenic" in origin. lol, no psychiatrist worth a damn in the world would attempt to make a diagnosis of symptoms like you did here without ever meeting the person being diagnosed - though many psychoanalysts would, as Freud did when he wrote a book analyzing US President Woodrow Wilson's mind without ever meeting him, which is another reason psychoanalysts, including Thomas Szasz, are quacks. While I admit I have written "offensive" posts here, there remains the fact that, not being able to see me or hear me, you have no idea whether I am "paranoid" or in a "rage." Actually I am neither. I am mocking and imitating you disingenuously in an experiment to see how much propaganda I can get you to spew before one of us quits posting here. I do this because I believe your arguments to be nothing more than rhetorical tricks, such as the one above in which you appear to agree with Thomas Szasz that "mental illness is not an illness at all". The only way I see a possibility for diagnosing a person's mind by reading their writing or statements is if that person is known to have committed grievous errors which have harmed others, and then publishes or presents personal statements in which he or she refuses to show any remorse for these errors, as, for example many captured serial killers do in their court trials. This possibility is only true because remorselessness is a pattern so pervasive and distinctive among psychopaths - indeed, along with some other characteristics, it is the key to such a diagnosis - that it would be an error to overlook it just because we have not met the person in question. In fact, since psychopaths are such good liars, meeting them is often described by clinicians as like meeting an extraordinarily likable normal person, until you look beneath the surface, and this always involves extensively studying personal history, which you cannot do here. And it has not been established empirically that people who are paranoid or angry tend to write any differently than normal people. Thus you have made a bogus diagnosis of my supposed "paranoia" and "rage". If it is true you are studying science and making earnest statements based on what you have learned, you know the words of science but not the tune, which is what makes you dangerous. No one on this site believes, for example, that I am in a group called MindSlavery whose purpose it is to have people involuntarily hospitalized or medicated, or that I am your ex-boyfriend, or that Tiefling is a communist. None of the people on this site whom I usuallly cite as friends or allies seem to care much if I post bizarre claims about others, or if they do they state this and then move on to the next topic. You have only one topic on which you post, however: antipsychiatry, and if I disagree with you, you say that I am a "cretin" or "incapable of debate". Additionally, at least one other user here, the admin, appears to agree wholeheartedly with you that the highly respected and fact-based discipline of psychiatry is all a pseudoscience, thus you have been encouraged and have proceeded to continue repeating this claim without any proof of such other than a few citations and loads of overheated rhetoric. And now you are going to diagnose me as paranoid? I shouldn't be surprised, but somehow I am. Back to the topic though: what always strikes me as stunningly ridiculous about arguments from antipsychiatry groups like Scientology, MindFreedom, some psychoanalysis, etc., is that they fail to recognize that there is no even approximate precedent in world history for an entire major science and branch of medicine being suddenly nullified as pseudoscientific by a few relatively marginal theorists - like Szasz - and their followers. The sciences that have been nullified, such as phrenology or even psychoanalysis itself, were never major sciences to begin with, but branches of mysticism masquerading as science and clearly denounced, marginalized, or ignored by established authorities in the field. Major sciences have been altered by people like Darwin, Copernicus, and so on, but none have been utterly destroyed. And, though I admit that I have not seen MindFreedom advocate any alternative treatments in preference for psychiatry, Scientology and psychoanalysis most certainly do advocate their own treatments, and do so most vehemently and with the profit margin blatantly as their motive. So why should anyone here care what you say about a scientific matter, Francesca Allan, when it is obvious you are a one-trick pony and have a political bias against psychiatry? And, before you try to cast me as biased myself since I am an apologist for psychiatry, remember that i have frequently recounted my own horror stories about bad psychiatry, along with my more positive experiences. posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 h_o_h: So why should anyone here care what you say about a scientific matter, Francesca Allan, when it is obvious you are a one-trick pony and have a political bias against psychiatry? Well that's ironic. He used my exact same argument against someone else. Tiefling: You're claiming that your degree makes you an expert, to some degree, on novels, and that therefore you are speaking somewhat objectively when you say it was the worst book you have ever read. However, your bias against novelists makes your opinion here worthless. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The answer you should use, Francesca, is: h_o_h: I said I disliked novelists, but this is just personal taste - you can have expertise in something you dislike... IMO → JK Rowling is a Pop-Culture Hitler! Discuss! posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Well that's ironic. He used my exact same argument against someone else. Tiefling: You're claiming that your degree makes you an expert, to some degree, on novels, and that therefore you are speaking somewhat objectively when you say it was the worst book you have ever read. However, your bias against novelists makes your opinion here worthless. Tiefling, give me a break! That argument, i.e."you are biased and thus not to be trusted," is not "your" argument! It is the oldest argument in the history of debate. I categorically reject your comparison of Harry Potter and something as trivial as fantasy novels to the intricate and hugely important science of psychiatry. Also, what are you saying, Tiefling, that I was right to use the argument that I can have expertise in something I dislike, i.e. the novel? Or are you saying that you were right that I am biased and thus my opinion doesn't matter? In the former case, you were wrong, and in fact my literature degree does give me credentials to judge the literary merits of a novel. And in the latter case, I was wrong, and by your extension of my argument to the question of psychiatry, Francesca Allan has no credibility on the question of psychiatry. Obviously I am not perfectly consistent, and to tell you the truth I do not know or care that much about literature, though I know what I like or dislike. But I hope you would agree mental health is a lot more crucial of an issue to me and the world, and an issue a lot more difficult to discuss with credibility, than Harry Potter. Also, I noted that as usual you really contributed nothing to this discussion except for your usual interjection crying foul that someone is being hypocritical. Get over yourself man, you're not on the Supreme Court! If it is your mission in life to be totally impartial and consistent, you have lost your humanity, if in fact you ever had any. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 8 September 2010, 17:01 php B.B. |