You are talking about a diagnosis from the DSM-IV, which is being loosly correlated with a study or two about brain architecture done on prisoners, but not on a wider public.Schneibster wrote:False analogy. We're talking about brain dysfunction. A disorder that prevents important information from being associated together, and results in aberrant behavior, killing and maiming people and so forth.Cunt wrote:Lets all read this while remembering that homosexuality was considered insane until quite recently.
Homosexuality was, quite recently, considered insane. Still is, in some cultures, and we know that diagnosis would be different culture to culture. (many of these diagnosis's are dependent on which culture the patient is from)
I would hope that you would see that your arguments could have come from a respected psychiatrist just a few decades ago.Schneibster wrote: What's that got to do with homosexuality?
Not much hope, for a guy who still threatens being 'pissed off' and impinges a whole group 'the retarded' to insult people who hold a particular political philosophy (libertarianism)
But I think others here can read, so I have a bit of hope there.
No, I think people should be allowed to think about it, though.Schneibster wrote:
Do you think killing and maiming people is normal behavior? Do you think it's desirable? Do you think people should be allowed to do it?
There is a large difference between a thought and an action. It would take a whale of a lot of evidence to convince me that forcing a psychological intervention on someone for 'thought crimes' or 'future crimes' was a good idea.
Are you aware that your 'hero' was considered 'insane' at the time?Schneibster wrote:First, Turing is a hero of mine. I'm well aware he was homosexual, and I consider the way he was hounded to death a crime against humanity; he unquestionably would have greatly advanced cybernetics and math had he lived, if nothing else.Cunt wrote:With that in mind, how about everyone do a Turing test on this shit. Turing was a homo war hero you can look him up.
He was smart as fuck AND handsome as all get out.
Fucking hero.
The test is this - is the way Schneibster wants to handle some 'insane' people better, or worse than the way Mr. Turing and other queers were treated recently, in Turings time.
Do you see why I am drawing the comparison now? I understand that you don't like it, but step back from your emotional outbursts (try getting less 'pissed off') and have another look.
Attacking? Really? By questioning your post?Schneibster wrote:Second, we have not spoken of what I want to do. You are attributing something to me without evidence. I have asked questions. You are attacking me for asking them. I thought you were better than that.
I thought that was WHY you posted here...
Who is 'Dr. Mengele' and where did I say that you were him?Schneibster wrote:Third, what do you think cognitive therapy is? Did you even check before you decided I'm Dr. Mengele? Or are you just knee-jerking along, without a care for reality?
Or are you just joking around? Spouting bullshit?
I was addressing the issue of forcing treatment on people. You were saying that they would certainly end up in hell. I am not religious, by the way. I don't believe in 'hell'.Schneibster wrote:The answer to your question is, infinitely better, in fact so much so that your question is ridiculous. Not to mention that it makes insulting assumptions about me and about psychology.
Unless you were going to construct a 'hell analogy' to torture these people in...
In your fantasy world, maybe.Schneibster wrote: This sounds like the BS about motorcycle helmets and seatbelts.
Not only are we preventing harm to others, we are preventing these unfortunate people from being locked up. With criminals. Without treatment. In hell. They and their victims both cry out for our intervention.
But wasn't it you who said there were so many of them around? With so many of them around, and with your certainty that they will end up locked up, you should be able to find ALL of them in prison. Not at the heads of corporations and government, the way you have suggested elsewhere.
I say that some of them find their own reasons to not hurt those around them. Without your precious 'feelings'.
And saying that they are all crying out for help is pure bullshit. Some may, and you may insist that someone without your feelings should be 'cured', but ask them. Each and every one of them, before saying that they are all 'crying out for help'.
But so many of them don't kill. Why do you suppose that is?Schneibster wrote:
These people are insane. You're suggesting we let them wander around untreated until they maim or kill someone instead of treating them. I disagree. Strongly.
You are one funny fucker, Schneibster.Schneibster wrote: You aren't talking about what I'm talking about and need to think about this a great deal more before you say something that will piss me off seriously.
What a laugh.

If you can't find a quote where I said this, you are clearly lying, or insane.Schneibster wrote:Threat?
You've accused me of being Dr. Mengele,
Maybe you are crying out for treatment. I would suggest cognitive therapy. It reviews rather well compared to many other 'interventions'.
Funnier still.Schneibster wrote: which is where it looked like you were going from the above. There is no threat. There is merely the fact that I will decide you're not worth talking to.
Nope, fucking LOVE that I get to live twice as long as many of my ancestors. I just don't follow blindly.Schneibster wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're hostile toward medicine.
And I think autonomy is more important than just about anything.
This is a personal attack, and I will ask you to stop it.Schneibster wrote: I'd never have bothered engaging you if I had known you're an anti-psychology crank.
I am not 'anti-psychology', but I AM anti 'forced treatment', even if you say I should fear some vague end enough to change my mind.
Sorry, I missed it. That's a busy thread. Thanks for pointing it out.Schneibster wrote:http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2#p1046882Cunt wrote:I asked you a similar question before, about the word you use 'libertardian'. I noticed that you bravely did not anwer. I still don't know what you mean by it. Could you spell that out, too?
Apparently you never bothered to read my response.
So you would insult an opressed minority (people with intellectual disabilities used to be called 'retarded') as a way of making a differing political philosophy look bad? I am reasonably sure there is a latin name for this kind of insulting horseshit.Schneibster wrote:It's a confuction of "Libertarian" (i.e., "member of the US Libertarian Party, a right wingnut organization that doesn't know any economics) and "retard."
I expect a bit better from mature adults. I know many 'retards' who I would much rather have making decisions than you. Much rather have them in my neighbourhood, too.