# chicksdigscars people with mental illnesses can not be equated with violent criminals **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 22, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391 "2003-12-22T00:45:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/81 "2003-12-23T01:56:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WinstonSmith \* > \*\*Hey **Chicks**! Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – that is our fearless **Diogenes**. He’s a fucking idiot (I mean mentally retarded – based on a fair evaluation of his posting history naturally). Didn’t you know that? He likes to throw insults and accusations around, probably because he tries to compensate for an acute inferiority complex, but always in the end he reveal the argumentative capabilities of a precocious 10-year-old. Every board’s got one. This one has Diogenes - who wouldn’t recognize a cynic if it bit him in the arse. Diogenes! You’re being obnoxious again! Fer Christs sake, remember your medication. \*\* Ah…a content-free flame from one of our resident troglodytes. Would you like to cite some of these "insults and accusations? Besides calling you a trogoldyte, that is. **cds** it is not a victory to have this moron post in your favor. Check his posting history and you will see why. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/82 "2003-12-23T01:58:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\*Well, thanks (I think) Winston. I already figured out that Diogenes is an idiot but it is nice to hear it confirmed by someone else. > > By any chance, are you also an Orwell fan? \*\* I haven’t called YOU any names, nor have I insulted you. I merely eviscerated an extremely weak argument in GD. Are you going to cry and call people names every time you lose a debate? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/83 "2003-12-23T02:09:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > I already figured out that Diogenes is an idiot but it is nice to hear it confirmed by someone else. He’s only an idiot when talking politics.🙂 On issues of science vs religion, he’s brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/84 "2003-12-23T02:44:58Z")
Hey, thanks, **John**. 🙂 That means a lot coming from someone who invariably disagrees with me on politics. I think **Winston** just hates me because I bash GWB all the time. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/85 "2003-12-23T03:29:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Early Out \* > \*\*For the record, I agree completely. I find any belief that’s based purely on faith, with no objective proof whatsoever, to be ridiculous, including pretty much everything that passes for “religion.” To me, it’s a sign that the person is willing to toss rationality out the window in at least one corner of his or her life. This makes me wonder about that person’s ability to be rational in other areas. > > Do I want a religious mechanic working on my brakes? Is he going to test the brakes to make sure they work, or is he simply going to accept, on faith, the fact that they’ve been reassembled properly? How can I tell? Remember, this is a person who has _demonstrated_ his willingness to believe a lot of things without any proof whatsoever. I’ll take the rationalist, thank you very much. > > \*\* Excuse me? Are you saying that a person who has any kind of religious faith then lacks ethics and pride in crafsmanship? That a person of faith would put your life at risk because “I have faith the brakes on this car are fixed?” Actually, most people who have religious beliefs don’t have them lacking any objective proof. There is historical documentation of the existence of the founder of the religion, eyewitness testimony of miracles in many cases, etc. Also, many people consider the fact that, as far as biological life is concerned, the fact that living cells are such spectacularly efficient biochemical factories is evidence of deliberate design, the same holds true for such structures as the eye, the musculoskeletal system, the liver, for crying out loud. Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson, _et al_ were not capable of rational thought in such activities as, oh, say, drafting the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution because they believed in the existance of a Creator (even if they, or at least Jefferson, were Deists who basically believed that God wound up the Universe and left it to its own devices). Also, even the non-religious take a lot on faith. They (we) take it on faith that the accounts of the exploits of Napoleon are accurate. I take it on faith that John Julius Norwhich’s three volume set _Byzantium_ is an accurate accounting of the history of the Byzantine Empire. We have to. Any historian will tell you that the existence of documentation is not proof positive that the events or persons described in it are accurate. They can only point to a preponderance of evidence. So, even the atheists have to take a lot on faith. I bet you take it on faith that your car is going to start every morning without objective “proof”. No, you say? So, you get up extra early and go outside and give it a little “test start” before have breakfast and brush your teeth, just to make sure some neighborhood teenage prankster hasn’t snipped the ignition wires… For those residents of Las Vegas who rely on the bus system for transportation, even the most devoutly religious of us knows better than to take it on faith that the bus is going to show up on time, or even that it will be less than an hour late. What you’re really saying is, you think that people who hold beliefs that **you** regard as irrational are probably not capable of rational thought in areas of life aside from their religious beliefs. Prejudiced much? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/86 "2003-12-23T04:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Hey, thanks, **John**. 🙂 > > That means a lot coming from someone who invariably disagrees with me on politics. > > I think **Winston** just hates me because I bash GWB all the time. \*\* You **are** a Bush-basher of the highest order. But I’m convinced your rational mind will bring you around to the right political position eventually.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/87 "2003-12-23T04:23:21Z")
It’s much simpler than that, **Thea Logica**. Most of the religious people I’ve encountered, IRL and here on the Boards, will, when pressed, admit that much of what they believe, they accept on faith. The fact that the founder of a religion is undoubtedly real doesn’t make the religion objectively provable. L. Ron Hubbard was certainly a real person, but that doesn’t make Scientology true. Eyewitness testimony has been shown, repeatedly, to be so unreliable, it’s almost safer to believe the _opposite_ of what most eyewitnesses report. We may not be able to explain unusual occurrences, but that doesn’t make them miracles - it merely makes them things that we need to examine in more detail to determine why they happened. I hesitate even to get into the whole notion of “intelligent design.” That’s a subject worthy of a thread all its own (one which I simply don’t have the energy to start). Suffice it to say that I think it’s nonsense, and that there’s absolutely no evidence for it. Billions of years of evolution are quite capable of producing all of the biology we see around us. It’s not necessary to invoke magic. In fact, the proof of evolution is in its failures, rather than its successes. The giant panda’s “thumb” is a good example. Like all bears, the panda’s real thumb is essentially fused to the rest of its digits - the panda doesn’t have a thumb that’s capable of separating from the fingers. Yet the panda appears to have a thumb, which it uses to strip leaves off bamboo. Actually, it’s not a thumb at all, but is an extension of one of the wrist bones. No “designer” of biology would make such a ridiculous choice of mechanism. It’s clumsy and inefficient, not a “wonder” of biology at all. No, only dumb evolution can explain results like that. The panda evolved from a bear that gradually found that it needed to eat bamboo leaves to survive (habitat change, perhaps?). Among those pre-pandas, those that had a slightly elongated wrist bone were better at stripping leaves than the others, and so gained a survival advantage. And what intelligent designer would have come up with humans, saddled with biological mechanisms that are prone to all sorts of malfunctions? If we’re the best work of some all-powerful entity, that entity is a raging incompetent. I don’t have to rely on faith to start my car. If I turn the key, and it starts, I have an objective fact that’s undeniable - the car has started. Will it start tomorrow? Probably, based on past experience, but if I turn the key and nothing happens, I have another objective fact that’s undeniable - the battery is dead. My car isn’t magic. It operates on some fairly straightforward physical principles. The physics doesn’t change from day to day, so it’s a pretty good bet that it’s going to start. But mechanical things do fail, so there’s always a chance that tomorrow morning will be the morning it fails. Faith never enters into it. The truth of the underlying physics is what matters, and that truth can be demonstrated by objective, repeatable experiment. Accepting history on faith is a tough call. We all do it, to some extent. We’re rather suspicious of single sources, but sometimes that’s all we’ve got. I often wonder, however, how much of what we accept as historical truth is simply wrong. When considering more recent events, we’ve got a substantial body of evidence to work with - contemporaneous accounts from various sources, photographs, films, sound recordings, and so on. The further back into history we try to peer, the shakier our information becomes. When we get back to biblical times, we get perilously short on methods to separate fact from myth. Sometimes, archaeology helps us, but the rest of the time, we’re just guessing. I’m quite certain that religious people are capable of rational thought - I’ve never said otherwise. But, _and here’s the important bit_, I can never figure out how they decide which things in life they’re going to accept without objective evidence, and which things they’re going to approach in a rational way. There doesn’t seem to be any way of making the decision, so I’m a bit leery of relying upon their choices, at least until I get some indication of how they’re making those choices. I figure that, once you’ve decided that you’re willing to accept some pretty wild notions on faith, there is effectively no limit to what you’re capable of believing. So you believe that Jesus was the son of god? Fine. What’s to prevent you from believing that creatures from Saturn live among us? Or that there are ghosts all around us? Or that there are “energy beings?” Or that the earth is actually a giant leopard filled with custard? (My evolving Custard Theory - perhaps you’d like to subscribe to my newsletter.) What makes those ideas any more outlandish than the ideas you’ve already accepted? Where do you draw the line? ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/88 "2003-12-23T05:34:41Z")
Holy shit. Did I click the wrong link? Did I suddenly find myself on the Sylvia Browne/John Edward/James van Pragh(sp) Fan Club? I cannot believe that on the **Straight** fucking **Dope** fucking **Message** fucking **Board** (see! I can post like the Queen of England too!), so many people are knocking DTC for his post without apparently caring about the CONTEXT of what he said. Forget the fact that it’s about ghosts. Let’s say person A claims to see pink unicorns. Person B asks in a non-hostile way, “are you on medication? Hallucinating? Schizonphrenic?” And **That** is calling her names? In **Great Debates** forum? The mandate of this place, especially in GD, is that folks are _encouraged_ to react with skepticism and seek rational explanations for every assertion – whether it concerns dousing, the merits of black box voting, the moon landing, creationism, Darwinism, support for Bush/Dean/Nader, abortion, astral projection, etc. Why the hell is this so different? Let’s say we’re having a debate about the existence of vampires. Mike NewPoster jumps into the thread and asserts that he has _proof_ that vampires are real. He himself has been feeling incredibly tired and listless lately, and woke up with an overwhelming sense of dread. This clearly means that vampires have been visiting him at night and draining him of his blood. Duh! Vampires _do_ exist! What other explanation for his exhaustion could there be? Is it insulting to ask him, “Are you hungover? Eating too much junk food late at night? On any medications? Having panic attacks? Severely depressed?” Hell no. I’m chronically depressed myself with a side order of agoraphobia, and would not even blink if someone asked such a question. But I _would_ take offense if Mike NewPoster then had a _complete freakout_ screaming, “How DARE you call me DEPRESSSED?? That’s a HORRIBLE thing to ask ANYONE! OMG YOU ASSHOLE NO ONE SHOULD BE CALLED DEPRESSED! I"VE NEVER HAD A PANIC ATTACK IN MY LIFE AND A DEPRESSED MOOSE ONCE BIT MY SISTER!!!111” Puhlease. CDC (who _I_ thought was highly fond of _cars_) acted like a hypersensitive drama queen, and y’all are totally enabling her behavior. She not only made a totally unsubstatiated claim without comprehending that SDMB isn’t the venue for that kinda crap, but then also went so far over the top with hot-headed indignation and invective when people started to question her that the light from “the top” would take a million years to reach her. Come on. I may be a newbie, but I’ve lurked here long enough to know that if you aren’t prepared to have your claims questioned up and down with the painful exactitude of a goddamned colonoscope, _don’t fucking post them._ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/89 "2003-12-23T06:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Early Out \* > **It’s much simpler than that, Thea Logica. Most of the religious people I’ve encountered, IRL and here on the Boards, will, when pressed, admit that much of what they believe, they accept on faith.** I accept what I believe on faith, but it isn’t blind faith. My faith is based on what I feel to be a preponderance of evidence that what my Chuch teaches me is true. Granted, certain of my beliefs, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or the Virgin Birth, yes, I do take on faith, but I don’t think it’s irrational to take something on faith just because I can’t explain how it could have happened. Now, if you want to talk about “Cradle Catholics”, or Baptists, or Muslims, or whatever, you’re probably talking about a different story. A frighteningly high percentage of people who are raised in their religion are incredibly ignorant of the doctrines their religions teach. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The fact that the founder of a religion is undoubtedly real doesn’t make the religion objectively provable. L. Ron Hubbard was certainly a real person, but that doesn’t make Scientology true. Eyewitness testimony has been shown, repeatedly, to be so unreliable, it’s almost safer to believe the _opposite_ of what most eyewitnesses report.\*\* I would agree with you in the case of a single eyewitness, or just a few, of them. But go around and interview a couple of dozen, though accounts may vary in particular details, you could probably put together a fairly accurate account of what went down. \*\* > [@](#): > > We may not be able to explain unusual occurrences, but that doesn’t make them miracles - it merely makes them things that we need to examine in more detail to determine why they happened. \*\* Ahh, but what if, after examining the event in minute detail, you can’t discover any physical, or scientifically explainable cause? \*\* > [@](#): > > I hesitate even to get into the whole notion of “intelligent design.” That’s a subject worthy of a thread all its own (one which I simply don’t have the energy to start). Suffice it to say that I think it’s nonsense, and that there’s absolutely no evidence for it. Billions of years of evolution are quite capable of producing all of the biology we see around us. It’s not necessary to invoke magic.\*\* I really don’t think that the idea of intelligent design of biology is “invoking magic”. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Dumb evolution to me seems more magical than the idea that an intelligent being designed all of… this. \*\* > [@](#): > > In fact, the proof of evolution is in its failures, rather than its successes. The giant panda’s “thumb” is a good example. Like all bears, the panda’s real thumb is essentially fused to the rest of its digits - the panda doesn’t have a thumb that’s capable of separating from the fingers. Yet the panda appears to have a thumb, which it uses to strip leaves off bamboo. Actually, it’s not a thumb at all, but is an extension of one of the wrist bones > And what intelligent designer would have come up with humans, saddled with biological mechanisms that are prone to all sorts of malfunctions? If we’re the best work of some all-powerful entity, that entity is a raging incompetent…\*\* Hey, the “thumb” gets the job done. Also, most Christians (to randomly pick a religion) do, in fact, believe in evolution. Our take on it is that evolution is the means by which God brought creation to it’s present state. My personal view is that God preprogrammed the genetic materiel in the first pre-cellular critter that emerged from the primordial ooze to change, adapt, become more complex… Theistic evolutionists tend to stay out of the “creation vs. evolution” debates, which is a shame, because the Young Earth Genesis Is A Literal Account of How God Made the World Creationists then are perceived as being representative of what Christians believe, even though they are in the minority. And as for the human body with all the malfunctions it is prone to, most of those malfunctions are due to our own mistreatment of the body, whether it be through poor diet, over work, lack of exercise or just plain old bad posture. > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t have to rely on faith to start my car. If I turn the key, and it starts, I have an objective fact that’s undeniable - the car has started. \*\* Ah, but you do have faith that the car will start. I didn’t say that faith is what starts your car, although there is a particular breed of Pentecostals who would probably argue that it is. \*\* [quote] Faith never enters into it. \*\*Ah, but it does. Granted, your faith is based on prior experience, but it’s still faith You don’t know as an objective fact that the car will start until you put the key in the ignition and turn it. It’s probably a fairly safe assumption that car will start, but, hey, neighborhood kids could steal your battery, your wonderful next door neighbor could siphon all the gas from your tank, a stray cat could give birth to a litter of kittens in just exactly the wrong spot under the hood. The point is, you’re taking it on faith that none of these things have happened. \*\* > [@](#): > > Accepting history on faith is a tough call. We all do it, to some extent. We’re rather suspicious of single sources, but sometimes that’s all we’ve got. I often wonder, however, how much of what we accept as historical truth is simply wrong. When considering more recent events, we’ve got a substantial body of evidence to work with - contemporaneous accounts from various sources, photographs, films, sound recordings, and so on. The further back into history we try to peer, the shakier our information becomes. When we get back to biblical times, we get perilously short on methods to separate fact from myth. Sometimes, archaeology helps us, but the rest of the time, we’re just guessing.\*\* That’s kind of my point, really. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m quite certain that religious people are capable of rational thought - I’ve never said otherwise.\*\* Well, you did say something about not wanting a religious person to fix the brakes on your car, because you doubted they would test to make sure they were actually fixed. But, _and here’s the important bit_, I can never figure out how they decide which things in life they’re going to accept without objective evidence, and which things they’re going to approach in a rational way. There doesn’t seem to be any way of making the decision, so I’m a bit leery of relying upon their choices, at least until I get some indication of how they’re making those choices.\*\*Um, actually, aside from Young Earth Creationists, most religious folks take the existence of God and belief that certain supernatural events that they didn’t personally witness on faith, but anything outside of that, they want objective evidence. They want to see scientific studies about whether a particular medication is safe and effective, they want to know that their mechanic tested the brakes on their car before he pronounced it safe to drive… > [@](#): > > \*\*I figure that, once you’ve decided that you’re willing to accept some pretty wild notions on faith, there is effectively no limit to what you’re capable of believing. So you believe that Jesus was the son of god? Fine. What’s to prevent you from believing that creatures from Saturn live among us? Or that there are ghosts all around us? Or that there are “energy beings?” Or that the earth is actually a giant leopard filled with custard? (My evolving Custard Theory - perhaps you’d like to subscribe to my newsletter.) What makes those ideas any more outlandish than the ideas you’ve already accepted? Where do you draw the line? \*\* I believe in energy beings. I call them angels, except for the really nasty ones which I call demons. But the demons really don’t bother me, since I’m not playing with Tarot cards or Ouija boards and such… And I really wouldn’t discount the possibility that there are beings from Saturn living among us, although I highly doubt that they could survive in our atmosphere. Personally, I don’t draw the line. If someone believes that there are beings from Saturn among us, well, I might listen with some amusement, but I’m really more concerned with whether their knowledge of myofascial realease techniques are up to snuff, or that they have the investment savvy to keep my mom’s stock portfolio reasonably profitable, or that they’re competent to manufacture whatever product or provide whatever service they’re providing me. I don’t care if they sleep under a pyramid made of paper clips wrapped in tin foil because they think the Elder Gods are trying to control them through their dreams. I care if they’re being honest about any mechanical problems the used car they’re trying to sell me might. Someone who believes that the Earth is really a giant leopard filled with custard will probably still interact with people and things that don’t look like custard as though they were what they appeard to be- a secretary, an umbrella, a cup of coffee, a cat that is not a leopard and has not eaten custard recently. I understand that being Catholic, I believe in some really, really weird things. While I might consider the belief that the planet we live on is under constant surveillance by Pleiadeans to be a bit strange, it really isn’t any stranger than the belief that the Blessed Mother was bodily assumed into Heaven. And, hey, how do we know that we _aren’t_ under surveillance by Pleiadeans? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/90 "2003-12-23T10:56:54Z")
**Torie** , could you step over here for a moment? I have a nice hot bed of coals ready to rake you over. I suffer from clinical depression, which means I am mentally ill. I also, as it happens, do look like hell at the moment, but that’s because I’ve only just woken up and am sitting at my computer in sweats. An hour for now, when I’m ready for work and wearing a business suit, I will look not just good, but _damn_ good. What you said posted has the potentially to be \*\*_extremely_ \*\* damaging to someone who suffers from clinical depression. It was sentiments like that which led to me not getting treatment which led to me very nearly dying. Do you have any idea how easily the statement “Mental illness is bad” can be perverted into “I am bad” by someone who suffers from depression, which can then be perverted into “I don’t deserve to live”? I read the OP not long after it came out and I left it alone because I didn’t think **chicksdigscars** statement was all that bad. There is a stigma attached to mental illness, albeit one I refuse to accept, and I could see myself taking offense if someone who didn’t know my background asked if I was mentally ill. **Torie** , as far as I’m concerned, and this applies to me, only, what you said crossed a line in that it had the potential to cause harm and drive someone away from treatment. You said people who are sick look sick. Would it surprise you to learn that when my mental state was so bad I was fighting to keep myself together at work, someone at work said she wished she had my confidence? It was a mind-boggling statement because I had none at the time. I know you were talking specifically about schizophrenia, but you didn’t say schizophrenia; you said “mental illness.” It may well be that your statements were made out of ignorance. If so, there’s an essay I’d like to e-mail you. Depression is a lousy illness – a bout with it Friday night left me metaphorically howling in pain when I thought I’d be singing with joy. I wish no one had to suffer from it, but you could apply that to any number of diseases, including cancer, schizophrenia, and diabetes. Suffering from depression does not mean I’m a bad person or that I look like hell. I could not afford to let it last winter when I was depressed because I was unemployed – people who look like hell tend not to get hired, and that would have just made things worse. Please, lass, think before you type, especially about what effect your words may have. CJ : Pulls **torie** off the coals, pours water on them to douse them and gets out the burn salve: ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/91 "2003-12-23T11:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Mental illness is not comparable to wilful, self-serving, emotional violence on any level you ignorant fucker cf > [@](#): > > I was comparing the accusation of mental illness with the accusation of violence. Both are insulting. Quickie English lesson: prepositional phrases. She was comparing _accusations_. Accusations (of any ‘X’) are insulting. She was not comparing mental illness with violence. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/92 "2003-12-23T12:15:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Quickie English lesson: prepositional phrases. She was comparing accusations. Accusations (of any ‘X’) are insulting. She was not comparing mental illness with violence. Makes sense. So here’s another English lesson: _asking_ is different from _accusing_. DTC did not _accuse_ CDC of being schizophrenic, or indeed accuse her of anything. Except perhaps of being apparently unable to grasp the whole “fact-finding” purpose of this message board. He merely asked her about possible medical/physical conditions that might explain the visions she claims to have seen. Christ on a bun, why is this so hard to grasp? **Siege** , my brother in clinical depression, I feel ya. 🙂 \<- hmm, bizarre use of smilie. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391/93 "2003-12-23T12:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Siege, my _brother_ in clinical depression Oops. Or sister, as the case may be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicksdigscars-people-with-mental-illnesses-can-not-be-equated-with-violent-criminals/220391.md?page=4)