chicksdigscars people with mental illnesses can not be equated with violent criminals

The BBQ Pit
61

AHunter3:

I asked the question because she described a symptom (hallucinations). It was not intended to be demeaning or dismissive. I have worked with and known a number of people with schizophrenia. Part of my job is dealing with people who hallucinate. I see it all the time. I pass them their meds. It used to freak me out but now I think nothing of it. I have never once thought that when a person said they saw or heard something that wasn’t there that there was any possibility that i was witnessing a paranormal event. When someone tells me they see ghosts, I think “halllucinations, possibly schizophrenic.” I don’t think that makes anyone a bad person or that it’s anything deserving of mockery. My question was sincere not derisive.

What about when someone describes symptoms of a medical condition as you did?

Poster A: I’ve got these red, itchy spots all over my body.

Poster B: Do you think you’ve got measles?

Poster A: How dare you ask about my personal medical information? :mad:

You are the one who put your mental health on the table by discussing visions of “ghosts.” It would be a rather unfair and disingenuous debating tactic to proffer your personal visions as evidence for the debate but then to insist that any logical analysis of those visions is “rude” and out of bounds for discussion. Essentially you’re saying that we have to simply accept your personal assertions at face value or else we’re being rude. I’m sorry but the GD forum doesn’t work that way.

62

DtG, if your question was sincere, then I’m the fucking Queen of England. You meant it as an insult because you don’t believe in ghosts. You are just trying to justify your remarks. When you ask someone “Are you on medication?” or “Have you ever been hospitalized,” THOSE ARE RUDE QUESTIONS.

Seeing a ghost is not equal to being schizophrenic, no matter how you try to spin it. No matter how you ASSHOLES try to justify it, seeing a ghost does not equal schizophrenia. Period.

And Musicat, LEARN TO FUCKING READ. My name is chicksdigscars, NOT chicksdigcigars.

63

Well, it may have been more kindly intended than “Yo, man, if you believe what you posted you must be fuckin’ nuts”, but chicksdigscars (does anyone else keep interpolating this as “chick digs cars”?) apparently believes a genuine ghost was sighted.

Is anyone going to make the claim that asking “pardon me, but are you by any chance schizophrenic?” is not a way of discrediting that notion by way of implying that CDS has a condition that would explain how he/she could be “seeing” things which ain’t there? I mean, if CDS had replied “Why, yeah, now that you mention it”, were any of you going subsequently say, “Oh, well, I’ve heard that it’s possible that ghosts really exist but that nonschizophrenics have a much greater difficulty perceiving them even when they are there” – ? No, of course not. Saying “Are you schizophrenic” is, in this context, a substitute for “Sorry, but if you believe that you’re nuts”, even if compassion rather than contempt was intended.

One could similarly post, “OK, CDS, you’ve posed the formulation that ghosts must exist infofar as you believe yourself to have seen one with your own eyes. Tell me, are you possessed of a kind of limited infallibility, such as that which the Pope possesses with regards to official theological statements, except that yours pertains to ghost-sightings? Or is your infallibility more of an all-encompassing thing?”

If one did so, it might be funny, it might do some injury to CDS’s assertion that this ghost-sighting is real and valid, but pretty much any way you cut it, it’s a discrediting maneuver.

Mind you, I’m not saying it’s invalid for being a discrediting maneuver. If you believe you have adequate reasons for thinking CDC is describing hallucinations or otherwise exhibiting thought processes that are incompatible with those widely shared and expected to be shared under the rubric of “sanity” – or for that matter, if you believe you have adequate reasons for thinking CDC may be suffering from the belief that he or she is infallible – a rhetorical thrust of this nature seems entirely reasonable.

But you can’t be entirely offended if CDC subsequently says “How dare you” and resents the appelation offered.

64

Language, Your Majesty!! :o

65

I didn’t say I was offended.

What’s wrong with discrediting absurd assertions?
If someone claims they see ghosts, they are either lying, mistaken or hallucinating. There is no other option. It is impossible to see something which does not exist in reality.

If someone is going to argue for the existence of ghosts by asserting that they have “seen” such things, then that assertion is going to be challenged and dissected.

Don’t go into GD and claim that you “know” ghosts are real because you have “seen” them and expect people just to passively accept it as evidence.

If someone sees things that aren’t there, that person is hallucinating. The only question is what is causing the hallucination. Schizophrenia is one of the more obvious answers and I maintain that it’s a perfectly valid question.

There is also the possibility that cds was simply lying about all this but I was too polite to suggest that.

66

This lady is obviously delusional, most like schizophrenic.

67

DtC:

Maybeso, but

::scrolls back to first page::

Blake was apparently offended enough to pit CDS for having the effrontery to get indignant.

I know people who believe in God, who believe, in fact, that they have personally been spoken to or otherwise communicated to by God, in person & directly. Certainly there are many on this board who would categorize God and ghosts in the same file folder (and not just because they both start with “g”). But if the latter asked one of the former if they were schizophrenic, I’d not be surprised if it elicited a bit of indignation.

And if someone subsequently pitted them for being indignant, on the ground that “you should not equate being called ‘schizophrenic’ with being called something bad, you mental-illness stigmatizing insensitive clod, you”, I’d have to call them a tool for doing so.

68

One more time. I did not “call” or “accuse” anyonone of being schizophrenic. I asked if it was a possibility.

Tell me, AHunter, if someone tells you that they see things or hear voices do you not wonder if they might be schizophrenic? Do you allow any possibility that what they “see” is real?

How should we respond to such assertions in GD when they are proffered as factual evidence?

69

Have to agree with AHunter - I’m mentally ill and if I got offended whenever anybody said ‘Are you nuts?’ then I’d be a very angry bunny indeed.

Oh and while being mad isn’t all it’s ‘cracked’ up to be you don’t feel crap all of the time - sheesh

70

I didn’t think so…not ALL of the time.

71

DtG, the way you formed the question was the implication. You may not believe in ghosts. I already stated that I cannot offer infallible proof. But just because YOU do not believe in them does not mean they do not exist. You think you have the answers to everything. Only God has the answers. (I just know you are going to LOVE that comment!)

I am sick of this argument. You could have asked me in a different way instead of saying, “Are you on medication?” You could have asked me if there were any witnesses. There is just no excuse for what you did and no matter how much you try, you cannot justify it.

And for those who have still not learned to read, my name is CHICKS DIG SCARS. Got it? chicksdigscars

72

And yet you asserted it as fact in GD thread.

I don’t have to prove they don’t exist, you have to prove they DO. Do you believe in goblins? Does that mean they don’t exist? Do you see what an asinine argument that is?

I didn’t claim to have any answers. I just asked questions. You didn’t habve any answers so you blew up. Get used to it if you’re going to stick around on this board. You will be asked to defend your assertions, especially when it comes to claims about supernatural events.

There is no way to ask how you can rule out hallucinations as an explanation for your hoodoos without asking some questions about your mental health. You already said that no one else could see your spooks so there was no need to ask about witnesses.

You need to explain how you can eliminate natural explanations for your visions. The most obvious natural explanation is that you were hallucinating. You have yet to explain why that isn’t possible.

73

God damn I love train wreck threads where it all comes down to an over and over argument of the semantics of one or two sentences. Best entertainment for the buck.:smiley:

CDC you need to just walk away. Prove you are above all this petty squabbling. And stop being so strident in your posts, you will win NO sympathy that way.

The rest of you, with one or two excepts really need better meds… or more beer. Something…

74

I love you, too.

Hey, chicksdigscars, since you’re a chick, do you dig scars?

75

My dear Diogenes, I often admire what you post, but I must say, you are not reading. I wrote:

That would be Blake, not you, unless you chimed in in agreement at some point.

And I said:

Lower your hackles. :wink:

76

I love scars, man! However the name refers to a movie quote.

Strident has various meanings: harsh, loud, grating or shrill. OR strongly expressed: loudly, strongly or urgently expressed.

According to MSN Encarta dictionary http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/strident.html. BTW, I was going for the second definition.

So, Krisfer the Cat, thanks for the compliment (even though you didn’t mean it as one).

As for DtG, if you had used this sentence in your response to my first post, “You need to explain how you can eliminate natural explanations for your visions,” then I wouldn’t have had to be so STRIDENT in my responses.

77

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.

78

chickdigscars - get over the insult. Being called Schizophrenic is no worse than any other label, except for the reception it get. But at the same time, schizophrenia very rarely features visual hallucinations - so the self righteous gang can accept that ghosts and psychosis are not one and the same.

Oh, psychosis, that’s the one, I suffer from it. As well as depression and anxiety. it aint fun. Please, nobody make fun of it, and nobody talk about things they don’t understand?

79

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?

80

As an aside, I just wanted to inform everyone that when I die, I have decided it would be great fun to haunt Diogenes for all eternity. :smiley: