Ordinarily I’d agree, but STS lost me with “ass-burgers” and how anyone who mocks him is doing so to boost their own low sense of self worth.:rolleyes: SmashThe State has a remarkable arrogance about him. Anyone who disagrees with STS gets buried under an avalanche of quotes and personal experiences that prove just how smart STS is. He’s read books. He’s deep. He can quote Voltaire and buddhists.:rolleyes: He quotes everything and understands nothing. He’s a schmuck who’s so convinced of his own genius that anyone who disagrees simply must be a fool because anyone who would be his equal must have reached the same conclusions that he has.
SmashTheState, I just want you to know that your being mocked here has nothing to do with low self esteem or ignorance and everything to do with the fact that you’re a pretentious twat. You’re every stiff from the Marx Brothers film library mixed with Rick from The Young Ones and a dash of Wile E. Coyote Super Genius. You practically *beg *to be mocked.
What this means to Smash is that if a contention is ludicrous on its face or repeatedly shown to be false via application of the scientific method, it is perfectly acceptable to jump to some other system of “thought” until a pleasing conclusion is reached. Devotees of woo love this sort of flexibility.
And it’s a helpful means of épater les bourgeois, which appears to be Smash’s main goal here at the SDMB as he mingles with the hooting herd of detractors who do not appreciate his unfettered brilliancy and are all hung up on middle-class critical thinking.
It’s such a shame. Here we’ve got a first-class [del]loon[/del] shaman of the unconventional, and instead of revering him as someone who can elevate our lives, we just point fingers and guffaw. In ancient days and cultures, such a person would be revered as the village nitwit, allowed free entrance into bars, fed tidbits and kept clean by the sane members of the tribe.
How much time have you actually spent talking to schizophrenics? I have spent uncounted hours over many decades listening to my father and other schizophrenic family members and friends describe the howling horrific hell that occupies their minds. Any social rejection is trivial compared to this.
I don’t know how many times my father attempted suicide. He tried to hang himself; he jumped down a flight of stairs; he tried to OD. It wasn’t because of social rejection, it was because of the horrible pain of his thoughts. And I know this because this is what he described to me in excruciating detail.
For someone who claims sophistication, you are simply incredibly naive and ignorant on the subject. Spend some time talking to real severe schizophrenics before you minimize their disabilty. Glamorizing schizophrenia is like trying to look on the bright side of cancer.
Changing the details a bit, but not substantively: I’m aware of a person with schizophrenia, a middle aged man, who believed wholeheartedly both that he was Paris Hilton and that he was pregnant. He also had AIDS, and he was not compliant with the treatment thereof.
I’ve known of persons with schizophrenia groping animals; emptying their bank accounts and giving their money to people on the street; believing that God was telling them to kill. I am concerned about the archetypes that such people are seeing directly, when I am forced to view reality through representational media. Could someone clear this up for me?
SmashTheState, if you don’t like it here, why don’t you get the fuck out?
You think you’re an amazing, unappreciated genius and we’re all fools. We get it. You’ve made yourself clear. The sooner you fuck off, the happier we’ll all be; you won’t have to put up with your inferiors and their obsession with facts and evidence, and we’ll be rid of you.
Please, don’t let us hold you up on your way out. Here’s your jacket.
No: despite its classification as such until the 1970s, homosexuality is now understood to be something other than a purely mental condition, so even if it were an illness it couldn’t be only a mental illness. Science, you see, allows for unwarranted assumptions to be corrected in the face of new data.
Illness (from a dictionary website) is “impairment of normal physiological function affecting part or all of an organism.” It is now hypothesized that homosexual individuals do not have their normal function impaired, but rather have a normal state of being different than heterosexuals. Since the causes of homosexuality are not fully understood, this may change. It’s either a variety of normal (not an illness) or a something along the lines of disability (technically an illness, but not a disease; in other words, not something that needs “curing” for a normal life, merely reasonable societal accomodation). I’m gay, and I can see how an analogy could be made, but I think there’s a key difference.
With schizophrenics, where you fall down is “impairment.” I challenge you to find me an unmedicated schizophrenic, whether in Western society or a traditional society, who is not impaired. You can’t do it. There aren’t any. They may contribute positively to their community, they may play an important part in the traditional religion, but they are still impaired. There are gay people who are not impaired, and there are disabled people who are not impaired (take the Deaf community for an example). Your position seems to be that the impairment is social, not biological, but the cross-cultural data (again accepting the assumption that the diagnosis is even valid cross-culturally) contradicts this idea.
I suspect that he’s here precisely because he doesn’t like it here. I suspect that he views his behavior as “speaking truth to power” or some such rot and that he pets himself to sleep by thinking about all the Liberals/Conservatives who he has gloriously fought in the service of his glorious revolution. Glorious!
StS is useless in furthering science because he/she/it doesn’t publish peer reviewed papers on subjects that interest it. StS is very entertaining however, because StS is the sort of monkey that shapes his poo into a poo ball before throwing it, and they splatter in such interesting and smelly patterns.
Oh, I’ve changed my mind. SmashTheState really does know something about anarchism, even though he seems to be more of a bored trust-fundie going through his Wobbly phase than an auto-didact member of the working class.
You, however, distinctly lack the square-jawed heroism of the Randian hero. (The kind old Ayn fantasized when she was randy!) Your increasingly childish outbursts don’t even suit your Tax Lawyer Persona. Although why you would pretend to follow such a crashingly dull profession makes me wonder at your lack of imagination. Pick a better fantasy!
:eek: Holy cow, he musta been channeling me! Lekatt was right all along!
Until you actually go through the process of designing, running, analyzing, and publishing studies, it’s hard to get a feel for how science works in practice. It’s kinda like the difference between looking at porn and actually getting laid. And as y’all have noted, StS’ experience in this domain is obviously…theoretical…at best.
Wait, aren’t you the guy who said “Science is Buddha looking at a wall and saying, ‘that is a wall’” or something, in another pit thread? And aren’t you the guy who started a gd that because when you were six you were confused about the sound of a pencil falling, so therefore reality is meaningless, or something? And maybe go to google scholar or pubmed and get cites from actual peer-reviewed articles published in credible journals for your pscychobabble crap. Or if you don’t like it here, fuck off.
You’re missing the point of his type – he does like it here. He like to rattle the bars and fling poo for awhile. He’s has his chosen persona, and he’s going to play it up for a few weeks until he’s banned. Then we all move on to the next one. Same old same old.
I do wonder what kind of scientific evidence there could be for a claim like “Mental illness is an accurate descriptor.” It would seem like a decision about this requires a value judgment, and we usually think of science as not being able to decide between value judgments. It can inform such decisions, but it can’t make those decisions–or anyway, so it usually is said at the pop level.
I don’t think this points to a serious problem, but I do think it points to an area of serious unclarity in the way people think casually about science and values.