P0ci wrote:Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:Razael wrote:I did take it a bit far off topic pardon me
more importantly is our rights to receive safe treatments, we have in australia charter of human rights and states our religious and cultural convictions must be respected, to be able to participate in treatment even refuse treatment and only be offered safe treatments....they aren't safe at all especially when considering lifestyle problems that may lead to an earlier death if not for toxic onslaught on the liver etc quality and meaning in life
part of the illusion doctors have is they believe they are safe and people must be paranoid to refuse them or lack insight, but as usual they have very poor judgement on what really goes on with people that are ultimately troubled by the system yet they can't understand how since they are deluded about the role of the observer in mismatching apparent observations
-- Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:42 pm --
good link copy cat there are some good mad in america pages
On the matter of the last sentence, Mendacious in America, the Robert Whitaker Appreciation Society, is a steaming pile of horse manure, a confederation of hypocrites and fakers, of people who fake smile into cameras, especially those people who suck up to that odious criminal Sandy Steingard, whilst making a pretense of being against coercion, a pretense they'd soon drop if it was a condition of inclusion in their beloved community. In one sentence they inveigh against the abomination that is involuntary psychiatry, and in the next lavish the most frankly embarassingly exaggerated praise on a woman who continues to make a career for herself out of this form of existential cannibalism, allowing her to rationalize her simple unwillingness to go and do something for a living that doesn't exact such a toll in human suffering, which is all her excuses are. The people on there are in a state of intellectual vassalage, refusing to question the motives of the powerful because questioning motives is streng verboten on their website; refusing to be themselves, to be authentic human beings, because the smug, sanctimonious moderators, and Mr Whitaker, the grand inquisitor of the community, will not tolerate authenticity, which betrays their intellectual identification with the oppressors on this issue, because that's what psychiatrists are engaged in, the suppression of authentic human emotions and traits, which they, like all insipid, soulless bourgeois hypocrites, consider an affront to them in their comfortable life of bourgeois hyprocisy, their life of utter inauthenticity and tranquilising triviality, which they try to impose on those of us who will not brook their circumscriptions!
Actually the first time I heard about the horros of anti psychotics like Zyprexa was from an interview with Robert Whitaker, I think the guy knows his stuff
I fail to see how that contradicts anything I've said? The simple fact is that people cannot counter my criticisms of this man based on what I actually say, because most of it is nothing more than simple statements of fact, like his banning of numerous patients from his site for failure to conform to the Procrustean and discriminatory behavioural standards of his community. No one can answer that, probably because they have bought into the idea of the necessity of condemning social deviants and people who breach stultifying social-norms to isolation and exclusion. Internet moderation sneaks in by the back door censorship and intolerance, just like forced psychiatric "treatment" sneaks in by the back door torture and slavery. It is an injustice, even when applied to those people who have been rude and do set out to offence, in that the punishment does not reflect the magnitude of the offence, if it can even be called an offence to give vent to one's anger and hatred, often born, as the example of gangster rappers bears out, of discrimination, social and economic deprivation, and the social isolation that often results from years of rigorous social experience etc.
If you, POCI, had made that comment that you made on here and that was moderated, you might not only have been moderated, but if you had not accepted the moderation of your comment, you would be banned. You wouldn't like that, just as you didn't like it when your comment was moderated on this web site. Does the fact that Whitaker has written a few books with one or two good things in it exempt him from criticism? Amongst his cult of followers, the answer is categorically, yes. I would like to think that you agree, but given the fact that generally speaking you have not extended the support I extended to you (don't worry, I am used to it), I won't hold my breath, especially seeing as you completely glossed over my actual comment and responded with what can only be described as a non-sequitur.
I'm not denying that he has been outspoken about the effects of the drugs, but this doesn't change the fact that he has been conspicuously silent on the issue of forced drugging, despite his knowledge of the biological, cognitive and emotional ravages of long and short term usage of these drugs, nor does his knowledge change anything about the very simple fact that he has been very accommodating towards a woman who, notwithstanding the praise lavished on her by those around her, has made a career out of forcing people to take drugs because she is suffering the delusions of entitlement that the possession of power ineluctably sows in the possessor.
I will not continue our correspondence. Maybe you will want to argue, but I have cancer, and life is too short to waste on conflict, and anyway, as Quillen once said, an argument is an exchange of ignorance, not of knowledge.
Damn that sucks.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed