It's all kicking off on...

... the sewage outlet that is Pete Earley's blog.

Supposedly, Robert Whitaker has blood on his hands and should be banned from having his say, even if there is truth in what he says. Although I obviously lean more towards Whitaker in this debate, it would admittedly amuse me if he was banned from having a platform to share his views, considering that that is what he does on his site, which is particularly despicable when one takes into account just how few channels of communication are open to heretical patients.

Some of the comments below Earley's paltry vomitings are quite emotionally charged, to say the least, evidencing just how utterly naive it is to believe that there is a possibility of proper parley on this issue.

Fiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhtttttttt!!!!!!! Who needs boxing when you've got this?

Some of the comments are truly hysterical and a veritable orgy of fallacious thinking.

-- Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:15 pm --

Some are even discussing taking legal action against him. Ha! Who needs Fawlty Towers when you've got this?

Psychiatry has the bloody hands,

CAICA is an informational and educational website that provides news articles, reports, etc.,
regarding children and teens abused, neglected, and who have died in residential treatment settings

http://www.caica.org/

NAMI wont address this blood at all cause of sponsors like "Universal Health Services"

I think I will copy cat that over there at MIA.

All the pro-forced "treatment" cant is just vomit-inducing. These people obviously graduated at the E Fuller Torrey University of hypocrisy. There's the usual profession of feelings that clearly aren't being felt, the usual feigned effusions of concern and compassion so common amongst the particular species of hypocrite who have a stake in robbing people of their rights.

The credentialism is the most disturbing. Supposedly, you are not allowed to speak about the science pertaining to the issue of psychiatric drugs unless you are a scientist. If I spouted such patently fallacious drivel it would be taken as evidence or treated as symptomatic of my presumed illness.

The attempts to justify "pro-forced treatment" or whatever other name this obscenity is going under, are preposterous.

Supposedly, someone's son believed that his mother was an evil zombie, as if the beliefs of the vultures around him are any saner, such as the belief in minds susceptible to literal pathology (a belief that has had tragic consequences for many millions), in diseased minds responsible for a vast assortment of social ills.

If you believe someone you are in conflict with is an evil zombie, and you are powerless, you are mad/mentally ill and dangerous. On the other hand, if you believe someone is "mentally ill" and in need of "treatment" for their devastating but completely unproven illness, you are neither mad nor dangerous. It doesn't matter how many tens of millions of people are mutilated, tortured, poisoned and killed by the Mental Health Movement, we should be worrying about some powerless, hapless sod, who believes that his mother is an evil zombie! The harm done to the mental patient by society through psychiatry far outweighs that of the harm done by the patient to society. This all distinctly savors of scapegoating.

Anyway, such language is metaphorical anyway. I mean, lots of people label women they don't like or are in conflict with witches, this doesn't mean they literally believe in the existence of witches!

Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:The attempts to justify "pro-forced treatment"

.

That picture sums it up perfectly.

Though I prefer the National Alliance for the Modern Inquisition.

The National Alliance against the Mentally Ill.