do they say "Agree to disagree"?

anyone get this line from quacks when telling them as it is, the take control and use this confusing line to put an end to whatever you have to say "agree to disagree" but hang on a second I was the one disagreeing so I will put it in my own court to take charge of the situation.

do they thinkk they are clever? or just plain irritating...the line is confusing maybe because its meaningless just something they say in that situation and all psychiatrists do it regardless of the truth we speak of.

more about it being confusing and degrading like I find psychiatrists do they make one sick, they know how to trigger people into fragmentation with lines like this that have no answer...they put themselves in superiour position by using this line.

any other confusing lines psychiatrist use? or just about everything they say is distorting to the mind.

another thing the professionals do is confuse themselves about what it is I am saying they use a lense and reduce what I am saying to mean something a schizophreinc would say without being objective to the content of what is being said..or they just say agree to disagree.

is it any wonder this is so confusing....I disagree but having to agree with it, thatas just what its about having to agree to disagree to get over the disagr4eements and start ag4reeing

no matter how many times I told my old clinician about the drug companies orchestrating psychiatry knowledge base she would get confused and think I mean the drug companies are paying the clinic to keep me as a patient...how retarded is this, they didn't use the agree to disagree on this one...thing is can't even remember what made the last psychiatrist say this but I heared it so many times, its like they are't listenting and just disagreeing out of principle so they say it and think they are so clever making their patients confused and baffled about what they were even talking about....I suppose all this would go over their head and they would say agree to disagree to get rid of the problem with quacks confusing their patients with cleverness.

phucking hate this line.....what am I supposed to do with it if they use it on me again? I am not agreeing to disagree

do they really think they are clever using it

its not addressing my concerns at all

######6 hate psychiatrists with superiourity complexes. dumb ###$. they can't do anything with my concerns but agree to disagree

does it get any better then this.....cant's stand that smug avoidance of the issues and making me voiceless with agree to disagree....rightfully I can't stand this line or anyone that uses it to sound clever...

I am offput by anything people use to sound clever, reusing lines especially when psychiatrists use it....they are my pet hate, just wanted to say.

Razael, You've got to get away from them mate. You'll feel so much better once you don't have those patronizing smug assholes in your life anymore. Then u can reassess yourself and see how to help yourself to what u really want to do. Don't let them get to you, they arnt worth it.

I think you have to confront them on the meaning of "agree to disagree". After all they are saying it precisely because you have nothing to respond to it. But if you sit down and dissect exactly what it means, then they would see it doesn't work in avoiding discussion. Now, you can respond to them something along the following lines:

1. The meaning of a phrase "agree to disagree" is "you go your way, I go my way". In other words, it would mean that they can prescribe you any meds they want, while you can fail to take whatever they prescribe. Now, they don't want to stick to the second part of the bargain, do they? So clearly they are not "agreeing to disagree" so why do they say that they do?

2. The phrase "agree to disagree" is used when people argue out of pride, and there are no real consequences beyond pride. Now, in case of meds there are real consequences:

a) If they are right, then you would do something horrible in case you are off of meds

b) If you are right, then you will have side effects due to being on meds

That's why it is important to see who is right. But, regardless of who happens to be right, this is certainly NOT an inconsequential issue, so "agree to disagree" simply doesn't apply. Or, if they think it is inconsequential, why do they work so hard in making sure you take those meds anyway?

3. After you point out the above contradictions, tell them what the REAL deal is: namely, as someone mentally ill, you presumably lack inside. But then also point out something else: that even courts make mistakes, so psychiatrists can make mistakes too. In case of courts, the prisoners can still send appeals and courts will consider what appeals had to say. So, as someone being forced to take meds against your will, you should be able to "appeal" too, in a form of presenting your side of the story and they should consider what you had to say.

4. Now, the content of your appeal is the following: While you acknowledge part a of item 2, you claim that part a doesn't apply to you because they misinterpreted your behavior in such and such way. Now, they are dismissing what you are saying because, as someone mentally ill, you "don't have an inside". But this argument is circular: they first have to ASSUME you are mentally ill in order to dismiss your arguments which would ultimately allow them to CONCLUDE you are mentally ill. So why not get out of the "circle" by "droping" their ASSUMPTION and instead sitting down and discussing everything. What are they afraid of anyway? If a mentally ill "discussing" with them whether aliens abducted him or not, he won't be able to convince them that they did. So, if something else you are trying to tell them is equally "crazy", that won't mislead them either. On the other hand, if there is some GENUINE piece of information they are missing, then it might help them. So, in other words, nothing to lose and everything to gain. So why not have that discussion? If they say that what they lose is time, point out to them that the "damage" to their life due to wasted time is far less serious than the "damage" made to your life by the side effects of the meds. So, if they are going to make you take those meds, then they are the ones obligated to take whatever time they need to take in order to make sure you actually need those meds.

P.S. I think you can skip the entire thing about the financial interest of pharmacy industry. I mean, you don't KNOW that this is what motivates them, you are only guessing. If you want an open discussion, both sides have to trust what the other side has to say. So, if you want them to trust what you have to say, you have to trust what they have to say. So avoid brining up anything they didn't say. INSTEAD, have them state their case as best they can, and then point out INNER CONTRADICTIONS in what they were saying. Like the inner contradiction in "agree to disagree" statement is a good example of it. So, just assume that they have no financial interest at all, and they are HONESTLY feeling that if you don't take meds you will jump off the cliff, or whatever they SAY they are thinking take their word for it. Then, after that, ask them WHY they say what they are saying, and point out all the assumptions and circular arguments in their response.

This is what I found searching "how to win a debate against a psychiatrist"

It is not entirely just to say that psychiatrists and psychologists have no technology.

True, they can cure nothing and cannot change anyone for better or worse and as a result have to kill “difficult patients.”

But they do have one piece of technology.

This is concerned with winning arguments.

Anyone who disagrees with their planned totalitarian rule is pronounced “insane.” He is seized quietly, conveyed to a prison, tortured and usually permanently injured or killed.

People they cannot get their hands on but who exist in literature or legend they also pronounce “insane.”

Barry Goldwater* was labeled a “paranoid schizophrenic” by psychiatrists employed by the opposing party. Whittaker Chambers* was dubbed a “psychopathic personality.” Woodrow Wilson* was declared a “megalomaniac,” and even Jesus Christ, when the psychiatrists decided religion barred their way to world control, was called a “born regenerate” with a “fixed delusional system” manifesting a “paranoid clinical picture (so typical) it is hardly conceivable people can even question the accuracy of the diagnosis.”

In other words, psychologists and psychiatrists do have a piece of technology. Anyone who has any other idea than total social control is labeled “crazy.” This at once disposes of the fellow of course. It invalidates his views and so gets them out of the road of “psychiatric progress” toward the Total State.

There are only two things odd about this technology.

One is that it is only used on people who speak of freedom or whose views oppose psychiatric ambitions.

The other is that it cannot be called new. Even though a lot of Latin is employed to make the point, it is very difficult to find any difference between this technology and that employed by little boys.

As almost anyone has always known, devoid of all Latin terms, when two little boys can’t agree on some vague point little boys disagree about, one or the other since caveman times has always tried to end the argument by saying:

“You’re crazy!”

Could it be their whole technology has never really advanced beyond that of the neighborhood bully?


L. Ron Hubbard

I can understand how frustrating it can be to hear the phrase "let's agree to disagree." It doesn't make you feel as though you've been heard and that your thoughts/feelings/opinions have been validated. I disagree with causalset however. I don't believe that you should fight them on these matters. You have been trying that for a long time. Where has that gotten you? Unfortunately the way the system works sucks. You have to go along with their belief system until they release their grasp and then you can be free to do as you desire.

To set things clear however, when one is put on a CTO there is an appeal system, and the case is reviewed on a regular basis so there is ample opportunity to have your case heard.

There are so many words that people use every day without knowing what they mean. Spend half an hour (or all day) looking up, reading definitions and practise using the word agree.

Next time some idiot tries to bamboozle you with that rubbish ask them what the word agree means and how the defintion they choose is useful or meaningful applied to your situation.

Ask the psychtrooper what they know of thought terminating cliches. Used against someone who is in the weaker position it's a form of bullying. They might as well be saying, "You'll do as I say or else".

Rod wrote:
Ask the psychtrooper what they know of thought terminating cliches. Used against someone who is in the weaker position it's a form of bullying. They might as well be saying, "You'll do as I say or else".

thought terminating cliche ,, I like that and you are right it is bullying

-- Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:20 pm --

maybe its a localized clever line that is used in australia when dealing with ignorant quacks...I thought it would be global line they used to put an end to any free thought and independent raationality to the situation that gets disagree'd by the quack simply becuase the patient had said it

they say agree to disagree when I am fighting it Cheze2...and as for the MHRB that does reviews of involuntary status it is too easy for the clinic to play that and keep them ignorant to my voice, it makes no difference...I am actually taking the MHRB to court with my clinic to appeal the system, not sure how it will go but have a magistrate hearing agaisnt the decision of this group to keep me on CTO and ignoring everything I say