Forced Medication is rape of the soul

Actually, what the OP was doing was ethics. She says it is wrong to force medication on people. You are the one who turned it into semantics by attacking her use of words.

What people don't appreciate is being forced into something. That is the problem with forced medication or putting restraints on someone. It is rightly seen as a violation, and quite a bodily violation at that. This is why you will hear a lot of people referring to what happens in some institutions as rape. It is not a legal rape, but it is rape nonetheless. So yes, people do use it in that sense fairly often, because violation and abuse are weaker words that do not convey the feelings properly.

Whether forced medication is justified in some cases or not (ethics) does not invalidate the feelings or the facts. I agree with the OP on the basics that forcing people to do something against their will is wrong. Sometimes it is done in order to avert a greater wrong, but it still scars the person nonetheless, so I don't think it is a good approach overall. I don't see any real need for it that cannot be achieved in some other ways. Mental health practitioners destroy their own credibility as "helpers" when they use that approach. I have a hard time believing hospitals are still doing it in the 21th century.

sunset_birth wrote:Actually, what the OP was doing was ethics. She says it is wrong to force medication on people. You are the one who turned it into semantics by attacking her use of words.

Really? Let's look at the OP and find the ethical argument.

"Aristotle defined the soul or psyche (ψυχή) as the first actuality of a naturally organized body.
However, the word "psychology" literally means "study of the soul".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

A person who commits an act of rape is known as the rapist. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

The act of putting something in anouther persons body agianst there will...drugs and it effects there psych/soul... rape of the soul.

I think all psychiatric survivors feel nothing less than raped by this expirience, not just me."

anti-psych/topic83888.html

(1) Psychology is the study of the soul
(2) Rape is putting something in another persons body against their will
(Missing premise) Forced drugging is putting something in another's body against their will
(3) Therefore, forced drugging is rape of the soul.

What I think Copy Cat was trying to argue was that forced drugging is relevantly analogous to rape. Rape is bad. Therefore, forced drugging is bad.

To be clear, the author's conclusion makes no reference to morality or ethics. It's somewhat of a syllogism (there are 3 premises though)

sunset_birth wrote:What people don't appreciate is being forced into something. That is the problem with forced medication or putting restraints on someone. It is rightly seen as a violation, and quite a bodily violation at that. This is why you will hear a lot of people referring to what happens in some institutions as rape. It is not a legal rape, but it is rape nonetheless. So yes, people do use it in that sense fairly often, because violation and abuse are weaker words that do not convey the feelings properly.

No. People do not use the word rape that way.

sunset_birth wrote:What people don't appreciate is being forced into something. That is the problem with forced medication or putting restraints on someone. It is rightly seen as a violation, and quite a bodily violation at that. This is why you will hear a lot of people referring to what happens in some institutions as rape. It is not a legal rape, but it is rape nonetheless. So yes, people do use it in that sense fairly often, because violation and abuse are weaker words that do not convey the feelings properly.

No. People do not use the word rape that way.[/quote]

Heck, well here's a mind blaster for you Jester: I am a person and I use the word rape that way "So yes, people do use it in that sense fairly often".

RogerRabbit wrote:Heck, well here's a mind blaster for you Jester: I am a person and I use the word rape that way "So yes, people do use it in that sense fairly often".

Not much of a mind blaster. Many people call these lovely creatures monkeys



(It's Chimpanzee )

You can use the words "rape of soul" all you want. It doesn't make it any more coherent. Also, the fact that you and Copy Cat use language in queer and unusual ways, only demonstrates that you and Copy Cat use language in queer and unusual ways.

hello and i think there've been several interesting points made throughout this discussion (yes i am butting in, and it's long and that's that. infinite_jester sorry if it seems like i decided to pick on you mainly why i posted this is because of the compounding miscommunication)

i may be mistaken here so bear with me. but this started as a presentation of a perspective (also can be viewed as an allegation which is why infinite jester i think went the formal route) is still just an allegation (which if one wants to this can be viewed as libel and liable to court action though plausibly will never happen (one reason being that captains of industry have zero to gain from pursuing legal course against one whose assets pale in comparison with their own industrial holdings. another reason being that the captains of industry in question can instead capitalize and bolster their own product (one speaking against these institutions can simply be painted that these "negative" actions occur when one "who needs their product" is not taking them (similar in context to what infinite jester has stated, one speaking against science and reason??!!!?? drug 'em up!).).), still just an allegation and maybe i'm mistaken if it's not forking off but i think it does well to iron it out.

Copy_Cat wrote:However, the word "psychology" literally means "study of the soul"

this is decent (though wikipedia i don't think wholly constitutes solidity). learning of the birth of a word (etymology) helps, but ultimately what matters in communication is that the speaker/listener are utilizing the same reference points (this looks like what infinite_jester is pointing out).

also it looks like jester is not looking to speak against the perspective copycat (more on this in a moment) but rather (effectively/ineffectively is beside the point) is assisting in your presentation (perhaps even suggesting a reasonable/plausible goal to rectify the situation).

Infinite_Jester wrote:When you use rhetoric by saying "forced medication is rape of the soul" you lose any prospective listener.

Infinite_Jester wrote:No one uses the word "rape" that way nor is it defined authoritatively in any non-sexual terms.

(in the meantime a semantics discussion ensued)

Infinite_Jester wrote:You can use the words "rape of soul" all you want. It doesn't make it any more coherent. Also, the fact that you and Copy Cat use language in queer and unusual ways, only demonstrates that you and Copy Cat use language in queer and unusual ways.

infinite jester you are right in your context that a speaker has a certain obligation on their end of communication, but i think of equal importance that hasn't been discussed (or it has and i missed it) is the obligation that a listener has on their end of communication (especially since a listener can just tune out a speaker, and since they chose to listen and not walk away and ignore it, they've binded themselves to the speaker). the listener can certainly critique a speaker, but if a listener is not even listening then how can their critique have relevance to the speaker?

exact definitions of words are very rarely "verified" through dictionaries by listeners. you are free to critique someone's use of words (where "unusual" and "queer" uses are much more preferable to "innapropriately" and "wrongly", which means the speaker is at least doing something right) but mainly when the communication is misunderstood. what this means is that communication becomes about context (moreso since an arduous and perfected speech has a very unnerving flow to it).

Infinite_Jester wrote:You can use the words "rape of soul" all you want. It doesn't make it any more coherent

infinite_jester you certainly found "rape of the soul" coherent, coherent enough to be able to offer others a "more linguistically appropriate" replacement. this is because you understood the context of what was being presented (maybe it took a couple of back-and-forth sessions but sometimes that's what it takes). does this still mean that copycat (as the speaker) failed in his communication, and copycat (and others who have spoken) does that mean others such as infinite_jester (as the listener) failed in their reception?

also infinite_jester (yes you said to give the semantics a break but all i'm suggesting is that when it comes to language there is great room for "stretching"):

Infinite_Jester wrote:Do you guys have any sense of how people actually use language? Including the use of the word rape?

i am sure you have heard of the context of superimposition. language needn't be "perfect" (where perfection itself is open for interpretation it seems), it just needs be "good enough" does it not?

Infinite_Jester wrote:BTW- I'm not anti-psych. I'm psych. I give a $#%^ about people and think that science, reason, and social action is the way that we're going to make difference.

is it your implication here that science, reason and social action are exclusive to psych and that science, reason and social action are not in the repertoire of anti-psych?

I am thoroughly disappointed that I have failed to murder this thread. It seems to keep coming back every few days

ocular_razor wrote:infinite jester you are right in your context that a speaker has a certain obligation on their end of communication, but i think of equal importance that hasn't been discussed (or it has and i missed it) is the obligation that a listener has on their end of communication (especially since a listener can just tune out a speaker, and since they chose to listen and not walk away and ignore it, they've binded themselves to the speaker). the listener can certainly critique a speaker, but if a listener is not even listening then how can their critique have relevance to the speaker?

exact definitions of words are very rarely "verified" through dictionaries by listeners. you are free to critique someone's use of words (where "unusual" and "queer" uses are much more preferable to "innapropriately" and "wrongly", which means the speaker is at least doing something right) but mainly when the communication is misunderstood. what this means is that communication becomes about context (moreso since an arduous and perfected speech has a very unnerving flow to it).

Sure. Maybe people should listen to people but what does that have to do with the meaning of "rape of the soul"? If I were to say that "yesterday my mind was sodomized by Wednesday" do you as a listener have certain obligations to pretend you understand what I'm saying? Or is it just senseless and incoherent?

In regards to communication, yes the meaning of words is somewhat opaque because of their complex grammar. The words "rape" and "soul" don't have this problem. When asked to explicate what was meant Sunset Birth was the only one to put forward that rape can in some cases mean

sunset_birth wrote:Definition of RAPE
1
: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3
: an outrageous violation

[/quote]

But what a stretch to say that forced drugging is either:

(1) An act of robbing, despoiling or carrying away of someone's soul
(2) An outrageous violation of someone's soul

Why wouldn't you just put forward an argument in clear and precise way?

ocular_razor wrote:

Infinite_Jester wrote:You can use the words "rape of soul" all you want. It doesn't make it any more coherent

infinite_jester you certainly found "rape of the soul" coherent, coherent enough to be able to offer others a "more linguistically appropriate" replacement. this is because you understood the context of what was being presented (maybe it took a couple of back-and-forth sessions but sometimes that's what it takes).

No. I never understood nor do I now understand what is meant by "rape of the soul". It is incoherent so I attempted to provide suggestions for other accurate ways of describing forced drugging.

ocular_razor wrote:

Infinite_Jester wrote:BTW- I'm not anti-psych. I'm psych. I give a $#%^ about people and think that science, reason, and social action is the way that we're going to make difference.

is it your implication here that science, reason and social action are exclusive to psych and that science, reason and social action are not in the repertoire of anti-psych?

No. The implication is ascribed by you to me. If I wanted to say the anti-psychiatry movement is en bloc a pseduo-scientific nonsense I would say it.

thank you for the response jester. it is not my intent to exacerbate frustration i try and always encourage calmness in instances such as these, but if it is your view that i am obligating you to continue (in a sense i am) then by all means don't continue.

i will tell you that the theme of my resurrecting post was communication and miscommunication, and the reason behind it is this is one of my lots in life that i think is a benefit to everyone.

Infinite_Jester wrote:If I were to say that "yesterday my mind was sodomized by Wednesday" do you as a listener have certain obligations to pretend you understand what I'm saying? Or is it just senseless and incoherent?

the world is full of incoherency and senselessness (me included), but coherency and sensefullness can still be found in it. a listener's obligation is not to feign their role, no. pretending to understand ultimately defeats the purpose of the communication and if this is the case then the event might as well have no occured in the first place. there is the passive role (taken when the understanding needn't be faked) and the active role (taken when the understanding is not grasped).

Infinite_Jester wrote:In regards to communication, yes the meaning of words is somewhat opaque because of their complex grammar.

correct english grammar is a weak link for me (as with spelling), but this has over the years led me to utilize context for grasping and context depicts more than the words themselves. usually as long as words aren't picked out of a hat and written down the context can usually be grasped (also i refer to correct sentence structure being secondary to context. for example earlier i wasn't sure if the word "unnerving" was the right word to explain my context and even if i used it right. turns out i still have no idea as "transitive verb" means nothing to me, but i'm still satisfied because the connotation that resulted i don't think reflected "natural flow"). so:

Infinite_Jester wrote:Why wouldn't you just put forward an argument in clear and precise way?

as everyone has varying literary backgrounds, "clear and precise" ought to be malleable (as people's understandings are relative to them, keyword relative). i think even context can be malleable too, and over-stretching language plausibly has its own bandwidth too. since language is constantly stretching back and forth, the importance of active roles of listening ought to be stressed.

now admittedly i often take the liberty of assuming the communication of a speaker, usually when it is the context that is transmitted though. this is open for misinterpretation of course and it would also do good by me to adopt the active role. here is an example of me not doing so:

Infinite_Jester wrote:No. The implication is ascribed by you to me. If I wanted to say the anti-psychiatry movement is en bloc a pseduo-science and nonsense I would say it.

...where you are right in your context (i say context because even though en block and pseudo mean nothing to me i can still gain the connotation through your non-failure in presenting yourself) that instead of posing an implication for you to verify, i could've simply asked you to verify your context for me (though you havemanaged to elaborate).

how much further can i stress the results of the ripples of miscommunication? i do this not to challenge the viewpoints presented in this topic but to just bring to light that the ripples of miscommunication were abound here.

ocular_razor wrote:the world is full of incoherency and senselessness (me included), but coherency and sensefullness can still be found in it. a listener's obligation is not to feign their role, no. pretending to understand ultimately defeats the purpose of the communication and if this is the case then the event might as well have no occured in the first place. there is the passive role (taken when the understanding needn't be faked) and the active role (taken when the understanding is not grasped).

It's true the world is full of incoherency and senselessness. Saying that we can discover sense in nonsense and coherency in incoherency is a great example of that. Language is not like a piece of abstract art that people are free to understand in their private way. In the case of language, private meaning or private understanding is meaningless.

For example, the words "glork", "flomp", and "Traplaplap" are words that could have a private meaning for me. I may understand their meaning perfectly and the rules for their employment. However, because no one else does the words are not meaningful. Meaning, in the linguistic sense, is a social phenomenon. It requires multiple users of a langugage.

Again, your free to explain what "rape of the soul" means and why it's sensible.

ocular_razor wrote:

Infinite_Jester wrote:In regards to communication, yes the meaning of words is somewhat opaque because of their complex grammar.

correct english grammar is a weak link for me (as with spelling), but this has over the years led me to utilize context for grasping and context depicts more than the words themselves.

Yes, "complex grammar" includes the rules for the correct employment of terms in different contexts. That's why it's complex

ocular_razor wrote:...where you are right in your context (i say context because even though en block and pseudo mean nothing to me i can still gain the connotation through your non-failure in presenting yourself) that instead of posing an implication for you to verify, i could've simply asked you to verify your context for me (though you havemanaged to elaborate).

There's no need to verify the meaning of pseudo or en bloc. These words are clearly defined in a number of authoritative sources of language. If you look up the meaning of these words you will see that I used them correctly. How this has anything to do with anything is puzzling.

ocular_razor wrote:how much further can i stress the results of the ripples of miscommunication? i do this not to challenge the viewpoints presented in this topic but to just bring to light that the ripples of miscommunication were abound here.

The ripples of miscommunication are certainly abound in this thread. Thank goodness we have someone to cut through it with reason

yes this is long, i trust you are having fun jester.

Infinite_Jester wrote:The ripples of miscommunication are certainly abound in this thread. Thank goodness we have someone to cut through it with reason

ah, i see. you've not only distanced yourself from your own participation of miscommunication, but have also convinced yourself that "reason" is the polar opposite of miscommunication. are mispoken words not experienced by a reasonable person? since you've classified reason as the epitomy of [proper]communication (go ahead and try and deceive me and yourself that you have not transmitted this message, all can learn to refine reasoning), and also classified yourself as a reasonable person (again, all can learn to refine their reason and usually it's the hard way), you ought to pay extra careful attention to every syllable that you utter out of your mouth, or you (by your own words) will become prone to revoking your own self-proclamation of being of reason (and then what, a miscommunicator that you just simply cannot be? heavens no.).

Infinite_Jester wrote:It's true the world is full of incoherency and senselessness. Saying that we can discover sense in nonsense and coherency in incoherency is a great example of that. Language is not like a piece of abstract art that people are free to understand in their private way. In the case of language, private meaning or private understanding is meaningless.

For example, the words "glork", "flomp", and "Traplaplap" are words that could have a private meaning for me. I may understand their meaning perfectly and the rules for their employment. However, because no one else does the words are not meaningful. Meaning, in the linguistic sense, is a social phenomenon. It requires multiple users of a langugage.

ok, at the very least we can agree that communication needs more than one person. do you find enjoyment in music? usually most people don't enjoy all music, just certain music (rarely is it that one doesn't enjoy music, are you included in this?)

now, i enjoy certain music, so i will tell you what i see it as. music is sound and is nothing more than language (how absurd you say! non-words being used to describe words? preposterous, i know!) it is nothing more than communication. there are statements/phrases, instrument inflection (voice is nothing more than an instrument/tool as well. if you find perverse the use of "instrument" used to describe "tool" then butter my butt and call me martha because your stance on "reason" should find no difficulty in this connection), spaces to breathe, even conclusion.

as music is an art and is akin to communicating (there is [proper]communication that is found in music people don't absolutely hate, and miscommunication that is found in music people absolutely hate), i will explicitly declare that communicating is an art. communication involves instruments, statements/phrases, dynamic and inflection (even a non-inflective communicator is still capable of [proper]communication along with reason. do you see this context here? don't read on until you jot down what you think this context is (you won't do this since you are not a fan of context but rather favor the exact definitions of words to aid in your pursuit of telling others they miscommunicate while you somehow do not (this is called a snoot and demonstrates not your pursuit of reason and understanding but rather demonstrates your contempt of fellow man)). the context that you didn't bother to write down was that the proper/improper use of language is not indicative of reason. (even further, it is the resonance of reasoning that is indicative of reason)).

let us continue with this theme with your response here:

Infinite_Jester wrote:There's no need to verify the meaning of pseudo or en bloc. These words are clearly defined in a number of authoritative sources of language. If you look up the meaning of these words you will see that I used them correctly. How this has anything to do with anything is puzzling.

while you were engrossed in your quest to demonstrate your contempt of fellow man, you've managed to show disregard for what i wrote. i did not ask for you to "verify the meaning of en block and pseudo", i didn't need to know it (as i wrote that i understood your context of your correction of my implication imposed onto you of "anti-psych" and "psych"). i don't care if you used it right or not, i got your message despite this lack of knowledge.

you asked what i take "rape of the soul" to be. though i've stated i resurrected this topic because of the ripples of miscommunication i will humor you and say that it is exactly that. you can attempt to alter the context all you want, but as this is not fully reliant on a third party (rather it exemplifies the roles of the speaker and listener), the third party is no longer party (convoluted? yes.).

ocular_razor wrote:you asked what i take "rape of the soul" to be. though i've stated i resurrected this topic because of the ripples of miscommunication i will humor you and say that it is exactly that.

What? So... "Rape of the soul" = "Rape of the soul"?

ocular_razor wrote:now, i enjoy certain music, so i will tell you what i see it as. music is sound and is nothing more than language (how absurd you say! non-words being used to describe words? preposterous, i know!) it is nothing more than communication. there are statements/phrases, instrument inflection (voice is nothing more than an instrument/tool as well. if you find perverse the use of "instrument" used to describe "tool" then butter my butt and call me martha because your stance on "reason" should find no difficulty in this connection), spaces to breathe, even conclusion.

as music is an art and is akin to communicating (there is [proper]communication that is found in music people don't absolutely hate, and miscommunication that is found in music people absolutely hate), i will explicitly declare that communicating is an art. communication involves instruments, statements/phrases, dynamic and inflection (even a non-inflective communicator is still capable of [proper]communication along with reason. do you see this context here?

I can honestly say I have no idea what your saying. Aesthetic communication (i.e. what a painting, song, or interpretive dance communicates) is not comparable at all to meaning in a linguistic sense. "Rape of soul" is a term not a work of art.

ocular_razor wrote:but rather favor the exact definitions of words to aid in your pursuit of telling others they miscommunicate while you somehow do not (this is called a snoot and demonstrates not your pursuit of reason and understanding but rather demonstrates your contempt of fellow man)). the context that you didn't bother to write down was that the proper/improper use of language is not indicative of reason. (even further, it is the resonance of reasoning that is indicative of reason)).

while you were engrossed in your quest to demonstrate your contempt of fellow man, you've managed to show disregard for what i wrote.

What rhetorical nonsense! Instead of dealing with anything I have written you choose to put forward a banal soliloquy about how relative the meaning of words are given their plethora of uses in different contexts (see how I put that into one clearly written sentence. Pretty awesome right? ). If "rape of the soul" has a meaning in one of these contexts your free to explain it. If it does not then muddying the waters about how language works isn't going to help.