Forced Medication is rape of the soul

hello again jester, also thank you for your time.

Infinite_Jester wrote:I can honestly say I have no idea what your saying.

i am a fool because, the energy put forth on my end to fulfill my obligations of communication has no sensible reasoning in being honestly reciprocated by the other end (by none other than a mind with the potential capability of utilizing big-picture reasoning that has found it fit to trample it in the mud). if you would like to continue, consider it under the pretense from me that this energy will no longer be allocated for you (as you have not done so for me).

as your only vested interest lies not in viewing the perspective of copy_cats original presentation (which from the get-go had ensured an establishment of a reference point, only to have the reference point disregarded (the imagery of rape and the imagery of soul)), so too will my only vested interest lie in not viewing your perspective of your presentation. but i will finish out my contract this post (the use of "contract" merely continues with the theme of "obligation") just for you.

Infinite_Jester wrote:Aesthetic communication (i.e. what a painting, song, or interpretive dance communicates) is not comparable at all to meaning in a linguistic sense.

being that the entire basis of "reason" is built on the concept of the relation of one thing to another, you betray yourself with this statement.

a couple questions for you here. before i get to this, i will remind you (since your knack of disregarding the presentation of others is outstanding) that i won't invest my energy into viewing it (i will read it but won't care to see your viewpoint), so consider it a task of self-ponderance (or simply don't bother to read it as you've only seen fit to read sunset's posts as you only stick with the famiilar and comfortable). ok the questions: is it only when it is convenient for one's current understanding to view the relation of one thing to another? do relationships of all objects not exist? is reasoning anything but the comparison of one thing to another?

one more question also, but here's a little preface to it though. you are not satisfied with one-sentence statements if it comes from someone else (you do not like the idea of "rape of the soul" painting the imagery of "rape of the soul"), and you are not satisfied with elaborations (where the reference point is established) if it comes from someone else (as you declare these to be rhetorical nonsense and banal). so the question is, do you care to elaborate on why one thing cannot be compared to another?

Infinite_Jester wrote:...see how I put that into one clearly written sentence.

i try and give credit where credit is due, and yes that was put forth well. you will find that this is the last time i pay you any respects toward your presentation along with your perspectives though.

since you don't care to understand an elaboration, i am doing this for my own benefit here. what i find the most saddening is a ripple of this statement:

Infinite_Jester wrote:"Rape of soul" is a term not a work of art.

and i agree with this. communication is an art. music is an art. many people make a mockery of art. when a toddler haphazardly bangs keys on a piano, it is not art, it is a nuisance. when a mind (with the potential capability of big-picture reasoning) such as yours decides to make a mockery of the art form of communication, it is saddening that communication as a tool is sought to be made a mockery of by you.

who would use a soldering iron to join two pieces of wood together? here are a couple solutions to this question: one who does not possess the means of the art of carpentry; one who makes a mockery of it. what other solutions fit here?

honesty of the heart determines the legitimacy of reason.

the "father of lies" utilizes reason. lawyers utilize reason. when the legitimacy of reason is based on nothing more than the soundness of argument (where the resonance of reason is discounted and disregarded), deception is king.

all of deception is based on reason. for this, reason is a sharp and dangerous tool, not to be handled haphazardly (where no aspect of its sharp edge is regarded for its danger). not to be made a mockery of. just imagine sending a toddler to work a miter saw!

jester you have stated that the resonance of reason is rhetorical nonsense. though i have shined a beam for you of this key safety mechanism (which ultimately protects you), you have still found it fit to place yourself above harm's way. and this is tragic.

now, why should i bother expounding on what the actual resonance (of reason) entails? will others not endlessly and carelessly seek to disregard the cutting edge of reason? they do anyway, and i bet they will. to my foolishness though, the resonance is a reverberation, it echoes through the core.

chop away if you must, you will do so regardless.

ocular_razor wrote:chop away if you must, you will do so regardless.

Well, I don't actually have to take block quotations of your writing and show why it neither addresses the coherency of "rape of the soul" or presents anything relevant to what I was arguing. Also, I don't understand what you are saying.

Keep in mind: clarification does not mean more it means clearer.

If someone says they can't understand what your trying to argue throwing more words at them isn't going to help.

-Jester, The Betrayer of Reason and the Trampler of Mankind

I applaud the description of "rape of the soul". Since when must all descriptions be taken literally? It seems that whenever there is some type of supposed "authority" figure like the psychiatric industry people will nitpick at anything to try to undermine the point being made.

I was forcibly medicated for weeks by injections in my ass. I don't know how better a metaphor for being raped you can get. If you have a mobile phone put in you there, that is rape is it not? Why not a needle?

But I don't think that rape is in the same category as forced drugging, forced drugging with antipsychotics is much worse in so many ways. Antipsychotics irreversibly damage your brain.

I could probably say more but it has taken significant effort for me to write out the above, because I am permanently and irreversibly brain damaged by their medication.

typicalanimal wrote:Since when must all descriptions be taken literally?

Not all descriptions have to be taken literally. I could say that "my friend is a married bachelor" and insist that the description of his marital status is not intended to be a literal description. Does that make what I said any more coherent?

Also the OP is clearly intended as a literal description. See the sources cited to support the premise that psychology is the study of the soul and that rape involves putting something in someone else's body.

typicalanimal wrote:I was forcibly medicated for weeks by injections in my ass. I don't know how better a metaphor for being raped you can get. If you have a mobile phone put in you there, that is rape is it not? Why not a needle?

I'm sorry to hear that and can understand why you would say it felt like you were raped. However, that has nothing to do with what I was arguing.

Rape of the soul ≠ Rape
Rape of the soul = Incoherent Phrase

The reason why no one takes the "Anti-Psychiatry Movement" serious is not because the issues they put forward are unimportant. It's because the supporters of the movement put them forward in non-nonsensical, unreasonable and bizarre ways like this making even the most sympathetic of listeners tune out. (Here's a gem: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/psychiat ... try-death/ )

Can you even imagine trying to lobby government with the "forced medication is rape of the soul" argument? (They would laugh at you)

Reiterating my main point in previous posts:

"There are arguments against forced treatment including:

(1) It damages the relationship between the client and the system pushing them further away from the people that they depend on
(2) That the right to refuse medical treatment is a near perfect human right (In the sense that it doesn't conflict with anything)
(3) That it is only an acute solution to medication non compliance.
(4) It's wastes an incredible amount of resources chasing after one person when there are dozens of other who want treatment (This is sounds pretty cold but when resources are scarce you gotta think like a utilitarian)

and so on. You wanna make a difference you gotta do the work. There's no shortcuts."

Last post.

No! your soul is already being raped by the mental illness. Now; you speak of rape? How much are those drugs going to cost every month?

I know a guy with high blood pressure. He was told it would cost 1200 bucks a month ( out of pocket) for these meds... Thats rape!

I couldn't have said it better. I am an American, used to American freedoms and legal guarantees. Sometime ago, while I was visiting my parents, who live in a European country that shall remain nameless, I was forced into civil commitment for OCD by that country's third world laws. The process was started by my father. It goes without saying that that country's concept of due process is nonexistent; my father's opinion is all they took into consideration to commit me; I was afforded no legal defense whatsoever. Out of respect to my parents, I didn't exercise my right to consular assistance but I experienced first hand all the evils of the psychotropic drugs complex. I wasn't forced into taking meds, but I was made very clear that unless I accepted to take them, I would be spending a long, long, time civilly committed. So I accepted taking the drugs (SSRI and Tricyclic antidepressants (these are prescribed at very high doses for OCD treatment), anxiolytic lorazepam and antipsychotic olanzapine). I was released a few weeks later. These drugs had no effect whatsoever on my OCD, though the crappy psychiatrists that committed me were convinced that they did.

Back in the US I continued taken them until a few bad things started to my body. First it was indication of kidney failure, then an incredible weight gain, then indication of liver failure. How do I know that these drugs caused that? Because the day I was committed I was given a comprehensive blood test that showed all my blood indicators within normal range. I repeated the blood tests several times after a few months on meds (prompted by the American docs) and all the bad things started to show. So I said to hell with these meds . Things began to improve on all fronts after I dropped them. The process was not smooth though as I suffered wild withdrawal syndrome effects when I stopped.

If these drugs were just mere sugar pills, I wouldn't have much problem with the $80 billion dollar industry that is the psychotropic drug complex. As a staunch capitalist I am perfectly fine with people making a living out of sugar pills. But these drugs have severe side effects both physiologically and, what might be even worse, although I didn't experience them, psychologically. For instance, the FDA forced these drug companies to add a warning in their SSRI antidepressants that they increase the risk of suicide in young people.

If you want to know the truth about these drugs, please watch this documentary,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhwu4pSLBRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjMXTtg8EfE

I have to warn you guys that its tone is a bit "creepy" and "conspiratorial" (I tend to hate conspiracy theories). In addition, it has been produced by http://www.cchr.org/ , a well known anti-psychiatry organization linked to the Church of Scientology.

However, I made the extra effort of independently verifying each claim made by the documentary, like the Irving Kirsch study on antidepressants vs placebos ( http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399362n ) and the numerous allegations of conflict of interests by the psychiatrists mentioned in the documentary. It turned out that each of them was true. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the scandal, Irving Kirsch's research on the placebo effect of antidepressants, which is just the tip of the iceberg, is mentioned there; the documentary is from 2010 while the 60 min story is from 2012!!!

I do think that mental dysfunctions/disorders do exist (like my OCD) but I also believe that there is more than enough evidence to affirm that the theory that they are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain that can be cured with medications is patently and demonstrably false. This theory is only perpetuated by the $80 billion dollar psychiatric drugs complex.

The human mind is a very complicated animal. We need more stories like the 60 min about antidepressants to expose the $80 billion dollar psychiatric drugs complex that causes so much misery to so many innocent people.

i totally agree with you on this point...
it can be compared as a rape...
an emotional rape not physical
forced medication can have adverse effects and can disbalance the emotions of a person

stop.psychiatry wrote:I do think that mental dysfunctions/disorders do exist (like my OCD) but I also believe that there is more than enough evidence to affirm that the theory that they are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain that can be cured with medications is patently and demonstrably false. This theory is only perpetuated by the $80 billion dollar psychiatric drugs complex.

Or just based on old women's tales. Like ginger is supposed to cure cold and so on. A lot of people want to believe.

stop.psychiatry wrote:The human mind is a very complicated animal.

Which is why it should not be messed with without knowing the full picture. And nobody at the moment can claim to know that full picture.

Fortunately, you were able to find the cause of your ailment and fix the problem. Still leaves you at where you started at, except for the country.

Now this is an interesting debate. Sorry, Copycat. I've been on both sides of Academia, and I have to side with Jester, at least as far as trying to lobby those *high-minded* types to your cause.

However, your term, "rape of the soul" is meaningful and valuable to those who have lived it. All that's required here is a bit of what my anthro profs called "code-switching". My textbook example of a man who demonstrated skill with speaking to different groups with different value systems, each with different vocabularies for expressing what had meaning to them, was a Presidential candidate who ran in the 80's, Rev. Jesse Jackson. A more current example would be our former NDP leader, Jack Layton. He spoke Quebecois like a salty old blues singer from downtown Montreal, and then "code-switched" back into the lexicon of lawyers and union bosses. Whoever takes the helm of our Official Opposition party will have some tall boots to fill.

Have you taken any formal college or university psych courses, Copycat? If not, you may benefit from knowing how your opponents think. I'm not sure how the universities work where you are (I'm not even sure where you are), but I was able to audit several philosophy courses for free, for the sake of personal interest--no cost, no pressure to write essays or get good grades. It may help you to look into auditing some psych courses, so you can learn to think like the proverbial bear you're hunting.

In the meantime, you can still use metaphor with the victims you meet. Many people who feel crappy, but don't trust psychiatrists, latch on to New-agey self-help movements, with a pronounced emphasis on Jungian archetypes and Aristotelian narrative arcs. I'll remind Jester that there's nothing wrong with this, if a person finds these techniques helpful for dealing with his/her existential angst. Cliches are cliches for a reason--and the reason is that they have mass appeal. Terms like "soul rape" appeal to a much larger audience than a bunch of pedantic quibbling about neurochemistry and social policy.

Poetry, the Language of the Soul, is valid to many who are suffering. The trick is to learn to quickly size up your audience, and use the normative and descriptive terms that will most effectively communicate your point, and give both parties some common ground to work from.