Callysta wrote:
Your reading comprehension sucks. If I was driven by emotion I would be expected to be on the other side of the issue. Arguing with someone with Asperger's is pointless. I'm bored with it already.
The point is, you are using an emotional anecdote, to try to justify where you are: "this really emotional thing happened, so my opinion is impartial".
You say I have Aspergers. Aspergers is a social dysfunction - it doesn't affect reading comprehension or reasoning ability. If we were to presume I have Aspergers, the condition could not possibly affect my capacity to understand you in this context, any more than being blind could affect one's ability to hear.
So you are also proving my point about shrinkology. Aspergers is a real condition; I've met some legitimate cases. Legitimate cases are very rare and utterly debilitating. But in the hands of contemporary clinical shrinks - as opposed to legitimate psychologists - it has become a vague superstitious catch-all, no different than witch doctors saying someone is possessed or something. And so far from being legitimately motivated by compassion or something, you are using the term, completely incorrectly, to justify your own biases and provoke and insult someone you don't agree with. This is consistent with contemporary usage.
Now I said Aspergers is real, and I drew a distinction between legitimate psychologists and shrinks. Where does one draw that line? Simple; the same place we draw the line between legitimate scientists and doctors, and cranks and quacks: tests of scientific validity.
All valid science is
falsifiable and
totalitarian.
Falsifiability means that any scientific statement that may be said to be true, can be considered false under certain circumstances. Take for example depression, or bipolar, or autism, or dyslexia, or any number of other conditions. If a patient can be said to have those conditions, it must also be possible to affirm they do not have those conditions. In practice, this never happens.
The
totalitarian principle holds that "that which is not forbidden, is compulsory". This means that, for example, in any situation where the theory of gravity is not forbidden from applying, it must apply. In any situation where the uncertainty principle is not forbidden from applying, it must apply. The purpose of this scientific principle is to produce scientifically actionable results: that once a scientific principle is proven, its applications are objective and universal. Three different scientists, working on the same proven principles, will always solve the same problems in the same way.
Shrinkology doesn't meet this criteria either. Three different shrinks, can well arrive at three different explanations for the same problems, and all proceed to solve those problems according to completely separate premises. And shrinkologists selectively apply their rules all the time. For example, killing small animals for fun is a clinical sign of social pathology. But hunting is not. It's been observed that most business executives meet most of the criteria for social pathology as well, but no one seems interested in doing anything about it. Religion meets the criteria for delusional behavior, but shrinkology neatly sidesteps that obvious question and focuses on bullying individuals and groups with less power than organized religions.
Quote:
Aestu is flat out wrong and I've given him statistics before on how mental health treatment (TALK THERAPY) works.
Do the studies include control groups? Cite.
Talk therapy. Does one have to be a shrink to practice talk therapy? Are all shrinks good at it? Is there a fixed methodology? No? Then how can you say it's scientific?
Quote:
My girlfriend, currently studying therapy, has books upon books on the subject.
I've taken classes on psychology (got an A, actually, and have the transcript to prove it). I've read the books. I'm not convinced by their arguments. You should show her what I wrote. I'm curious what her response would be.
Quote:
Aestu blames his parents because they probably just wanted to drug him up rather than go into family counseling...which is probably what would have helped the most. Take his opinion with a grain of salt there.
But you see, that proves my point. You dismiss my opinion simply because I don't agree, or my experience is something else. What happened to me (as with many people) happened, and is not automatically wrong just because it wasn't what you'd like.
The totalitarian principle applies: the principles of psychology are not forbidden, therefore, they are compulsory. What happened, must be explained in a way consistent with the field.
The shrink (several, actually), you agree, drugged me up, was inept, whatever. But why was that permitted? If a doctor does bad medicine he can be charged with malpractice. What's our standard for malpractice? Ask other doctors their informed opinion based on scientifically actionable data.
You can't do that with shrinkology, which is why the field is subject to abuse, because it's not scientific. Instead, what is done is what you, who are not even a shrink, did, which is to appeal to social bias, rather than scientifically valid explanations.
Quote:
People have guns...this is fact. Even if the US turned around and said "okay, all guns are now illegal" -- how would they get back the guns already sold? What about the ones that have been sold illegally?
Other countries, such as Colombia and Ireland, have had this same problem. One approach that works well is simple buybacks. Offer payment in cash for bringing in weapons.
This may seem pricey, but consider that if we spend $1,000 on a buyback for a gun, versus $1,000,000 or more on a murder trial (perhaps tens of millions if the trial is high-profile, goes on for months and reporters, security and the rest of the circus have to be hosted at taxpayer expense), we could buy back a thousand guns or more for the cost of a single murder, something that is a common occurence. Simple math shows we could offer bounties so generous as to completely incentivize even a crazy person to bring in their gun to get paid out, for a fraction the cost of dealing with the problems the weapons cause.
There are also other factors to consider. Guns are perishable goods. They require regular maintenance, and if left unattended, even high-quality firearms rust and decay. If you pull the trigger on a WWI-era rifle, for example, the odds are better that it will kill you than whatever you're pointing it at. Sheer passage of time will reduce the number of functional weapons available.
Also attrition. Over time, caches will be found, people will turn in guns, police raids on unrelated crimes will result in seizure of more weapons, and of course whenever the guns are moved, there is the chance they will be discovered.
Consider how hard it is to find, say, a rotary phone, or a 5.25" floppy drive, or any other piece of technology that might be neat to have but just isn't made anymore. And those things are less than thirty years old. Same principle - attrition.
So I would argue that the objective evidence is, yes, we can remove guns from society, without raiding people's homes or whatever, provided the political will is there.
So Azelma,
was sagt du?
