If I talk to somebody whom is being "strange" (supposedly) it does not really bother me at all, in fact I would try to draw comparisons to what they
are saying with my own experiences, to get some kind of conversation going.
What I think we have to do is get into the mind of the average person to discover why society finds certain behaviours that are harmless to be so
repugnant, to address the need to incarcerate these "deviants" to examine why all our thoughts have to be based on fact, why we cannot experience or
convey any thoughts that do not have any current scientific evidence.
So, someone talks to himself publically, what harm is that doing to soceity, could it be that he is making too much noise? Of course not, when people
talk to each other they make plenty of noise - so what is it? It is because people seem to find somebody talking to themselves disturbing, the simple
fact that it makes people feel "uneasy" is why such individuals have to get "treatment".
Thus, I am saying it is not really the well being of the diagnosed person that is the issue, it is the fact that they can cause destabilisation in
They did let you go because you were not "dangerous", but what exactly is "dangerous"?
The law states innocence before guilt, so I would imagine that someone is only "dangerous" after they commit a crime, however there is a mental health
paradigm that can observe behaviours and predict reactions, reactions that can be harmful, resulting in confinement in a ward.
Is that not just the same as "diagnosing" a murderer and locking him up before he can kill somebody?
There is something really B.S. about western mental health, and it is one of the things that I am trying to get to the bottom of.
6-6-2015 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)