It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS and Mental Illness

page: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Hyperwave
 


Yet again somebody who has not read the OP correctly. I am not talking about banning everybody with a mental illness only the people who say things like “I am a paranoid schizophrenic and last night I was abducted by UFO’s”. For those people ATS is not the best place as it will only fuel their delusions. You cannot ban people form then entirety of the internet and mass media however as a matter of corporate responsibility I think that ATS should ban people who’s mental illness could be exacerbated by this site. I am not talking about it on a global scale you are just taking my argument to the extreme, which I am not advocating.

I also have to keep repeating this, the banning issue is about one sentence in my entire thread, if that’s the only bit people are getting annoyed about then I think I have done a pretty good job.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Hyperwave
 


Psychology and Psychiatry are not the same thing, but they are used together as an effective treatment for many mental illnesses. You do make a point in that no one is 100% certain how these drugs completely work, but we do know that for a lot of people they DO work. There have been many on this thread that have already vouched for that. And electroconvulsive therapy does work. Involuntary committment is necessary in some cases and in those cases medication should be considered for those that can't make the decision for themselves. I don't mean everyone that is diagnosed with a mental illness, I just mean those that are severely delusional or those that are a danger to themselves or others. A big problem with the mind is that sometimes you don't know when you need help.

You are 100% right about one thing though and that is that this is not what this thread is about. Kevin has clarified many times his views about the banning, so I'm not sure why everyone keeps going back to that.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Abrihetx]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
IMO ATS staff and members are not qualified to determine when a person has a mental illness. Diagnosis and counseling is not our position. I think the best thing we can do is to not fuel the fire. If you suspect someone may have a mental illness do not post to their thread - at best those that say they have been diagnosed with a particular illness is to advise them to see their Dr. if they are currently having problems. Tell them you cannot help them - be courteous and kind.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Abrihetx
 


Thanks for your post, I think you are one of the people on this thread who “gets” what I am talking about. To many people have seen the banning idea and just gone with it, ignoring the rest of the thread. Fair enough if you think it’s a bad idea tell me, I don’t know if you’re for or against it either way your last post was very good. I know that with the people i see they have much more contact with their psychologists than their psychiatrists, but both professionals are important along with their CPN, Social worker, occupational therapist and so on.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I do have to jump in for Kevin as well. He doesn't mean any harm. You can tell by his posts that he's not instigating or being rude in any way. He's been attacked quite a bit concerning this subject and has remained exceptionally respectful and pretty cool about answering everyone directly. He really has been attacked, pretty harshly at that. It just goes back to 'you'll never understand until you've experienced it first hand'. I see his point and what he's trying to get at. I dont agree with him but this is a discussion thread and we should be able to 'debate'.
It's hard to not get worked up when someone says..'get over it' or 'it's all in ur head'. It feels like a personal attack to someone who has a mental illness. We shut down, and get defensive. It makes us look that much crazier when we do. The thing is that we want to help others understand whats going on so there can be more acceptance of mental illness in general. When there's nastiness and name calling it only furthers that divide and proves to them that we are nutso...well, not me..u.lol.
I have to congratulate u again Kevin for being so calm during the nut bustin.

Kim



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Demetre
 


you is correct freind they trulydont understand the weight of depression.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Demetre
 


Whilst our opinions may be different i have to thank you for your kind words.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
here are just a few people who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder....guess you'd have them all banned here at ATS...

www.mental-health-today.com...

please open your eyes/mind/heart concerning mental illness....

[edit on 25-7-2010 by

[edit on 25-7-2010 by jambatrumpet]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
The "ban the mentally ill" line was probably only used to generate controversy thereby ensuring a longer life-span for this thread. It should be obvious that people dont get banned for that and all the posts focussing on that are beside the actual subject imo.

The real subject is: To what extent are conspiracy-theorists either a) more aware than others or b) more mentally ill than others. Thats the essential issue.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That’s not the issue, the issue is more what effect conspiracies have on people with mental illnesses and what are other people’s views are on mental illness. The banning issue was not to ensure the longevity of this threat it was what I think should be done, ban those who confess to having a mental illness that causes delusions and increased moderation on threads about mental illness. What i was really wanting to do was find out other people’s views on what they think mental illness is, not focus on what was effectively one sentence of my thread.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
What i was really wanting to do was find out other people’s views on what they think mental illness is, not focus on what was effectively one sentence of my thread.


Thats precisely what I said.

But that one sentence did cause controversy and thereby thread-bumps.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
the issue is more what effect conspiracies have on people with mental illnesses


Considering I regularly get private messages by people believing I am part of some vast conspiracy that thinks them important enough to orchestrate events against them and their theories personally, I have begun believing that that effect may not be a positive one.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Some people see the glass as half full and some see it as half empty. Me I just see a glass with stuff in it!

I mean what are the odds that the glass is precisely half full or half empty?

Yet what pursuing conspiracies does for many people is to begin to question the rational of perspectives that lead to false conclusions like the glass is half empty when in reality it’s 5/8ths full!

Why would someone say said glass is half empty, are they trying to steal 1/8th of the contents when I am not looking? Are they trying to encourage me to over indulge because the glass is fuller than they purport it to be. Are they trying to cover up for the possibility that the contents of the glass aren’t that tasty by claiming more has been eagerly consumed than has been. Is this all part of an elaborate sales pitch to sell me another glass by reminding the person the contents are dwindling?

These are all things people might ‘possibly’ begin to speculate once they believe they are being deceived by the person who offers that ½ empty measure when you yourself can clearly see its 5/8ths full!

People who have never questioned anything in their lives, once they reach that state of mind where they realize that might not be wise and there could be more to the picture, then begin to often question everything.

However what is a question, something that begs an answer, and the answer(s) you find are likely only going to be as good as the investigative tools you have at your disposal and the methodology you employ at arriving at answers, and if any, what your trusted sources contribute.

Some of the answers people arrive at then because of poor methodology, tools, or poor sources do end up sounding crazy.

Yet the people themselves who have arrived at them aren’t crazy, just not very skilled at asking high quality questions and getting high quality answers.

Sometimes it’s an inability to determine true context, because contextually they have never been engaged or exposed to a similar set of circumstances and surroundings.

This is often due to a lack of education and not any psychosis, yet when one abandons one conclusion based on ignorance, in favor of another conclusion based on ignorance, because one was proffered to them by a now discredited source in their eyes, and the one they arrived at on their own based on their own skills and objectives is their own determination they will often cling to that answer even in the face of mounting evidence that answer is incorrect.
Now it’s no longer about the State, the Media, the Masons, or the Illuminati, or the Church etc. etc being right or truthful it’s now much more personal to them as them being right or truthful or their new trusted sources.

Alex Jones says it’s Baal therefore it must be Baal, sure it looks like an owl, and sure owls are common in nature, but it must be Baal primarily because I want it to be Baal because it suits my perspective and those of my trusted sources.

People are in fact so intent on being right in a place like ATS they will confuse things like gross stupidity with insanity, because if someone won’t agree with my perspective and conclusions and those of my trusted sources they must be insane, because I am just so darn wonderful at explaining the logic and validity that supports my perspective and conclusions and the credibility of my trusted sources.

This is often just a byproduct of an intensely competitive environment where people jockey for attention and prestige and respect and adulation.

No mental illness involved.

Ignorance is the hardest objection to overcome and for every person I believe to be ignorant because they think an owl is Baal, they believe me to be just as woefully if not more so ignorant because I think it’s just an owl.

Now because the people who are telling us it’s just an owl, aren’t the most beloved people in the world, the first question people with limited problem solving skills asks is why am I defending these people. I am not of course I am defending the owl!

Yet in their mind my defense of the owl if successful then strikes an incriminating piece of evidence from condemnation of these people therefore I must be in league with those people they are trying to condemn by making an owl Baal!

This is in fact so common place through out our society in debates regarding perspective, and everything is simply a matter of perspective, that if we were to start even modestly applying the insanity tag we would all be labeled as such.

In my humble opinion the Original Posters rant is simply born from a dislike of people not agreeing with them always on every subject and having to formulate a credible hypothesis for why that is to spare having to consider the mathematical reality that no, no one is right all the time.

So rather than consider why their own brand of logic can’t persuade or dissuade people at all times in all ways, people simply become crazy in their mind for not agreeing with them.

Which really is kind of crazy!


[edit on 25/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
When someone opens a thread from an adverse position they are not looking for truth, but attention, on the other hand if it's something you believe that is what it is just a belief, in most cases there is no validation behind that belief.

Sure it's possible there are mentally ill posters on ATS, I have known many brilliantly insane people who bring brilliant information to us by meticulous research that many of of us wouldn't bother to do. I am not here to judge, lest I be judged, if I don't believe something to be true the onus is on me to prove otherwise. Finally I am not qualified to diagnosis anyone as mentally ill or not.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


I don’t really approve of any insinuation that proposing a view that is contradictory to what is the mainstream view on ATS only exists to gain attention for the OP. I like to think of myself as being principled, and I am not going to compromise these principals in the interest of gaining the attention of people I do not know. Your point about beliefs is quite interesting however almost every conspiracy on ATS is the subject of a belief, just see my thread on that subject for more information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 





I don’t really approve of any insinuation that proposing a view that is contradictory to what is the mainstream view on ATS only exists to gain attention for the OP.


That’s a lot of very qualified precursors that negate anything definitive being said through such a statement.

However, anyone approaching the premise of this thread in a scientific manner would certainly consider that the Internet prone to exaggerations and falsehoods from the anonymity it affords is not a clinical environment to determine the state of any other posters mental health, without almost total reliance on that posters veracity.

The mental health community would be loathe to diagnose people based on their interactions in such an environment.

There are dozens of papers and articles about how the Internet’s anonymity results in people of all stripes, social strata and walks of life, abandoning their normal social behaviors and patterns, to act in a way that is uncharacteristic with their normal every day to day interactions with neighbors, friends, relatives, employers and co workers.

So the whole premise is dubious at best, not rooted in science, wisdom or even common sense, and it is your theory and contention, and that is only being proffered for the purpose of receiving attention and promoting such a theory to get it attention as well.

The qualifiers in your own statements display a certain desire to distance yourself from something others have obviously thought through on deeper and more scientific and rational levels than you yourself have.




I like to think of myself as being principled, and I am not going to compromise these principals in the interest of gaining the attention of people I do not know.


Once again more qualifiers as far as what you would like to think, which is obviously in this case what you would like others to think as well which is why you are publicizing what you are thinking, in order to promote that thought and have it gain acceptance amongst your peers.

Yet clearly because the methodology and punishments and remedies you are promoting are unorthodox to say the least when they are employed with such ineffective diagnostic tools, there are absolutely no principles involved other than you find some things other members post to be uniquely offensive to you, and a potential danger in your mind, yet clearly you are aghast at the notion that your own thoughts could be uniquely offensive to others, and a potential danger to them, even though you are advocating arbitrary punishments to those your own personal criteria not based on any science or level of expertise deems therefore being merited.

There is a certain type of person who creates nothing, does nothing, produces nothing, and compensates for that and attempts to justify their worth to a larger body simply by being critical of everyone else and everything else in it, in the hopes that if they simply keep the attention on others, and negative attention at that, they will be viewed as a positive force and their own actions presumed to be superior by the very critical nature they espouse and will not be called into question.

Clearly you like many others are hoping to achieve a reality where you are perceived in ways that your own actions don’t endear people to perceive you as, simply through critical statements and a rush to label and punish others who don’t attain that status of like minded friend.




Your point about beliefs is quite interesting however almost every conspiracy on ATS is the subject of a belief, just see my thread on that subject for more information.


Ah some more shameless self promotion that you don’t really think you are doing.

In fact this thread and it’s Original Post suffices just fine, as it is your belief as a member of ATS that the staff and ownership for your benefit, should be able to use a venue notorious for exaggerations and falsehoods because of it’s anonymity to determine if someone represents a danger to themselves or others.

That is a belief and not a very scientific one, that because it would require some greater level of maturity to understand it is neither scientific, fair, wise or proper, you would instead prefer to avoid the embarrassment of disavowing any notion of it being a ridiculous belief, simply for the sake of your own ego, to instead try to qualify your statements to death, to keep trying to redefine what you mean in less condemning terms, even though it is very clear what you mean.

All the while deflecting away to other points of the Internet realm to promote yourself and the idea that what you can't explain here simply because it really makes no sense, is sensibly explained elsewhere, by you!

Pleeeassse!





[edit on 25/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

everything is simply a matter of perspective, that if we were to start even modestly applying the insanity tag we would all be labeled as such.



Where do you think the insanity label would apply, if at all?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

everything is simply a matter of perspective, that if we were to start even modestly applying the insanity tag we would all be labeled as such.



Where do you think the insanity label would apply, if at all?


To the entire planet! Well the human population.

I have long assumed we all simply prefer to overlook this because the planet has pizza and strip clubs!

There is a fine line between genius and insantity called success.

Succeed in your wacky endeavor and you are a genius, fail in it and you are a nut!

Our entire world's social and political and economic infrastructure has been built up in this fashion.

War is peace, you can spend and borrow your way out of debt. The list goes on and on where utter madness is considered to be working because the majority of the people are enticed in to claiming it does, or will or could!

So yes, definately the whole planet is insane as a result.

The question I think you are wanting to ask though is at what point do we deem an individuals actions as being a true danger to themselves and others?

That their methods and beliefs are hopeless and real harm is befalling them and others?

Once again looking around at the world we live in, I would have to say, apparently never at all!

How banning someone the Original Poster wants to label as insane will make the world a healthier or safer place or them healthier and safer which is what the thread is about is in reality such an absurd notion, that it itself represents a danger to others.

Think about it, I have!


[edit on 25/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I hope that made you feel better about yourself. That was a blatant personal attack against me in the guise of an articulated response, yet had nothing to do with the original post, it achieved nothing I wasn’t even aiming that post at you. The entirety of what you have wrote could have been summed up in a few simple words “I disagree with you”, that would have sufficed.

Even your attack ageist me was in places incredibly hypocritical, for example condemning me for “shameless self promotion” because I directed a member to another one of my threads regarding my believes. Yes you in your signature are adverting one of your threads followed by the optimistic statement: “Epic thread that lives up to its name”, how very humble of you.

I think you have this idea in your head that my proposal to ban members of ATS who say “I have a mental illness symptomatic with paranoid delusions” as a punishment towards that person. It is not I think it is in their best interests and should be done as a matter of corporate responsibility by ATS. I know this will never happen, it has some problems associated with it, it is however also only what I would like to see happen in an ideal world. If you don’t agree with me on it, that’s fine I won’t judge you for it like you have clearly judged me.




There is a certain type of person who creates nothing, does nothing, produces nothing, and compensates for that and attempts to justify their worth to a larger body simply by being critical of everyone else and everything else in it, in the hopes that if they simply keep the attention on others, and negative attention at that, they will be viewed as a positive force and their own actions presumed to be superior by the very critical nature they espouse and will not be called into question.

Clearly you like many others are hoping to achieve a reality where you are perceived in ways that your own actions don’t endear people to perceive you as, simply through critical statements and a rush to label and punish others who don’t attain that status of like minded friend.



How dare you, you don’t know me, don’t pretend to. I don’t know if you are attempting to pass of your own insecurities unto me or something like that. Unless you are personally acquainted with me you are not qualified to make remarks like that. Really why was that ridiculously offence statement needed, did the rest of your post not go far enough. There is another type of person, he is the type who boosts his own ego and self worth by ridiculing others who he mistakenly perceives to be of less worth than himself. He is always in the wrong

[edit on 25-7-2010 by kevinunknown]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Actually no, it was a blatant attack on the methodology and reasoning you are attempting to employ, and the type of critical analysis that a psychoanalyst would employ in determining a persons true motivations in regards to their actions.

Your notions of corporate responsibility are simply like everything else, the use of words, in word games to try to substantiate and validate your own position and desires.

How is it responsible for a corporation to engage in an arbitrary practice it is neither credentialed, or has the proper diagnostic tools to perform?

That in fact is the height of irresponsibility, not responsibility; you simply are calling it responsible to lead others to the conclusion that it would be responsible.

It’s simply offering a reward in this case a adjective label, responsible to entice others to consider the benefit of that being bestowed upon them.

Kind of like hey if you say I am the best looking person in the world I will give you five dollars.

That though requires at the very least one thing, and that is your genuine need for five dollars from me.

Where I think you are frustrated is no, you labeling what would be someone’s irresponsible actions, as responsible, is not enough reward for them to act irresponsibly for your benefit.

You haven’t in fact been able to establish a credible method and tools and legal precedent to make your desires seem anything but self serving, so that is what it is.

Labeling your inability to soundly think something through on a logistical and logical level as being a personal attack against you when others point it out, in fact simply reinforces the belief of some, that you simply want to ban people who don’t agree with you and that you don’t personally understand.

Yet ironically your indignation points out one of the lynchpins in my argument as you chime in angrily “How dare you, you don’t know me”.

I know you as well as the members you would like to ban!

See how that works?

The simple difference is I don’t mind suffering the occasional poorly intentioned, studied or learned person here on ATS.

You on the other hand do, and yes, one would have to question, why the standard you are so quick to want to hold and judge others by, you are so quick to condemn when you are held and judged by the same!



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join