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: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I am talking about this site specifically were most of its content is conspiracy related, i don’t think any study has been commissioned that looks at the effects of conspiracy sites on mental illness but if you can find one please feel free to show us. I know that ATS will never condone banning member, all I am saying is that it’s what i would like to see and it is not my intention to “control” people. Also there are allot of way’s to reach out to people, i don’t think blocking somebody form a website would be a big deal. Lets face we both disagree with each other so why are we bothering to continue.


So in other words you have absolutely no precedent to validate your supposition that what could be very detrimental to someone’s mental health, the arbitrary banning of them from ATS is good for them.

That you have done no research on it and purely wish to force your theories on others in a reckless way that could in fact lead to a worsening of their condition?

How is it again you imagine that would benefit them or anyone else?

Clearly you aren’t basing this on any clinical study or have any idea the results it would actually have on the banned members mental health.

That then eliminates helping people, and that then eliminates any altruistic motive, it leaves only a desire to dominate a venue with your own rules of engagement based on a personal desire to have the environs and it’s participants conform to behavioral standards you set.

It’s very simple Kevin.




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It’s not that simple, just because not body has studied it does not mean I am wrong or you are right. You are not going to be able to change my mind on this, I would do it in the interests of their health not to give me any satisfaction though a sense of control. I respect your opinion this but I have to disagree with you because of what I have seen from working with people with a significant mental health problem and my own logic that ATS could harm people who have a severe mental illness.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


You probably have Kevin but he was a customer and NOT a friend so I can't recollect his name. It was published originally in 1983. Your opinions are shocking to me. You demonstrate a desire to control beyond your remit....which is to care.

I'm in Scotland too kevin. I had to report the manic depressive fellowship (scotland) to the charities commission for ripping off 200k a year from the scottish executive. a young german psychologist, head of bi-polar research at Edinburgh uni who plonked himself (illegally) as chair of the committee and decided himself that all the charities funds should go to his department. 35k for him and 20k for his asssistant (also illegally on the board) that was the department funded. the rest of the money went 'somewhere'.

I raised the alarm and was put in touch with a man, a lawyer, (Andrew Robertson - a good man) who was at that time head of glasgow primary healthcare trust. he shared my concerns and gave of his time voluntarily. He put the swindling of the money down to their inexperience....i don't give them that excuse. they were just thieves.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by christina-66]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


The remit to care covers the remit to protect and promote health that is my justification. I am not saying i should be the one to do the banning, and i have not really tried to argue for it all that much with the mods rather its just something i would approve of.

That story you told was pretty awful, did they get the money back.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It’s not that simple, just because not body has studied it does not mean I am wrong or you are right. You are not going to be able to change my mind on this, I would do it in the interests of their health not to give me any satisfaction though a sense of control. I respect your opinion this but I have to disagree with you because of what I have seen from working with people with a significant mental health problem and my own logic that ATS
could harm people who have a severe mental illness.


That's right you don't know whether you are wrong or right because you are dealing with an unknown, and unknown that would require you recklessly playing with other people's mental well being.

Lets say someone is mentally disturbed and the only thing that keeps them rooted to reality is ATS.

Kevin comes alone and bans them, and they turn around and kill themselves, having lost their last link to a world where they can interact in some positive way with others.

Do you really imagine that is helping someone.

No by your own admission it is gambling with others welfare, simply for your own benefit, because you certainly can't prove it's in their benefit, can you?

With no studies on the subject and no way to know you are admitting you are prepared to gamble with other's welfare simply because you feel you should be allowed too.

How anyone would percieve that as anything other than reckless and irresponsible is beyond me Kevin.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


No Kevin they did NOT get the money back. Check out bi-polar fellowship scotland now (since they had to change its name) and see if they help anybody apart from salary their staff.

The remit to care is NOT to control. You are dealing with intelligent adults. Psychosis is NOT a permanent state of affairs in anyone's life and YOU want to interfere in peoples' private affairs. That is Orwellian and it actually frightens me that someone like you works in mental health....but it doesn't surprise me.

Haven't you heard of 'anti-oppressive paractice'? haven't you heard of the 'user led approach'. Listen to patients...thats your job. Not to dictate to them.

There is nothing more frightening than being dictated to when you have commited no crime.

In addition to all of that...there are spiritual aspects and experiences to life...they are a part of it. Its not all negative. In another culture they would ask someone who has been through a psychotic experience what they had learned.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
Haven't you heard of 'anti-oppressive paractice'?


No, but I recognize neo-marxist vocabulary when I see it.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


neo marxist? what are you talking about? This is what is being taught to doctors, nurses social workers et al these days in the UK and has been for the last decade.

They are trying to get away from the dictatorial 'doctor knows best' attitudes and to listen to patients. Enforced 'care' is an oxymoron and it was eventually recognised as such.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Neo-marxist "Critical Theory" tends to view everyone as "oppressed victims" of some vast "control paradigm". So they go around creating words beginning with "anti-oppressive this" and "anti-oppresive that".

I dont know if thats the case here but it sure sounds like it



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm talking about what the establishement is teaching its young up and comings. The term anti-oppressive practice in this case is the establishment doctrine of NOW and its taught in tandem with the 'user led approach.' As I've said is to stop professionals dictating treatment to other adults in their care. A halt to the authoritarian practices that have been used. It teaches respect for the individual etc etc. If that's neo marxist then maybe there's some good in neo marxism.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


There is nothing wrong with anti-authoritarian treatment. There would be something wrong with seeing mere treatment and care as "dictatorship" though. It depends on the situation I guess. If someone has just slaughtered his family with a grin in his face and calls his incarceration "oppressive" Id disagree with that.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I don't believe in a ban. I don't think it is workable anyway. But I agree with a lot of what you say, OP.
As a mental health professional of over 20 years, I see a problem with sites like this in that they can reinforce someone's paranoia which otherwise might be treatable.
If you advise someone to see a doctor, you can get shouted down. Because having aliens or the government inside your head is a lot more exciting than having something like schizophrenia. And conspiracy sheeple (yes you get sheeple on both sides of the argument) would rather walk over hot coals than acknowledge anything 'mainstream'. Really it becomes the mad reinforcing the mad....
Not sure how one deals with this.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by starchild10]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Kevin comes alone and bans them, and they turn around and kill themselves, having lost their last link to a world where they can interact in some positive way with others.


If your saying that it would be Kevins "fault" that they commit suicide Id have to disagree with that. While Im against banning them, implying that someone other than themselves is responsible for their actions is...questionable.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think we're talking at cross purposes here. The ant-oppressive/user-led approach is for patients not prisoners. The criminally insane are a different argument altogether.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.


We're talking whether to take a softer or harder approach with the "mentally ill".

I doubt that in this day and age they are being widely "oppressed" (treated too harshly) and consider such wordings politically tainted.

I think our points have been made.

On topic: Nobody should be banned unless their posting becomes disruptive. The guys over in the thread claiming that Australia and New Zealand are in a different location than they used to be are not disruptive so they neednt be banned.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I concur. Everyone has the right to free speech and everyone has the right to say its bull. Being mentally ill is neither here nor there in that equation.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Kevin comes alone and bans them, and they turn around and kill themselves, having lost their last link to a world where they can interact in some positive way with others.


If your saying that it would be Kevins "fault" that they commit suicide Id have to disagree with that. While Im against banning them, implying that someone other than themselves is responsible for their actions is...questionable.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Skyfloating]


The point is Skyfloating is no one to my knowledge is forced to sign on to and participate or even read what is on ATS. (Staff accusations about a slave driving overlord not withstanding)

So if they voluntarily seek out ATS that means that they can voluntarily disengage from ATS. Looking at the membership roster it’s clear that people do come and go for various reasons at various points.

So forcing someone not to participate in ATS that has not violated the Terms of Service Agreement is a rather circumspect way to deal with someone who may be suffering from some mental illness or deficiency.

Kevin’s whole theory is based on his supposed first hand real time interaction with someone suffering from a severe mental trauma and episode in an actual institutional environment.

So first off we are talking about a very, very small percentage of the mentally ill that are that deeply afflicted.

Second off while Kevin purports this individual felt they were kidnapped by space aliens and implanted with a device that led them to attempting to potentially harm them selves to ferret out and rid themselves of the device, what he hasn’t done is display that particular extreme case resulted from the person being on ATS or any similar site.

People have claimed to be kidnapped by space aliens and followed by the CIA and other such extreme paranoia well before the advent of the Internet.

People existed with these conditions without the Internet. Whether they developed there ideas through TV, Books, News Papers, Periodicals, friends, or family, or might actually have been kidnapped by space aliens or truly followed around by the CIA has not one thing to do with the Internet.

In fact where Kevin’s theories fail in my humble opinion, is the Internet is a ‘safe’ venue in relative terms for people suffering from paranoia, as they can engage and disengage with less feeling of threat, than if you or I were to encounter them in the street and engage them in a conversation along similar lines.

As someone who has travelled the world, and has spent significant time out on its mean streets engaging the people on it, I sure have met some particularly disturbed people.

Most of them simply can’t cope and will flee and take flight from any confrontational situation where they are questioned as to the validity of their perspectives.

Two important things should be considered here, the first is that if someone has Internet Access then they are not totally withdrawn from society, they aren’t out on the streets, they are managing to maintain somehow, someway in society.

So no, they really aren’t the craziest of the crazies.

Two is that they have an opportunity through the Internet to be safely exposed to other possibilities and life and social skills, while and through sharing their own perspectives and fears.

As someone who posts on a wide range of topics including the New World Order, and some of the Metaphysical and Spiritual aspects of life, let me tell you I do get some very concerning U2U’s from time to time. People have wanted to know everything from whether they should go into the light or avoid when they die, to whether I know who is in possession of the ‘artifact’ to whether I have been sent by God to affect a mass awakening, or in a few cases if I am God himself as well as some people who have accused me of being the Anti-Christ and Caesar reincarnate.

Yet the truth is most of these people are simply scared about unknowns that they are desperately searching for answers for, and I try always too patiently and responsibly recognize that, and provide them the best honest response I can in a respectful way, no matter how bizarre or strange I think there inquiry or accusation is.

At best I can help to nudge them back to a less fearful place simply by providing them additional perspective and information.

That requires interacting with them though, and that can’t be done when they are banned.

Now in my nearly two years on ATS there has been one case where I was genuinely concerned, and I think it’s an important example.

A member was certain Nibiru was returning, that he could hear its approach and that a Reptilian Horde would soon be descending on us all. He posted a thread in the Gray Area and I could tell right away from his Original Post that he had a real problem, one that initially I felt it wise to humor.

Of course most of the respondents to the thread were naturally skeptical and many insulting and hostile, which led to an increasingly belligerent stance, that led to him getting banned.

Within moments of him getting banned he U2Ud me to provide me an off site Email Address through a regular ISP.

Thank goodness he did. His banning increased his paranoia, and at one point he was so convinced that the Reptilians were about to arrive and that they would sadistically torture him, his wife and children, to increase their endorphin output to make them sweeter tasting that he was seriously contemplating killing himself and his whole family to avoid that fate.

Now he had only been a member for a few days, and came to ATS to share his theory, and did not pick up his theories from ATS. He was banned for legitimate Terms of Service Violations but he was so paranoid to start out with, he simply viewed that as ATS playing an active role in wanting to suppress the arrival of Nibiru and the Reptilians.

I finally managed after several days of exchanging offsite emails to convince him that I would personally enter the Astral Stream and fight the reptilians and defeat them, and would he accept that I had won, if by a certain date Nibiru did not appear.

We selected a date for that, and I made up a fanciful story for him of how I managed to confront and defeat the Reptilians on the astral plane!

I shutter to think what might have happened to him and his family had he just been banned and lost all contact with open minded people. He was unemployed, literally locked up in his home in fear, and his only contact with the outside world was through the Internet.

So in my humble opinion banning him, simply cut him off from people who could reason with him, and people being so confrontational with him, in their desire to pronounce him a loon, only increased his loony behavior.

So while Kevin has his own experiences I have mine, and mine lead me to believe banning the truly mentally ill could lead to more problems than it solves.

The truth is there is no uniform way to successfully help individual people, each case has its own peculiarities and nuances that preclude a blanket approach.

Someone who is generally interested in helping others would also be generally interested in determining what is the best way to help an individual based on their individual circumstances and problem.

So I do in fact question whether Kevin wants to help people and if he is actually capable and insightful enough on how to help people, or if Kevin just wants to rid the boards of people who have outlandish theories and ideas, or disagree with him.

A couple months later, after the crisis was over, the person actually sought out counseling on his own, became gainfully employed again, and recognized he had a deep break from reality.

He was appreciative someone stuck with him and truly was concerned and did their level best to help them through it.

That’s helping people, and I have a funny feeling that many people including Kevin would not approve of a lay person helping and would favor a blanket institutionalized approach.

That though is incredibly naïve as the truth is you can’t help people who have no interest in helping themselves, and I don’t believe being banned from ATS would be the catalyst that would cause someone like that to seek out help, in fact it had an opposite effect more deeply entrenching his paranoia.

In truth if Kevin were really interested in helping people, there are no shortage of chances to do that right here on ATS provided you have a real desire, and are sensitive and empathetic enough to deal with all it’s varied personalities and perspectives.

Kevin seems to imagine we are all the poorer for their presence here, I believe though we are all the richer for it because it does provide a number of challenging learning and growth opportunities.

Denying ignorance is really just about being willing and desirous of learning and growing, and we learn and grow through others, not by simply creating a mold that all must fit into or be ostracized and removed from the herd.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I think you have said your peace, I am not changing my mind. All you are doing now is trolling going on and on until I say oh yeah I agree with you, I am not going to do that, regardless of how much you think of yourself. Do you agree with me that ATS fuels psychotic delusions and that there is a real possibility that it might lead to people stopping their medication or disregarding the professional information they are given. That is a very real problem that could result as a person going on ATS.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 


I agree with you that a ban could prove problematic however in an ideal world if it was possible i would advocate banning people with the type of diagnosis I outlined in the OP, but that is only my opinion if people disagree fair enough. I agree with you that this site can lead to problems for people with a mental illness, sometimes I see a thread and in the back of my mind I start to think what would happen if some of the people I work with saw it.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It’s not that simple, just because not body has studied it does not mean I am wrong or you are right. You are not going to be able to change my mind on this, I would do it in the interests of their health not to give me any satisfaction though a sense of control. I respect your opinion this but I have to disagree with you because of what I have seen from working with people with a significant mental health problem and my own logic that ATS
could harm people who have a severe mental illness.


That's right you don't know whether you are wrong or right because you are dealing with an unknown, and unknown that would require you recklessly playing with other people's mental well being.

Lets say someone is mentally disturbed and the only thing that keeps them rooted to reality is ATS.

Kevin comes alone and bans them, and they turn around and kill themselves, having lost their last link to a world where they can interact in some positive way with others.

Do you really imagine that is helping someone.

No by your own admission it is gambling with others welfare, simply for your own benefit, because you certainly can't prove it's in their benefit, can you?

With no studies on the subject and no way to know you are admitting you are prepared to gamble with other's welfare simply because you feel you should be allowed too.

How anyone would perceive that as anything other than reckless and irresponsible is beyond me Kevin.



I have considered that kevin suffers from limited imagination, hence, cannot perceive nor conceive of technologies designed to harness, subjugate, damage the mind.

It takes a certain amount of brains to go around the bend. Possibly after kevin evolves to develop a working mind, one that would be aghast and, yes, afflicted, by what it perceives, then he will be able to reach the human level of consciousness.

Anyone who is NOT afflicted, especially mentally, by current technologies, mostly top secret, is really incapable of getting to the core of all darkness comprising our era. I wouldn't wish these type banned...they just have little to add to solving our current techno-crisis.



*crackle* over...

[edit on 26-7-2010 by davidmann]




top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join