Re-Education therapy for conspiracy theorist's?

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
She is going to be "re-educated" from what? The music industry unquestionably does just that...find "tools" and characters to make famous. Not musicians or talent. I know...I spent some time in the music industry. Back in the 70s, a band was a band and if they had a sound, they might get a contract. Today...it doesn't matter what you play or how you sound. The only thing the industry looks at is will you allow them to mold you into what they want. Hell...I can guarantee you have never heard the best singers, the best bands or the best musicians. They won't conform or won't be made into a joke...so their music and talent will never see the light of day. The music industry controls radio and everything else. It is impossible to get famous when they control every avenue of listening to music.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
She is going to be "re-educated" from what? The music industry unquestionably does just that...find "tools" and characters to make famous. Not musicians or talent. I know...I spent some time in the music industry. Back in the 70s, a band was a band and if they had a sound, they might get a contract. Today...it doesn't matter what you play or how you sound. The only thing the industry looks at is will you allow them to mold you into what they want. Hell...I can guarantee you have never heard the best singers, the best bands or the best musicians. They won't conform or won't be made into a joke...so their music and talent will never see the light of day. The music industry controls radio and everything else. It is impossible to get famous when they control every avenue of listening to music.


Yeah, I agree with this as well. There are musicians who's heart and soul are in their music and have tons more talent than the hacks the record companies portray as "artists". Now, with all the digital tech they use, you can sing like a drunk sailor who couldn't stay on key if their life depended on it, but it will be pitch perfect with an auto-tuner. A lip sinking performance shows more talent than today's typical recording "artist". There is little in the way of redeeming social commentary in music these days either.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
How ridiculous, if you disagree with the norm, you will be re-educated. How this is even possible is a total joke. The thought police have taken to the streets.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Please reconsider your beliefs that she is being re-educated. That's a scare word with no bearing here.

Assume for a minute that Ms. Hill told the judge she refused to pay her taxes because her voices told her that the IRS was a Reptilian plot to fund the poisoning of our air and water by use of HAARP waves, thereby making the planet safe for the Reptillian invasion. The voices told her that she was to get in touch with her "inner genius" by standing naked in a city park from Midnight to 2 A.M.

Would it not be appropriate for the judge to give her the sentence he did and send her to a mental health facility where she could be examined and treated?

Ms. Hill is not that sick. The judge decided to have her talk with a counsellor. This is not re-education, being locked in a ward, getting drugs, or being told how to think. Seems like a reasonable call.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



scare word with no bearing here.......assume.....Reptilian plot...... poisoning......HAARP waves......Reptillian invasion


What if a judge ordered you to go to counseling because you have, apparently, been reading conspiracy literature about reptilians and HAARP and, therefore, are ingesting dangerous conspiracies theories and harboring fringe beliefs? You may counter with "But I don't believe that stuff! I just read it on this consp.....I mean, um, alternative news forum called ATS!". Lets assume that the judge does not believe you, and considers your claim to be an attempt to avoid the counseling.

Would you thank the judge for intervening in your life, and happily attend your counseling sessions?

If you support the policing of beliefs you are setting yourself up to be the next one ordered into counseling. Plenty of people would instantly consider you a nutjob for simply having an account on this site. It doesn't make it true.


This is not re-education, being locked in a ward, getting drugs, or being told how to think. Seems like a reasonable call.


You say this as if mandatory court-ordered counseling never leads rubber rooms and forced druggings.
edit on 5/11/2013 by Slugworth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Slugworth
 

Dear Slugworth,

Good point. Let me respond by pointing out what I think occurred at trial. Ms. Hill claimed that her refusal to pay taxes was based on the existence of slavery 150 years ago, her desire to withdraw from society (and presumably, it's obligations), and the desire to protect her children from the "Musical - Military Complex."

It wasn't that she had read about these things, or even talked with others about them. She believed they were true, and significant enough to offer as a formal defense to criminal charges. It's similar to a "sovereign citizen" who claims in court, with complete sincerity, that he is not subject to American laws because his name isn't spelled in capital letters (or whatever the current position is).

I'm sorry, but I will continue to maintain that there is something wrong with a mind like that. Quite possibly, nothing serious, but she does have the responsibility of caring for six children. Even a perfectly functioning mind will have a little trouble with that.

The judge could easily have ordered a 72 hour hold on her, if he thought she was a danger to anyone, but he didn't. She could have been sentenced to years in jail, but she gets three months and some talks with a counsellor. I'd take that trade any day, I suspect most would.

And if the counsellor reports that she's about to blow up the city, her attorney will ask for a second opinion from one of their psychiatrists, then Hill either walks away, or she's put away to protect people. Sounds reasonable.

I'm still not convinced that, if I went down the street with a T-shirt proclaiming that I frequently post on ATS, anybody would care or that action would be taken against me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv

The entire idea of Illuminati is a false material reality to hide cold reason without any social context or social relation to the economic system.


Of course, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

However, it is my belief that anyone can see the proof that the Illuminati exist. Some people may not want to accept the proof they see, and pretend it's not proof, but just a bunch of coincidences.

Yet, the signs are everywhere, all around. You only have to look. Open your eyes, open your mind, and let the light in.

To see the proof, start paying attention to the "design" of things around you.

Your government has 3 branches: Legislature, Judiciary, Executive.

Why not 4 branches? Or 6, or 2?

What is the significance of the 3 ?

When you understand why there are exactly 3 branches, and understand the design, you'll begin to understand that someone deliberately established this particular order for a reason. Understanding the reason is seeing the Illuminati handiwork. You will begin to see all the design around you.

Like why there are three main activities that take up most of our time: Commerce, Sports, and Education; the three pillars of society.

You have to see these things with your mind's eye.

Then, you will understand why Ms Hill must be correct.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Ms. Hill claimed that her refusal to pay taxes was based on the existence of slavery 150 years ago, her desire to withdraw from society (and presumably, it's obligations), and the desire to protect her children from the "Musical - Military Complex."

Many people, perhaps even the majority, scoff at the idea of a military-industrial-congressional complex calling the shots from behind closed doors, and would consider it a fringe conspiracy theory. Many of the people on this forum, perhaps the majority, would probably argue that such a thing DOES exist. Should the majority group be allowed to tell the fringe conspiracy theorists that their belief is false, despite any evidence that they may have to support it, and force them into counseling to correct their wacky beliefs?


It wasn't that she had read about these things, or even talked with others about them. She believed they were true, and significant enough to offer as a formal defense to criminal charges.

It sounds like you are supporting a system where you are allowed to think or read whatever you want, as long as you don't really believe it to such an extent that you mention it in a court. She is allowed to defend herself in court with whatever strange argument she desires if she feels that strongly about it. It doesn't mean she won't have to pay the taxes; that is for the court to decide.


I'm sorry, but I will continue to maintain that there is something wrong with a mind like that. Quite possibly, nothing serious, but she does have the responsibility of caring for six children.

Are her children receiving poor care because of her beliefs? If not, then why does it matter? Many people think homesteaders who live off the grid and home school their kids are neglectful crazies. If you support the notion of government forcing someone to teach their children a "standard and approved" belief system to you are also arguing that government has a higher authority than the parent to raise their children as they see fit. I think fundamentalist religion is a mindkiller, but I support a person's right to raise their children that way if they think it is best for them. It is not my business to tell them otherwise.


The judge could easily have ordered a 72 hour hold on her, if he thought she was a danger to anyone, but he didn't. She could have been sentenced to years in jail, but she gets three months and some talks with a counsellor. I'd take that trade any day, I suspect most would.

Being given a choice between jail and psych counselling sounds like no choice at all. Is she allowed to be defiant towards the counselor? Is she allowed to openly reject what the counselor says and hold on to her belief in the music-military complex? I don't know the details of her sentence, but if the counselor is to report back to the court on her "progress", and if staying out of jail is dependent on accepting the wisdom of the counsellor and disavowing her "crazy" beliefs that sounds like forced re-education to me. It makes me think of Winston Smith and the rat cage.


And if the counsellor reports that she's about to blow up the city, her attorney will ask for a second opinion from one of their psychiatrists, then Hill either walks away, or she's put away to protect people. Sounds reasonable.

If that is reasonable then should we be forced to go to counseling as well? We could both be harboring a desire to blow up the city. The only way to be sure is to force us both to undergo psych evaluations for the safety of all. Everyone should have to do it! If it is reasonable to do it to her then, by extension, it is reasonable to do it to everyone who questions their government or their society.

Do you believe JFK was killed by magic bullets fired by a single gunman who acted completely alone and without support? If you doubt that official story then, by your own standards, if you ever commit a crime you should be forced to attend counselling to address that wacky belief, in trade for a lighter sentence.


I'm still not convinced that, if I went down the street with a T-shirt proclaiming that I frequently post on ATS, anybody would care or that action would be taken against me.

I am not saying that an action would be taken against you. I am saying that by arguing in favor of such an action against others you are also arguing in favor the same action being taken against yourself. The line that separates you from her may be much thinner than you may realize.
edit on 5/11/2013 by Slugworth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
miseducation, re-education.

probably her new album title.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Slugworth
 

Dear Slugworth,

As you may know, I frequently bewail my inability to express myself clearly. Looks like I've failed again. Please let me try once more.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the existence of interlocking intrests among powerful groups. Sometimes it's called the military-industrial complex, sometimes other groups are added in. No problem with that idea at all.

I also agree, in opposition to the State, that homeschooling is a fine idea, I'd like more of it when possible. Also, that parent's should raise their children how they deem best. No argument until we get into Child Protection areas. Some of those CP laws are proper and used appropriately, but some are not. I support the former.

As far as the JFK assassination? I may be the only person in the world without an opinion on it. Nor do I think I can do anything about it.

You see, Slugworth, that my ideas aren't all that normal. We seem to differ on only two points, and on at least one of them we agree that neither one of us has enough facts to really know. That point is the nature of the counselling. At one extreme is the idea that she will be lobotomized until she buys the government line on everything. The other extreme is that she can walk into the counsellor's office, say "Ok, I've seen you and walk out without another word.

My own belief is that she will have to talk with the counsellor until he gets an impression. Then he reports to the court. Ms. Hill can then refuse any treatment unless she's shown to be an imminent danger to herself or others. But I could easily be wrong.

The other area of disagreement may also be short on definite facts. That concerns her defense in court. If she says she was told by the 7th Magus of Astral Plane Yshab, that she had no obligation to pay taxes, or follow any other human law, I still think she should see a counselor.

But if she says "Under the (whatever) Amendment to the Constitution, I have immunity as my grandparents were slaves." I would still say that's nutty, but nothing she would ever need counselling for. The 7th Magus and the grandparent story are both nutty, but only in the former case would I recommend counselling.

I believe there is a spectrum going from uninformed or eccentric on one end to Fruit Loops on the other. I think the judge has a responsibility to look at the Fruit Loops a little carefully, and to let the eccentrics go with a smile.

Whether he exercised that judgment properly is something we don't know. I am less inclined, in Ms. Hill's case, to believe that this is a terrible attack on her, as she has been in counselling (albeit family counselling) for the last ten years.

I think our agreement may be broader than you might suspect.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 12-5-2013 by charles1952 because: Spelling



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The part that bothers me about this is story, or any other story about legally forced psychological treatment, is the idea of drawing a line somewhere along that spectrum of nuttiness and declaring that any who cross that line shall be forced into treatment. It is literal thought crime. The merits of the beliefs in question are irrelevant to me. I was raised in a very non-religious family, so most religious ceremony looks just as absurd to me as the 7th Magus of Astral Plane Yshab does to you. I think it is vitally important to a free society that the government stay out of the business of declaring any belief as out-of-bounds, regardless of how nutty it tastes to the rest of us. The Eucharist liturgy is absurd to anyone who doesn't believe in it. Any argument that one could make against believing in the 7th Magus of Yshab can be applied equally to the Eucharist.

If I used a bible passage as a defense against paying taxes it would probably fail and I would have to pay up, but I doubt I would be forced into psychological counseling because of it.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Slugworth
 

Dear Slugworth,

Thanks, and to a large degree you're quite right.

The part that bothers me about this is story, or any other story about legally forced psychological treatment, is the idea of drawing a line somewhere along that spectrum of nuttiness and declaring that any who cross that line shall be forced into treatment.
Maybe it's semantics. I don't see counselling as in the same league as drugs, surgery, and restraints. But you're right, it's scary that there is a judgment call made by fallible people. I just don't see the alternative in cases where the question of mental, what, competence? comes up.

I also agree with you that many beliefs can be seen as illogical. I agree that holding, or even expressing, an illogical belief is not grounds for any involuntary intervention.

But I think that sometimes judgment calls have to be made. I'm not absolutely convinced 100% that the judge made the right call, but I think he had to make some call.

It wasn't so much that Ms. Hill expressed an illogical belief, but how that belief affected her actions. Not just in the crime, but in life. When someone comes to the conclusion that none of Society's laws apply to him (or her) for multiple reasons, all of which were illogical, I can understand why the judge thought it bore further investigation.

You're absolutely right that this is a scary area and we have to be very careful.

With respect,
Charles1952





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join