[Previous] Ray Girn, The Self Made Child: Maria Montessori's Philosophy of Education | Home | [Next] Blocked by @Krauserpua

Ann Coulter's Worst Article

The Problem Isn't Guns or White Men [all emphasis mine] is the worst Ann Coulter writing I've seen (and I've read a lot of articles, plus all her books). I think most of her writing is really good, so this stood out to me.
Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge.
Coulter wants to take away the freedom of people whom she considers dangerous in a non-imminent, non-physical way.

For non-imminent, I understand what that means. It means there's no immediate danger, but there's fear a person might be dangerous in some way at some future date. That sounds to me like it applies to everyone. The future is not predictable like this – at least not well enough to ruin someone's life and lock them up without a jury trial.

This is an ridiculous standard for jailing someone – not just for a crime they didn't commit, but for an imaginary crime that may or may not happen one day.

For non-physical, I don't really know what Coulter is talking about. Is she saying that in addition to locking people up who are potentially dangerous in the sense of physical violence, we should also lock up people we're concerned are mentally ill enough to commit wire fraud? I disagree.

The danger Coulter repeatedly brings up in the article is mass murder. But she's using it to advocate initiating force against people who are dangerous in some non-physical way which isn't mass murder. She doesn't even mention which non-physical dangers she wants people to lose their freedom over. That's dishonest.
Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.
The idea is: acquaintances plus doctors can have anyone locked up. Remember the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Remember the idea of a jury of your peers? Remember due process? Forget all that. Doctors, some of whom work for the government, are going to be judge, jury, and imprisoner. Sound fun? Sound like reasonable common sense?
The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics...
Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?
Democrats won't be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics...
Remember that when Coulter writes "dangerous" in these sentences, she means "non-imminently or non-physically dangerous". Otherwise the current laws would cover it.

She's complaining about a laissez-faire approach to people who aren't dangerous right now. But if there's no problem right now, leaving it alone makes more sense than locking someone in a thoughtcrime jail and then forcibly drugging them, without a trial, doesn't it?

Make no mistake about it. Involuntary commitment in a mental hospital is imprisonment the same as in a jail. Just without the defense lawyer, and without all the safeguards against abuse that our court system contains. This is an dangerous attack on liberty.

Elliot Temple on October 7, 2015

Comments (333)

I am guessing you won't try and tell her that ?

Anonymous at 7:42 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3712
ok, np.

https://twitter.com/curi42/status/651952931319640068

if you have a better idea to contact her, let me know.

i've tried before, e.g. when i fact checked her. no success.

Elliot Temple at 7:52 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3713
That's a good question actually @contacting. I have no idea how many messages she gets on Twitter and whether it's realistic she'd look at all of them.

Anonymous at 8:49 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3716
She gets a LOT of tweets to her, and I've already tweeted to her like 50 times probably. She has like 650k followers.

Anonymous at 8:58 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3717
I read somewhere she had a forum once.

Anonymous at 9:03 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3719
She owns a forum, I've tried it, she wasn't participating in the discussions. It sucked.

Anonymous at 9:08 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3720
But let's be honest you don't exactly have a good track record of participating productively in forums.

Anonymous at 10:09 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3721
Substantive criticism welcome...

Anonymous at 10:11 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3722
People go to forums to debate not be told what to think by someone who acts as an authority figure.

Which seems to be what you think forums are about.

Anonymous at 10:36 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3723
So, quotes + comments on those quotes?

Anonymous at 10:37 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3724
You ask me to put way too much effort into this which I am unwilling to do for various reasons.

Anonymous at 10:40 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3725
So if you aren't going to give substantive criticism, then just don't say anything?

What is the point of doing these kinda half-measures where you give non-useful criticism that reads kinda like flaming?

Anonymous at 10:41 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3726
I remember you writing something about "intellectual leadership" to OO. That is very much part of this weird attitude. Forums don't need "intellectual leadership". That's not what they are about.

Anonymous at 10:43 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3727
>So if you aren't going to give substantive criticism, then just don't say anything?

Lol m8 haven't you just wrote a post on how not saying anything is worse than saying bad things? Not that I agree with that post but you do seem to often be widely inconsistent.

Besides don't you like people posting comments here? I thought you did - if you don't I will leave.

Anonymous at 10:47 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3728
What's the point of lying like you're going to have a discussion, then refusing to actually try?

I'm not interested in people posting stuff like, "I have a criticism of your thinking in area X."

"What is it?"

"I'm not going to tell you, that'd be too much work, I don't have time for things like that."

and variants on that theme.

i don't see the value.

if you're willing to learn from this that you suck at discussion, and get inspired to learn how to discuss better, great. but i don't expect it.

Anonymous at 10:55 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3729
Well the truth is I don't think you're interested in having a discussion. In your last sentence you again want me to treat you like an authority (which you disguise in a rather transparent way). But it is interesting to speculate about what actually drives you ...

I have a sense you're mean to people because once in a blue moon it actually works and gains you another follower while driving everyone else away. There are people out there I guess who are sufficiently desperate, self hating and insecure for this to work.

You remind me of that PUA Mystery guy a lot - he too wants a small band of followers to adore him, he too never discusses anything, he too pretends to be an expert on something he doesn't really understand, he too uses people's insecurities to trap them. It only seems to have turned out much better financially for him ...(you don't seem very rich? might be mistaken I don't know)

Still why ... why would someone be doing all this? This isn't a sensible way of living ... it undoubtably involves a lot of pain, fear and insecurity ...

Anonymous at 11:54 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3732
> For non-physical, I don't really know what Coulter is talking about. Is she saying that in addition to locking people up who are potentially dangerous in the sense of physical violence, we should also lock up people we're concerned are mentally ill enough to commit wire fraud? I disagree.

You're talking about "mentally ill" as if it's real. Why are you compromising on that? I'm sure there's a way you could get your point across without implying you agree with something you don't.

Anonymous at 2:03 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3734
Elliot,

Great response. This will continue to be an issue with the continued reliance on court-ordered community treatment programs, forced medication, and legislation like the Murphy Bill; as well as reliance on an uncritical assessment of what 'mad' behavior is.

A recommendation if you haven't checked it out: Mad Science: Psychiatric Coercion, Diagnosis, and Drugs, by Kirk, Gomory, and Cohen. Its a very Szaszian-inspired (with a Popperian bent too) critique of the modern mental health system.

Dan at 4:58 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3736
"You're talking about "mentally ill" as if it's real."

Got anything to prove it isn't?

Anonymous at 6:10 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3737
> Got anything to prove it isn't?

The concept of mental illness is pseudoscience, there are no falsification criteria.

Trying to prove it wrong is as nonsensical as trying to prove ghosts don't exist.

If you want to know more Thomas Szasz explains what's wrong with it in a lot more detail.

Anonymous at 6:30 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3738

she's right

Crazy people and hostile immigrants are the perps. Is that so difficult to understand?

rainbowswedge at 6:42 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3739
> Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.

she's so evil. why do you like her?

because you make the standard of liking celebs "hates lefties".

bad standard.

also, by being a celeb, she is in a top down position in relation to knowledge. she won't take criticism, she won't learn, she won't make progress. she's not somebody you can talk to.

Anonymous at 12:37 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3763
mentally ill pll are just ppl like everyone else, with a very low status. they didn't reach "adult" status because they failed to act the role in time and to be independent.

Anonymous at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3776
> The concept of mental illness is pseudoscience, there are no falsification criteria.

Wrong. When there are symptoms there are falsification criteria.

Anonymous at 1:38 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3777
ideas are not symptoms.

Anonymous at 4:31 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3805
> ideas are not symptoms.

Ideas are a phenomenon. Therefore they can be symptoms.

Anonymous at 4:37 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3807

Ash Ghash

She Elliot golugranu kilmi-nudu,
Ombi kuzd-durbagu gundum-ishi,
Nugu gurunkilu bard gurutu,
Ash burz-durbagu burzum-ishi,
Daghburz-ishi makha gulshu darulu.
Ash Elliot durbatulûk, ash Elliot gimbatul,
Ash Elliot thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Daghburz-ishi makha gulshu darulu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien at 7:18 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3809
Ann Coulter's views on this are nothing new. She has written previous articles expressing more or less the same and has stated it on TV. She has even called liberalism a mental illness.

I'm with Anon and wonder why you like her. I don't know her views on children but I bet she is bad.

Anonymous at 11:37 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3810
She hates children.

Anonymous at 11:39 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3811
>I'm with Anon and wonder why you like her.

i'm attracted to people who use powerful and divisive language. without being able to divide the world in good people and bad people I'd have no one to cherish ... and no one to hate.

ElIiot Temple at 11:43 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3812
ok congratulations, my name is now colored green if it's real

Elliot at 12:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3814
> you should stop picking on me when i'm in pain and go discover a cure
for cancer. or reply to more interesting things i posted. or go talk
with #2. why waste time with a zero? you made you choice.
>
> you'll regret it.

She's wondering why ppl waste time talking to her and about not very interesting things and that could do something more inspiring. They'll regret wasting time like that. It's not an initiation of force. Though she is pissed.

Anonymous at 1:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3816
That seems utterly irrelevant. Context?

Anonymous at 2:37 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3818
>> The concept of mental illness is pseudoscience, there are no falsification criteria.
> Wrong. When there are symptoms there are falsification criteria.

The symptoms are so vague and poorly defined that anything can be reinterpreted as anything.

You could be autistic today, adhd tomorrow, narcissistic the day after.

But in reality be none of those things because you're a person with ideas not a mindless animal with a mental illness.

Anonymous at 2:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3819
> ok congratulations, my name is now colored green if it's real

And bold as well! Oh how bold you are, Mr Temple.

Anonymous at 2:51 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3820
> The symptoms are so vague and poorly defined that anything can be reinterpreted as anything.

Firstly, this is only true for some mental illnesses. You cannot lump them all into one category.

Secondly, it's possible to have more than one mental illness.

Thirdly, you're going to have to define what you mean by "ideas".

Finally, you're Lulie, and I claim my five pounds. I saw your ridiculous posts on animals and mental illness.

Anonymous at 2:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3821
You're an idiot. All the regular FI posters believe this kinda stuff, so it's not identifying.

Anonymous at 2:59 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3822
> You're an idiot. All the regular FI posters believe this kinda stuff, so it's not identifying.

They don't all express it in the same kinds of way.

The fact you jump to the defensive immediately and don't answer any of the substance is also telling.

Anonymous at 3:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3823
I am incapable of concentrating for extended periods of time on things, to the point where it becomes detrimental to my life. I have ADHD.

In what meaningful way would that be an idea?

Anonymous at 3:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3824
>> The symptoms are so vague and poorly defined that anything can be reinterpreted as anything.
>Firstly, this is only true for some mental illnesses. You cannot lump them all into one category.

Ok, so you admit that for some mental illnesses at least it is true. So you agree that those mental illnesses at least are pseudoscience.

Which ones don't you think it applies to?

> Secondly, it's possible to have more than one mental illness.

No it isn't. Mental illnesses are a myth. You can't possess mythical things, they're not real. So if you can't have a mental illness you can't have more than one of them.

(since you're yet to actually try to make a substantial argument against for them being real, ie by citing your sources on scientific diagnostic criteria rather than just making assertions, I'm going to keep pointing out when you say dumb stuff based on premises you already know we disagree on)

> Thirdly, you're going to have to define what you mean by "ideas".

Things that a person thinks are true (which can include eg thinking that "mental illness is false" is true).

Anonymous at 3:09 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3825
> I am incapable of concentrating for extended periods of time on things, to the point where it becomes detrimental to my life. I have ADHD.

You've been lied to about why you do what you do. You've been told that you have an illness and you're a victim to circumstance, and you like it because it gives you an excuse for your mistakes so you can hide from reality.

> In what meaningful way would that be an idea?

Your problems with concentrating probably come from having a lot of idea conflicts and doubt and not being sure what is true.

Anonymous at 3:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3826
> Ok, so you admit that for some mental illnesses at least it is true. So you agree that those mental illnesses at least are pseudoscience.

No, you're jumping the gun. All illnesses need to be defined in some way - they're not something that you have, as decreed as some universal truth. They're simply a set of observations that the medical community has declared as being an illness. This goes from a broken leg, to anthrax, to lupus to autism.

> No it isn't. Mental illnesses are a myth. You can't possess mythical things, they're not real. So if you can't have a mental illness you can't have more than one of them.

This entirely misses the point of what I was saying. Saying "you can have x one day and y the next" presupposes you can't have more than one.

> Things that a person thinks are true (which can include eg thinking that "mental illness is false" is true).

That does not include many of the things you consider ideas.

> You've been lied to about why you do what you do. You've been told that you have an illness and you're a victim to circumstance, and you like it because it gives you an excuse for your mistakes so you can hide from reality.

It's true. I find it a detriment to my life, and I'm simply incapable of concentrating on things for extended periods. You're going to have to explain how that isn't a problem (because it most definitely is).

> Your problems with concentrating probably come from having a lot of idea conflicts and doubt and not being sure what is true.

"probably"

Lol no. You don't get to dismiss it by conjuring fantastical stories about something else that's causing it. It's a failure to concentrate, I easily get distracted, and what is causing it is most definitely not an idea in the conventional sense.

Anonymous at 3:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3828
I think the main problem for this assertion that mental illness isn't real is that none of you really have an adequate definition of "illness".

Anonymous at 3:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3829
> > I am incapable of concentrating for extended periods of time on things, to the point where it becomes detrimental to my life. I have ADHD.

You have this problem with everything or just boring school crap?

Why do you think you need a "mental illness" to find it hard to pay attention to boring shit?

Why don't you think that X being boring to you is why you find it hard to pay attention to X?

Anonymous at 3:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3830
> You have this problem with everything or just boring school crap?

Everything.

Stop assuming what is and isn't causing it.

Anonymous at 3:25 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3831
Failure to concentrate about everything my arse. You wrote some pretty long comments that took some concentration and are still following the thread.

Anonymous at 3:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3833
> Failure to concentrate about everything my arse. You wrote some pretty long comments that took some concentration and are still following the thread.

When proven wrong, just doubt the person saying it. That's a completely unfalsfiable position to take.

These posts take me around a minute or two to write, and I still get distracted writing them even though I'm interested in them. I also concentrate on a number of other thing in between, which themselves are things I can't keep concentration on over extended periods. That doesn't mean I can't keep switching back to it as distraction from something.

You also admit that it's conceivable to have a mental illness where someone gets distracted - to the degree that you consider ~adequate~ - then? Because otherwise you're simply setting an arbitrary, impossibly high standard.

Anonymous at 3:35 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3834
>> Ok, so you admit that for some mental illnesses at least it is true. So you agree that those mental illnesses at least are pseudoscience.
>No, you're jumping the gun. All illnesses need to be defined in some way - they're not something that you have, as decreed as some universal truth. They're simply a set of observations that the medical community has declared as being an illness. This goes from a broken leg, to anthrax, to lupus to autism.

I've said there are no good objective criteria of mental illness diagnosis. I can't argue with a vacuum, I can't criticise a nothing.

I've asked you, repeatedly, to cite your sources on what you think are good objective, scientific criteria for diagnosing mental illnesses. I'm giving you a really simple way of trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. If you can show me that source (and it's actually good) I will accept I am wrong.

The fact that you keep avoiding it suggests you don't know of such a thing.


>> Things that a person thinks are true (which can include eg thinking that "mental illness is false" is true).
>That does not include many of the things you consider ideas.

Example?

>> You've been lied to about why you do what you do. You've been told that you have an illness and you're a victim to circumstance, and you like it because it gives you an excuse for your mistakes so you can hide from reality.
> It's true. I find it a detriment to my life, and I'm simply incapable of concentrating on things for extended periods. You're going to have to explain how that isn't a problem (because it most definitely is).

"simply incapable"
You've chosen to quit on life and improvement, and so die, because a pseudoscientist lied to you.

>> Your problems with concentrating probably come from having a lot of idea conflicts and doubt and not being sure what is true.
> Lol no. You don't get to dismiss it by conjuring fantastical stories about something else that's causing it. It's a failure to concentrate, I easily get distracted, and what is causing it is most definitely not an idea in the conventional sense.

I'm not "dismissing" your problem, I'm giving a better explanation for your mistakes than a magical, undefined "mental illness"..

Anonymous at 3:35 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3835
Context is it was info for Elliot abt a misinterpretation he made on FI list. He'll understand.

Anonymous at 3:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3836
> I've said there are no good objective criteria of mental illness diagnosis. I can't argue with a vacuum, I can't criticise a nothing.

That's something you're going to need to back up. There is no objective criteria of *any* illness, because our very conception of illness is socially constructed from our own ideas about how the world ought to work.

> I've asked you, repeatedly, to cite your sources on what you think are good objective, scientific criteria for diagnosing mental illnesses. I'm giving you a really simple way of trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. If you can show me that source (and it's actually good) I will accept I am wrong.

I can give you my philosophical reasons for why your position is untenable without even needing to appeal to them. I'm doing so right now.

> Example?

Constant distraction is not an "idea".

> You've chosen to quit on life and improvement, and so die, because a pseudoscientist lied to you.

"chosen"

Nope. I don't want to be in this position.

I do think this says a lot about your position though. You're unwilling to admit that people can have internal constraints. Can you not even conceive of being incapable of doing something due to a mental block? Because if you consider that a choice, your conception of the word is nonsensical.

> I'm not "dismissing" your problem, I'm giving a better explanation for your mistakes than a magical, undefined "mental illness"..

"better"

No. You keep asserting yourself with nothing to back it up. Your explanations are specious, because they make enormous amounts of assumptions about illnesses you clearly know very little about.

Anonymous at 3:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3837
>> I've said there are no good objective criteria of mental illness diagnosis. I can't argue with a vacuum, I can't criticise a nothing.
> That's something you're going to need to back up. There is no objective criteria of *any* illness, because our very conception of illness is socially constructed from our own ideas about how the world ought to work.

You're asking me to back up a thing that doesn't exist.

That's like saying "prove there are no blue swans with tentacle mouths". It's nonsense.

Anonymous at 3:47 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3838
We all know the reason they're asserting this is so they can dismiss anyone with any problem whatsoever as having chosen to be in that position, right?

Anonymous at 3:47 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3839
> You're asking me to back up a thing that doesn't exist.

I'm asking you to prove that it is inconceivable for any mental illness to have objetive criteria.

The problem is, you're still assuming that 'illness' as a concept is an objective thing, when I have repeatedly explained that it is a socially constructed term for a set of objective symptoms. These symptoms can be whatever you like, including mental ones.

So the burden of proof is still on you I'm afraid.

Anonymous at 3:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3840
>> You've chosen to quit on life and improvement, and so die, because a pseudoscientist lied to you.
> "chosen"
> Nope. I don't want to be in this position.
> I do think this says a lot about your position though. You're unwilling to admit that people can have internal constraints. Can you not even conceive of being incapable of doing something due to a mental block? Because if you consider that a choice, your conception of the word is nonsensical.

You're lying to yourself.

A mental block is a "choice" in the same way. When you have a mental block you have a conflict of inexplicit ideas. Maybe you can't put the conflict into words or explain. But they're still ideas. You're still making a choice about how to resolve them (and failing because you have insufficient knowledge about how to pass the block successfully, like trying to start a fire with a bucket of water is a bad choice but IS still a choice).

>> Example?
>Constant distraction is not an "idea".

It's a conflict between multiple ideas.

>> I'm not "dismissing" your problem, I'm giving a better explanation for your mistakes than a magical, undefined "mental illness"..
> "better"
> No. You keep asserting yourself with nothing to back it up. Your explanations are specious, because they make enormous amounts of assumptions about illnesses you clearly know very little about.

No I'm giving an explanation, that's not the same as an assertion. If you think my explanation is wrong, explain what is wrong with it, don't just dismiss it because you don't understand it.

Anonymous at 3:51 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3841
> You're lying to yourself.

This makes your position unfalsifiable. You can dismiss anything that goes against what you say with "you're lying to yourself."

The only pseudoscience here is you, with claims like that.

> A mental block is a "choice" in the same way. When you have a mental block you have a conflict of inexplicit ideas. Maybe you can't put the conflict into words or explain. But they're still ideas. You're still making a choice about how to resolve them (and failing because you have insufficient knowledge about how to pass the block successfully, like trying to start a fire with a bucket of water is a bad choice but IS still a choice).

That is not a choice. It is simply an inability to do something at the present time. For example, if I do not know something, that does not mean that I have chosen not to know it.

Likewise, if I am unable to concentrate, that (firstly) has nothing to do with ideas, but more importantly is also not a choice. It is simply a thing that occurs.

> No I'm giving an explanation, that's not the same as an assertion. If you think my explanation is wrong, explain what is wrong with it, don't just dismiss it because you don't understand it.

No, you keep asserting that it *has* to be because I'm being lied to/lying to myself etc., without any evidence that this is the case.

Anonymous at 3:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3842
> It's a conflict between multiple ideas.

No it isn't. It is perceptions (which are not ideas) intruding on conscious ideas.

Perceptions are not things you have control over. Ideas are.

Anonymous at 3:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3843
>> You're asking me to back up a thing that doesn't exist.
> I'm asking you to prove that it is inconceivable for any mental illness to have objetive criteria.
> The problem is, you're still assuming that 'illness' as a concept is an objective thing, when I have repeatedly explained that it is a socially constructed term for a set of objective symptoms. These symptoms can be whatever you like, including mental ones.
> So the burden of proof is still on you I'm afraid.

"prove that it is inconceivable for any mental illness to have objetive criteria"

"you're still assuming that 'illness' as a concept is an objective thing"

You're contradicting yourself. Your asking me to prove something that you already think is false, as if that will further the argument.

Here's an example of objective criteria:

To test for a virus a blood test is performed. This blood test uses the best known explanation for finding the virus cells in your blood. There is no known criticism of that method of identifying the virus cells. The test discovers virus cells in your blood. You have the virus, objectively.

Here's an example of some pseudoscientific critieria of mental illness:
* An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
* Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
* A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
* Difficulty with empathy

There are multiple explanations for all of these things, including other mental illnesses. So there are known criticisms of using these as criteria. So they are objectively false and can not be used to diagnose anything objectively.

Anonymous at 3:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3844
Anon is also lying to herself that she has a failure to concentrate and can't see that the irony just increases with every comment she writes.

Anonymous at 3:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3845
> Stop assuming what is and isn't causing it.

It's not an assumption. Behavior is idea-driven.

Rami at 4:00 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3846
> Failure to concentrate about everything my arse. You wrote some pretty long comments that took some concentration and are still following the thread.

LOL

Rami at 4:01 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3847
> You're contradicting yourself. Your asking me to prove something that you already think is false, as if that will further the argument.

No I am not. One (the latter) is my own assertion, the other is asking you to prove something based on the assumptions that you are making. My own statement, and my own beliefs, do not make those assumptions. It is perfectly reasonable to make multiple arguments, where one shows your argument is correct, and the other shows your opponent's argument to be contradictory.

> To test for a virus a blood test is performed. This blood test uses the best known explanation for finding the virus cells in your blood. There is no known criticism of that method of identifying the virus cells. The test discovers virus cells in your blood. You have the virus, objectively.

I have many bacteria in my gut that are necessary to process food. Being a micro-organism is not sufficient for being an illness.

That particular virus can *cause* an illness, which itself will have symptoms. However, the only reason we consider it an illness is because it is detrimental (therefore socially constructed). Therefore no, there is no objective conception of an illness.

> Here's an example of some pseudoscientific critieria of mental illness

These are all symptoms of autism. Autism is not the only mental illness, and it is legitimate to bring up problems with its diagnosis (and real-world diagnoses by doctors) without dismissing all mental illness.

> There are multiple explanations for all of these things, including other mental illnesses. So there are known criticisms of using these as criteria. So they are objectively false and can not be used to diagnose anything objectively.

Here's an argument by me then: "There are multiple physical illnesses that explain spots on the skin. So there are known criticisms of using this as a criterion. So it is objectively false and can not be used to diagnose anything objectively."

See what a ridiculous thing that is to say? Mental illnesses are diagnosed by a combination of symptoms - you don't say "you have interpersonal difficulties, therefore you must have autism". There must be enough symptoms known to narrow things down. This is basic medical knowledge.

Anonymous at 4:05 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3848
> Anon is also lying to herself that she has a failure to concentrate and can't see that the irony just increases with every comment she writes.

Even criticizing on these grounds in as admission that mental illness is conceptually possible.

However, I think in reality you're putting yourself in yet another unfalsifiable position by saying "mental illness can't be real because they're replying", and yet if I didn't reply you would think that anyway.

You're really bad at this, just so you know.

Anonymous at 4:06 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3849
> Behavior is idea-driven.

This shows you don't understand compulsion, reactions, impulse and instinct.

Anonymous at 4:07 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3850
> These posts take me around a minute or two to write, and I still get distracted writing them even though I'm interested in them. I also concentrate on a number of other thing in between, which themselves are things I can't keep concentration on over extended periods. That doesn't mean I can't keep switching back to it as distraction from something.

And you think that is caused by "mental illness" why? You haven't explained. I mean, you haven't argued why you believe "mental illness" is actual science rather than mythology.


> Constant distraction is not an "idea".

You haven't understood this yet. You should ask more questions about it.

Say you are thinking about an idea. And then you get distracted by another idea.

The distraction to the first idea is caused by you being interested in the 2nd idea.


> I do think this says a lot about your position though. You're unwilling to admit that people can have internal constraints. Can you not even conceive of being incapable of doing something due to a mental block? Because if you consider that a choice, your conception of the word is nonsensical.

There are mental blocks. They are ideas.

For example, shame. Sometimes people feel shame when they are contradicted in some way, and then they respond by turning off their mind to the idea they see as contradicting them. So shame acts as a mental block. And shame is learned from parent and society. One can rid himself of shame, thereby no longer having this mental block.

Rami at 4:13 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3851
>Here's an argument by me then: "There are multiple physical illnesses that explain spots on the skin. So there are known criticisms of using this as a criterion. So it is objectively false and can not be used to diagnose anything objectively."

But that's a true argument. You shouldn't diagnose something based on subjective criteria like that.

(lol you actually made a true argument and think it's false and ridiculous)

> Mental illnesses are diagnosed by a combination of symptoms - you don't say "you have interpersonal difficulties, therefore you must have autism". There must be enough symptoms known to narrow things down. This is basic medical knowledge.

It's basic psychiatric knowledge. It's also false. The criteria are way too vague (and known to be vague and error-prone) to diagnose anything objectively.

Anonymous at 4:14 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3852
> This shows you don't understand compulsion, reactions, impulse and instinct.

All idea-driven.

An easy way to show me i'm wrong is to present what you consider to be a counter-example. And then we can criticize it to check if it really is a counter-example.

Rami at 4:16 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3853
> And you think that is caused by "mental illness" why? You haven't explained. I mean, you haven't argued why you believe "mental illness" is actual science rather than mythology.

Read what I said on how illness is defined.

> Say you are thinking about an idea. And then you get distracted by another idea.

You don't understand ADHD.

> There are mental blocks. They are ideas.

Not all mental blocks are ideas, even if you can conceive of some that are.

How do you explain lack of knowledge? Do I choose not to know something?

> But that's a true argument. You shouldn't diagnose something based on subjective criteria like that.

You missed the point (again). The point is that multiple criteria add up to create a coherent whole. Saying that one symptom can apply to multiple things, and that therefore all those things must be false constructs is absurd.

> There must be enough symptoms known to narrow things down.

> It's also false.

Lol. I'm wondering how much of this is you intentionally misinterpreting me and how much of this is you being incredibly dense.

Anonymous at 4:18 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3854
> All idea-driven.

Being hit on the knee results in a reaction stemming from nerve impulses that at no point ever use the brain. This is proven. You are also assuming that there can be no subconscious mind, and that everything is conscious. This is also easy to disprove.

Therefore what you're saying is false.

Anonymous at 4:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3855
> How do you explain lack of knowledge? Do I choose not to know something?

Sometimes, yes. For example, if you never learn why elliot thinks mental illness is mythology, then you won't know why he thinks mental illness is mythology.

Rami at 4:20 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3856
> I mean, you haven't argued why you believe "mental illness" is actual science rather than mythology.

You haven't yet engaged with my argument about how physical illnesses are also social constructs either.

Anonymous at 4:20 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3857
> Sometimes, yes. For example, if you never learn why elliot thinks mental illness is mythology, then you won't know why he thinks mental illness is mythology.

That is not what I meant by choosing not to know something. Can you choose not to know an unknown unknown?

Anonymous at 4:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3858
> Being hit on the knee results in a reaction stemming from nerve impulses that at no point ever use the brain. This is proven. You are also assuming that there can be no subconscious mind, and that everything is conscious. This is also easy to disprove.

Here some of your ignorance about our position is showing.

Ideas are not restricted to the conscious.

Rami at 4:22 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3859
> Ideas are not restricted to the conscious.

Then your conception of idea is ridiculous, and as such your conception of choice is ridiculous, and as such the entire philosophical construct you've formed is groundless.

Anonymous at 4:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3860
> You haven't yet engaged with my argument about how physical illnesses are also social constructs either.

How are they social constructs?

A physical illness is a theory explaining some biological malfunction.

And the way to determine if somebody has such a physical illness is to rule out all other possible physical causes with empirical tests and reasoning.

Rami at 4:25 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3861
> That is not what I meant by choosing not to know something. Can you choose not to know an unknown unknown?

huh? what's that have to do with anything?

Rami at 4:26 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3862
> A physical illness is a theory explaining some biological malfunction.

> malfunction

Define malfunction. In fact, because I know you're probably going to say that it means something doesn't fulfil its purpose, I'd also like you to say how you determine something's purpose.

Because that is itself a social construct as well. We can only observe what something is good at. We cannot say what something ought to do in a general, unspecified sense.

> And the way to determine if somebody has such a physical illness is to rule out all other possible physical causes with empirical tests and reasoning.

This is possible with mental illness too.

Anonymous at 4:27 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3863
> Then your conception of idea is ridiculous, and as such your conception of choice is ridiculous, and as such the entire philosophical construct you've formed is groundless.

And you believe this because... what?

without any explanation from you, then i can only conclude that you're just speaking from your feelings. You FEEL that my idea is wrong. But your feelings don't explain any flaw in my idea.

Rami at 4:27 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3864
> huh? what's that have to do with anything?

If I don't know I don't know something, how can I choose not to know it?

That would be a mental block you chose not to have, right?

Anonymous at 4:28 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3865
> Define malfunction. In fact, because I know you're probably going to say that it means something doesn't fulfil its purpose, I'd also like you to say how you determine something's purpose.

I've answered this earlier in this discussion.

A purpose is determined by conjecture and refutation.

You guess a purpose, and rule out guesses with criticism (and empirical testing if the theory claims to be empirically-testable).

Rami at 4:29 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3866
> And you believe this because... what?

Because I have read about the differences between impressions and ideas. This is very basic philosophy.

> without any explanation from you, then i can only conclude that you're just speaking from your feelings. You FEEL that my idea is wrong. But your feelings don't explain any flaw in my idea.

That is an unfounded assumption. This seems to be something you do commonly.

Anonymous at 4:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3867
> I've answered this earlier in this discussion.

I also replied.

That doesn't show it *has* a purpose, it only shows that, if the thing you guessed *were* its purpose, that it would be good at its purpose.

Its purpose is still socially constructed because of the is-ought problem. (You cannot derive an obligation or necessity to do something - a purpose - from an observation.)

Anonymous at 4:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3868
> That would be a mental block you chose not to have, right?

This was an error. I meant to write:

That would *not* be a mental block you chose to have, right?

Anonymous at 4:33 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3869
> That would be a mental block you chose not to have, right?

Huh? You're saying that we're not omniscient, so we can't know what we don't already know, which means... what?

Let's say you lived in the matrix (like the movie). You don't know that you're actually in a vat being used as a battery.

In the matrix you do stuff like run track. You are out of breathe. But actually you're not. It just seems that way to you because you don't realize that you're in the matrix.

This is a mental block. And it's caused by ideas you have.


Let's say somebody thinks shame is an instinct, rather than idea-driven. So he believes that he can't possibly change it. So he doesn't. This is a mental block - blocking him from changing himself such that he no longer feels shame.

This is a mental block caused by ideas he has.

Rami at 4:34 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3870
> That doesn't show it *has* a purpose, it only shows that, if the thing you guessed *were* its purpose, that it would be good at its purpose.

I don't follow. You emphases *has* and *were* but I don't know why you did it. What are you trying to differentiate?


> Its purpose is still socially constructed because of the is-ought problem. (You cannot derive an obligation or necessity to do something - a purpose - from an observation.)

I wasn't deriving anything from observation. knowledge is not created from observation. Knowledge is created by guesses and criticism - observation is used in the criticism step, as a way to rule out false guesses.

Rami at 4:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3871
> That doesn't show it *has* a purpose, it only shows that, if the thing you guessed *were* its purpose, that it would be good at its purpose.

I don't follow. You emphases *has* and *were* but I don't know why you did it. What are you trying to differentiate?


> Its purpose is still socially constructed because of the is-ought problem. (You cannot derive an obligation or necessity to do something - a purpose - from an observation.)

I wasn't deriving anything from observation. knowledge is not created from observation. Knowledge is created by guesses and criticism - observation is used in the criticism step, as a way to rule out false guesses.

Rami at 4:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3872
> Huh? You're saying that we're not omniscient, so we can't know what we don't already know, which means... what?

Which means it is possible to have a constraint on your ideas produced by something that isn't an idea.

> This is a mental block. And it's caused by ideas you have.

Saying that mental blocks caused by ideas exist does not mean that all mental blocks are caused by ideas. This applies to your matrix example and your shame one.

Anonymous at 4:37 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3873
> This is possible with mental illness too.

No it's not.

Mental illness theories are not empirically-testable. They are not even claimed to be empirically-testable.

Rami at 4:37 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3874
> > without any explanation from you, then i can only conclude that you're just speaking from your feelings. You FEEL that my idea is wrong. But your feelings don't explain any flaw in my idea.

> That is an unfounded assumption. This seems to be something you do commonly.

huh? What's an unfounded assumption?

I said: if you don't give me an explanation, you leave me to conclude that you don't have one, and that you only have feelings there instead.

Are you saying that i'm wrong to conclude this in the case that you don't provide an explanation? If so, why?

Rami at 4:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3875
> I don't follow. You emphases *has* and *were* but I don't know why you did it. What are you trying to differentiate?

It's emphasising the counter-factual. It only has a purpose if we say it has a purpose. However, if it did have an objective purpose, it would be good at it. Unfortunately, there's no way to determine what that objective purpose is simply by observing it.

Unless, of course, you say that something being good at something makes that thing it's good at it's purpose. At which point the very concept of something being ill or broken falls apart, because as soon as something stops being good at something, that thing it was good at ceases to be its purpose.

> I wasn't deriving anything from observation. knowledge is not created from observation. Knowledge is created by guesses and criticism - observation is used in the criticism step, as a way to rule out false guesses.

You were deriving a purpose, which is not an observation (with the exception in my second paragraph starting "Unless, of course").

Anonymous at 4:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3876
> I said: if you don't give me an explanation, you leave me to conclude that you don't have one, and that you only have feelings there instead.

Which is unfounded.

> Are you saying that i'm wrong to conclude this in the case that you don't provide an explanation? If so, why?

Yes. I already did.

Ideas are necessarily conscious for the word "choice" to have any meaning. Look up the difference between impressions and ideas.

Anonymous at 4:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3877
> Saying that mental blocks caused by ideas exist does not mean that all mental blocks are caused by ideas. This applies to your matrix example and your shame one.

Wait. Nobody here was claiming that mental illness doesn't exist because mental blocks can only be caused by ideas.

here's another way for mental block. brain damage.

Rami at 4:42 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3878
> Mental illness theories are not empirically-testable.

I can test whether someone has the symptom of panic attacks or spasms.

> They are not even claimed to be empirically-testable.

Wrong.

Just admit it: you just hate the concept of autism, don't you.

Anonymous at 4:43 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3879
> here's another way for mental block. brain damage.

How is brain damage causing a mental block not a mental illness?

Anonymous at 4:44 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3880
> It's emphasising the counter-factual. It only has a purpose if we say it has a purpose. However, if it did have an objective purpose, it would be good at it. Unfortunately, there's no way to determine what that objective purpose is simply by observing it.

Nobody here claimed that a purpose can be observed.

A purpose is something that somebody must guess, and rule out with criticism (observations being a type of criticism).



>>> Its purpose is still socially constructed because of the is-ought problem. (You cannot derive an obligation or necessity to do something - a purpose - from an observation.)

>> I wasn't deriving anything from observation. knowledge is not created from observation. Knowledge is created by guesses and criticism - observation is used in the criticism step, as a way to rule out false guesses.

> You were deriving a purpose, which is not an observation (with the exception in my second paragraph starting "Unless, of course").

You're ignoring what you said. You said that I derived a theory from observation. And I contradicted you on that. And then you ignored that I contradicted you.

Rami at 4:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3881
> A purpose is something that somebody must guess, and rule out with criticism (observations being a type of criticism).

I know. But that inherently makes it a social construct. It is a purpose that we - people - have imposed on it, and determined through the criterion "it is good at this thing".

Unfortunately that means that when you observe something that we would conventionally think of as broken, the very idea of it being broken falls apart, because you have equated its purpose with what it's good at.

The reason this is important is because it shows your very conception of 'illness' is flawed from the first instance, and so your criticism of 'mental illness' is based on flawed assumptions about what it means for something to be ill.

> You're ignoring what you said. You said that I derived a theory from observation. And I contradicted you on that. And then you ignored that I contradicted you.

You're arguing that all knowledge is socially constructed (which I also agree with, by the way). That only strengthens my argument.

The reason I ignored it is because I was only focusing on the purpose part, but if you want me to focus on all of it then it certainly doesn't help your position.

Anonymous at 4:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3882
> Ideas are necessarily conscious for the word "choice" to have any meaning. Look up the difference between impressions and ideas.

link something if you like.

Shame is an idea and lots of people don't know that they have it. It's subconscious.

Rami at 4:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3883
> The reason this is important is because it shows your very conception of 'illness' is flawed from the first instance, and so your criticism of 'mental illness' is based on flawed assumptions about what it means for something to be ill.

No. My conception of illness is compatible with physical illness and incompatible with mental illness. For your point to make sense, my conception of illness would have to be incompatible with both, or compatible with both.

Rami at 4:52 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3884
> You're arguing that all knowledge is socially constructed (which I also agree with, by the way). That only strengthens my argument.

you claim that but without argument. argue it.

Rami at 4:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3885
> link something if you like.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#AccMin

That is just the very, very basic foundation. It has a lot of sources too.

> Shame is an idea and lots of people don't know that they have it. It's subconscious.

Shame is not an idea in the conventional sense. It can manifest as one, but that does not make it idea in totality.

Anonymous at 4:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3886
> How is brain damage causing a mental block not a mental illness?

"mental" refers to the MIND. it's not physical. you can't touch it.

"brain" refers to the BRAIN. it is physical. you can touch it.

Rami at 4:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3887
> you claim that but without argument. argue it.

If knowledge isn't knowledge without the scientific method, then all knowledge is necessarily socially constructed.

Anonymous at 4:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3888
to clarify above:

brain damage is empirically-testable.

mental illness theories are not empirically-testable.

Rami at 4:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3889
> If knowledge isn't knowledge without the scientific method, then all knowledge is necessarily socially constructed.

wait. are you saying that only scientific knowledge is knowledge?

so, if a theory is not scientific, then it's not knowledge?

Rami at 4:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3890
> "brain" refers to the BRAIN. it is physical. you can touch it.

Unless you're Cartesian dualists (in which case: fucking lol), they are not entirely separate. Even if you think they are, you're essentially setting yourself up in (yet another) unfalsifiable position by artificially excluding mental illnesses that can be directly proven as having physical causes. That is pseudoscience.

If, as you say, brain damage causes a mental block, then that is an illness that has a detrimental effect in a mental way. That makes it a mental illness with direct, obvious empirical evidence to prove its existence.

Anonymous at 4:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3891
> so, if a theory is not scientific, then it's not knowledge?

I thought that's what you were saying. I was trying to get an understanding of what you thought it meant to know something.

Anonymous at 4:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3892
> No. My conception of illness is compatible with physical illness and incompatible with mental illness. For your point to make sense, my conception of illness would have to be incompatible with both, or compatible with both.

You have failed to demonstrate this, by failing to define what illness actually means. Your answers have so far centred on scientific knowledge, but that makes all illness a social construct.

Therefore, that makes it entirely possible for mental illnesses to be scientifically testable, so long as the symptoms they define are empirically testable.

Unless, though, your conception of 'physical illness' *inherently* relies on it being testable, and your conception of 'mental illness' *inherently* relies on it being untestable. At which point you're just begging the question and your definitions are arbitrary and useless.

Anonymous at 5:04 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3893
> Unless you're Cartesian dualists (in which case: fucking lol), they are not entirely separate. Even if you think they are, you're essentially setting yourself up in (yet another) unfalsifiable position by artificially excluding mental illnesses that can be directly proven as having physical causes. That is pseudoscience.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Pseudoscience is stuff claimed to be scientific but which actually isn't scientific.

A theory is scientific if it can, in principle, be contradicted by empirical evidence.

A theory is non-scientific if it cannot.

A theory which claims to be scientific, but which isn't, is pseudoscience.


> If, as you say, brain damage causes a mental block, then that is an illness that has a detrimental effect in a mental way. That makes it a mental illness with direct, obvious empirical evidence to prove its existence.

By empirical evidence, do you mean brain imaging?

Rami at 5:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3894
>> so, if a theory is not scientific, then it's not knowledge?

> I thought that's what you were saying. I was trying to get an understanding of what you thought it meant to know something.

We have knowledge.

Some knowledge is scientific, because it's empirically testable. The rest of our knowledge which isn't empirically testable, isn't scientific knowledge.

Non-scientific knowledge is still knowledge.

Rami at 5:09 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3895
> Therefore, that makes it entirely possible for mental illnesses to be scientifically testable, so long as the symptoms they define are empirically testable.

The symptoms described by mental illnesses are compatible with non-mental illness theories. So, rejecting non-mental illnesses theories on a whim, is not science.

Rami at 5:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3896
> I don't know what you're talking about.

Look it up. Cartesian dualists think the mind is entirely separate from the body. Whilst this is possible, the number of links we've found between mental states and brain states makes it a silly conclusion.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

> Pseudoscience is stuff claimed to be scientific but which actually isn't scientific.

I know what pseudoscience is. Your position that physical illnesses are testable and that mental illnesses aren't, and that illnesses tht are testable - even if they affect the mind - *must* be physical illnesses is pseudoscience. It's begging the question. It's not testable by definition.

At this point you might as well say "illnesses that affect the mind" and "illnesses that don't affect the mind". At which point you have to admit that the former are testable. You might even go so far as to call the former "mental illness" and the latter "physical illness".

I, personally, don't think it's possible for a mental illness to have *no* physical manifestation - I just think we don't know where to look for that for some cases (yet)

> By empirical evidence, do you mean brain imaging?

I'm sensing a Cartesian dualist response is incoming to whatever I write here.

Anonymous at 5:14 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3897
> Non-scientific knowledge is still knowledge.

If you want to talk about pseudoscience, we have to talk about scientific knowledge. Illnesses can necessarily only be known through scientific knowledge.

However, there is no (known) knowledge that can give us something's purpose.

> The symptoms described by mental illnesses are compatible with non-mental illness theories. So, rejecting non-mental illnesses theories on a whim, is not science.

That would be because "mental illness" is a social construct, and to say "they don't exist" is generally pretty meaningless. It's as pointless as me saying "that building isn't a building - it's a collection of ordered natural materials".

Anonymous at 5:17 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3898
> I know what pseudoscience is. Your position that physical illnesses are testable and that mental illnesses aren't, and that illnesses tht are testable - even if they affect the mind - *must* be physical illnesses is pseudoscience. It's begging the question. It's not testable by definition.

Wait. You're objecting to my non-scientific idea because it's not scientific? Do you see your mistake?


> I, personally, don't think it's possible for a mental illness to have *no* physical manifestation - I just think we don't know where to look for that for some cases (yet)

Oh good. So do you agree that if you studied a mental illness theory (in it's current form), and found that it does not make any predictions that could contradict empirical evidence, then you'd conclude that it's not a scientific theory?


>> By empirical evidence, do you mean brain imaging?

> I'm sensing a Cartesian dualist response is incoming to whatever I write here.

what?

Rami at 5:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3899
I think I've realized why Elliot doesn't like talking about definitions: he makes these claims like "mental illness isn't real" and everyone who's in a position choosing to be in a position, that generally turn out to be based on utterly absurd meanings of the words.

However, when actually applying his behaviour to these philosophies he then switches to more conventional meanings of the words (and thus changes the conclusions), and thus thinks he's justified in doing whatever reprehensible behaviour he is trying to do.

For example, he believes that every behaviour is a choice, through a ridiculous definition of the word, and then justifies pressurizing women because they can "choose" to leave. Even though these two definitions of 'choice' are entirely different.

Anonymous at 5:28 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3900
>> Non-scientific knowledge is still knowledge.

> If you want to talk about pseudoscience, we have to talk about scientific knowledge. Illnesses can necessarily only be known through scientific knowledge.

That's misleading. You also need philosophical knowledge in order to criticize scientific knowledge.


> However, there is no (known) knowledge that can give us something's purpose.

Huh?

We create that knowledge.


>> The symptoms described by mental illnesses are compatible with non-mental illness theories. So, rejecting non-mental illnesses theories on a whim, is not science.

> That would be because "mental illness" is a social construct, and to say "they don't exist" is generally pretty meaningless.

What I said is that they aren't scientific. If you insist on claiming that they are scientific, then show your work for how you conclude that they are scientific. Take a mental illness theory and explain what empirical evidence could possibly contradict it. If that can't be explained (and it survives criticism), then it's pseudoscience.

Rami at 5:31 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3901
> Wait. You're objecting to my non-scientific idea because it's not scientific? Do you see your mistake?

I'm objecting to your proposition "mental illness is pseudoscience" on the grounds that it begs the question. Your own conception of illness *is* pseudoscience though, because it defines them extremely poorly.

> Oh good. So do you agree that if you studied a mental illness theory (in it's current form), and found that it does not make any predictions that could contradict empirical evidence, then you'd conclude that it's not a scientific theory?

No. This is because of my theory of the mind. I think things that happen in the mind must correspond to physical activity (maybe neurone activity) in some way.

My own definition of 'illness' is actually based on a conception of being detrimental to that particular individual; that's because I think *your* conception (which a lot of people have - it's not a criticism) that it's based on things not functioning correctly runs into the philosophical issues I laid out above.

> what?

I was sensing that you were going to say something about brain imaging not really knowing what was going on in the mind, as though the two can be uncoupled.

Anonymous at 5:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3902
> That's misleading. You also need philosophical knowledge in order to criticize scientific knowledge.

Yes, but that's not relevant when you want to make the claim that mental illness is a pseudoscience. This doesn't change anything anyway.

> We create that knowledge.

I know. Which only bolsters my point. Doesn't matter whether you call it scientific or philosophical knowledge.

> What I said is that they aren't scientific. If you insist on claiming that they are scientific, then show your work for how you conclude that they are scientific. Take a mental illness theory and explain what empirical evidence could possibly contradict it. If that can't be explained (and it survives criticism), then it's pseudoscience.

You can argue that the definitions of some mental illnesses are unscientific. That's fine. However, when I look at illnesses like panic disorder that cause (very physical) symptoms like hyperventilation, spasms etc., then it's pretty easy to empirically test.

Anonymous at 5:34 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3903
>> Wait. You're objecting to my non-scientific idea because it's not scientific? Do you see your mistake?

> I'm objecting to your proposition "mental illness is pseudoscience" on the grounds that it begs the question. Your own conception of illness *is* pseudoscience though, because it defines them extremely poorly.

huh? an illness is a scientific theory explaining that some biological malfunction occurred. are you claiming that biological illnesses are not empirically testable?

If somebody has AIDS, and then dies. And then we do some investigation and determine that AIDS killed him. Are you saying that this sort of thing can’t be ruled out by empirical evidence?


>> Oh good. So do you agree that if you studied a mental illness theory (in it's current form), and found that it does not make any predictions that could contradict empirical evidence, then you'd conclude that it's not a scientific theory?

> No. This is because of my theory of the mind. I think things that happen in the mind must correspond to physical activity (maybe neurone activity) in some way.

So do I, so that doesn’t contradict anything I said, and it seems to me that you think it does contradict something I said. Can you clarify?


> My own definition of 'illness' is actually based on a conception of being detrimental to that particular individual; that's because I think *your* conception (which a lot of people have - it's not a criticism) that it's based on things not functioning correctly runs into the philosophical issues I laid out above.

Hating criticism is detrimental. Do you consider hating criticism to be a mental illness (caused by things other than ideas)?

Rami at 5:43 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3904
>> That's misleading. You also need philosophical knowledge in order to criticize scientific knowledge.

> Yes, but that's not relevant when you want to make the claim that mental illness is a pseudoscience. This doesn't change anything anyway.

No. The ONLY way to determine if a theory is scientific or pseudo-scientific (or non-scientific and not claimed to be scientific) is with philosophical knowledge.


>> We create that knowledge.

> I know. Which only bolsters my point. Doesn't matter whether you call it scientific or philosophical knowledge.

How does it bolster your point?


>> What I said is that they aren't scientific. If you insist on claiming that they are scientific, then show your work for how you conclude that they are scientific. Take a mental illness theory and explain what empirical evidence could possibly contradict it. If that can't be explained (and it survives criticism), then it's pseudoscience.

> You can argue that the definitions of some mental illnesses are unscientific. That's fine. However, when I look at illnesses like panic disorder that cause (very physical) symptoms like hyperventilation, spasms etc., then it's pretty easy to empirically test.

How did you rule out that the person is panicking because of his ideas?

If ISIS kidnapped you and you were convinced that you would be tortured, might you panic and have all those symptoms? Let's say you were tortured for 20 years. Might panicking become a habit for you such that you panic even in situations that aren't actually dangerous?

Rami at 5:47 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3905
> huh? an illness is a scientific theory explaining that some biological malfunction occurred. are you claiming that biological illnesses are not empirically testable?

Yes, because you've failed to explain what 'malfunction' is without appeal to a social construct. At which point you allow mental illnesses too. For all the reasons I've laid out above.

> So do I, so that doesn’t contradict anything I said, and it seems to me that you think it does contradict something I said. Can you clarify?

So what do you think mental illnesses actually are?

> Hating criticism is detrimental. Do you consider hating criticism to be a mental illness (caused by things other than ideas)?

It is more nuanced than that. You have to have control over it, and it has to be severe.

> No. The ONLY way to determine if a theory is scientific or pseudo-scientific (or non-scientific and not claimed to be scientific) is with philosophical knowledge.

I literally just said it wasn't relevant, so I don't know why you're repeating it.

> How does it bolster your point?

Because if it's created by us, it means that the concept of "purpose" is socially constructed, which means that mental illnesses can also exist.

> How did you rule out that the person is panicking because of his ideas?

Panicking and spasms are not the only symptoms of panic disorder. You're trying to be clever and come up with objections about things you clearly know very little about.

Anonymous at 5:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3906
> You have to have control over it

This should be: you have to have *NO* control over it

Anonymous at 5:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3907
> Might panicking become a habit for you such that you panic even in situations that aren't actually dangerous?

Sound like an illness to me. Just because it originally came from ideas doesn't mean it can't develop into something that doesn't come from ideas.

Anonymous at 6:01 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3908
>> I am incapable of concentrating for extended periods of time on things, to the point where it becomes detrimental to my life. I have ADHD.
>
> You've been lied to about why you do what you do. You've been told that you have an illness and you're a victim to circumstance, and you like it because it gives you an excuse for your mistakes so you can hide from reality.

Yes.

He is a victim in the sense he was broken by his parents and other adults he dependended on. Kids are not allowed to concentrate. They are not allowed to pursuit their own interests. They are thrown from a routine to the other. They are forced to do what they don't like before they can do what they like. This causes a lot of problems in the mind.

Everyone has ADHD, by that I mean, they are not able to concentrate even if they want to and should, by the way. Some people simply have status and social skills to make it seem acceptable.

> In what meaningful way would that be an idea?

Your problems with concentrating probably come from having a lot of idea conflicts and doubt and not being sure what is true.

Yes.

(I am not posting anon anymore)

Leo at 7:13 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3909
> Everyone has ADHD, by that I mean, they are not able to concentrate even if they want to and should, by the way. Some people simply have status and social skills to make it seem acceptable.

You evidently have absolutely no idea what ADHD is. You are making lots of assumptions about it, with very little to back it up.

> Your problems with concentrating probably come from having a lot of idea conflicts and doubt and not being sure what is true.

"probably"

Same as before, you're just asserting stuff. When you have no idea what the illness even is, it's even more laughable when you make wild claims about it.

ADHD does not come from "not knowing what sure is true". You can try and create these ridiculous contrived constructs of what mental illnesses are as much as you like, but when you demonstrate how little you know about them it just makes it seem like wild guesswork.

Anonymous at 7:20 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3910
> Anon is also lying to herself

all these anon are several diff ppl. i'm not the adhd anon. i'm aware other ppl now might sign under my name too. dunno how to solve this prob. allowing anonomity and ppl to use any name they want is a prob. :(

what to do about this?

if i'm going to be judged, rather be judged by stuff i actually said and did and ppl not be wondering if i was "that anon".

when i was young i was depressed and sought help from the medical establishment and i was diagnosed several versions of depression and a personality disorder but i wasn't told what personality disorder. wasn't diagnosed ahdh or asd or anything like that.

Leo at 7:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3911
Define 'mental illness'.

Anonymous at 7:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3912
>> Everyone has ADHD, by that I mean, they are not able to concentrate even if they want to and should, by the way. Some people simply have status and social skills to make it seem acceptable.
>
> You evidently have absolutely no idea what ADHD is. You are making lots of assumptions about it, with very little to back it up.

i'm not interested in playing the mental illness arguing games with you, hun.

Leo at 7:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3913
> i'm not interested in playing the mental illness arguing games with you, hun.

No, you're just comfortable sitting with your contradictory definitions and badly thought-through philosophy.

It amazes me how little you people know of things like the philosophy of mind, and yet you make wild claims about mental illness that inevitably turn out to have stupid definitions that allow you to beg the question.

Since not one of you has managed to demonstrate that your ideas of mental illness apply to anything like what the term is usually applied to, and seem to be reactionary garbage to dismiss conditions like autism and NPD, I think I'm done here.

Anonymous at 7:28 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3914
> These are all symptoms of autism. Autism is not the only mental illness, and it is legitimate to bring up problems with its diagnosis (and real-world diagnoses by doctors) without dismissing all mental illness.

autism is bullshit. the symptoms are a bunch of behaviors any kid has and are normal in kid that a lazy doctor who wanted status decided that should be noticed as abnormal and lumped together as illness.

it's a huge fraud and it's not surprising diagnosis are on the rise. because more parents know of the "symptoms". with not liked by others to the point of being beaten up now being autism.

Anonymous at 7:38 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3915
Forgot to sign the comment "autistm is bullshit" above.

> Since not one of you has managed to demonstrate that your ideas of mental illness apply to anything like what the term is usually applied to, and seem to be reactionary garbage to dismiss conditions like autism and NPD, I think I'm done here.

Yay! Good riddance.

Leo at 7:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3916
> autism is bullshit. the symptoms are a bunch of behaviors any kid has and are normal in kid that a lazy doctor who wanted status decided that should be noticed as abnormal and lumped together as illness.

> it's a huge fraud and it's not surprising diagnosis are on the rise. because more parents know of the "symptoms". with not liked by others to the point of being beaten up now being autism.

Lol it's all coming out now. It's pretty obvious that you all only hate mental illness because of autism.

Elliot in particular exhibits strong signs of it (you know, I wouldn't be able to tell that if it didn't have a definition - but I can, so it does).

It's pretty obvious there's self-interest going on here. Particularly when it turns out the foundation for all this "mental illness isn't real" collapses at the slightest push because it becomes extremely obvious that none of you have really thought through the implications properly; you just wanted something to let you tell yourselves autism isn't real.

Anonymous at 7:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3917
> Yay! Good riddance.

You know, you're a really shit philosopher if you think not engaging makes you intelligent.

I know you're only trying to impress Elliot (I've seen your posts on the Yahoo group). You exhibit strong signs of dependency and validation issues.

Anonymous at 7:41 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3918
> not liked by others to the point of being beaten up now being autism

You have no idea how diagnoses work.

Anonymous at 7:44 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3919
>> Behavior is idea-driven.
>
> This shows you don't understand compulsion, reactions, impulse and instinct.

these are types of categories uncriticized ideas. ideas people chose to act on without thinking.

compulsions are ideas you chose to act on before criticizing them. it's a "fuck it" mentality. if you chose to "fuck it" instead of thinking more if you are acting on a good idea. a good idea is a un-refuted idea.

Leo at 7:44 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3920
>> not liked by others to the point of being beaten up now being autism
>
> You have no idea how diagnoses work.

You lied. You didn't go away.

Leo at 7:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3921
> these are types of categories uncriticized ideas. ideas people chose to act on without thinking.

You can't think about something if it doesn't even go through your brain. You can't philosophize your way out of being empirically wrong.

Anonymous at 7:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3922
> You lied. You didn't go away.


Now you're just spouting unfalsifiable rhetoric, which is a big tactic of Elliot's:

If they say something, it "proves" something so you win.
If they don't say something, it "proves" something else so you win.

Anonymous at 7:46 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3923
Everyone on this site thinks they're so clever, but you're just uneducated children who hated being told what to do as teenagers.

Everyone can read you like a book.

Anonymous at 7:47 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3924
> You lied. You didn't go away.

You're lying by pretending you know how illnesses work. You don't, and you know you don't.

Anonymous at 7:48 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3925
> a good idea is a un-refuted idea

It's impossible to refute "I like cake". That doesn't make it a good or bad idea though.

Elliot's philosophy is shit enough without you mangling it further.

Anonymous at 7:49 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3926
> I know you're only trying to impress Elliot (I've seen your posts on the Yahoo group). You exhibit strong signs of dependency and validation issues.

lol. I'm not Lulie.

I couldn't impress Elliot even if I wanted.

I want to learn and improve my life, because I believe it still can be improved. The day I don't believe this, I won't be here.

And it's not Elliot I admire, btw.

A good man would not be impressed by me.

Leo at 7:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3927
No. You're Leonor Gomes.

You exhibit strong signs of dependency and validation issues. Lulie doesn't.

Anonymous at 7:52 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3928
> I want to learn and improve my life, because I believe it still can be improved.

You don't learn by simply believing things that support your preconceived view of the world and by immediately dismissing things that don't.

That's called being a follower, and not thinking for yourself.

Anonymous at 7:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3929
> Everyone on this site thinks they're so clever, but you're just uneducated children who hated being told what to do as teenagers.
>
> are you saying you liked being told what to do as a teenager? and that was good for you and made you more educated?

how does following your elders blindly make you educated? and does delegating decisions to others make you a good thinker?

Leo at 7:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3930
> how does following your elders blindly make you educated? and does delegating decisions to others make you a good thinker?

> blindly

The choices are not between blind following (something you do) and total, utter independence with no reliance on anyone else. It is not a dichotomy.

You also didn't raise your child TCS, and for good reason. I'm glad you didn't.

Anonymous at 7:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3931
why does lulie, who was raised tcs and unschooled and was basically given the best the world has to give to her in terms of parenting on a platter, throws everything away to hang with these horrid uni oxford kids?

what a waste.

Leo at 7:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3932
> You also didn't raise your child TCS, and for good reason. I'm glad you didn't.

for good reason? i didn't say the reason. and i'm not glad.

why are you glad?

because you hate the good for being the good.

Leo at 7:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3933
> why does lulie, who was raised tcs and unschooled and was basically given the best the world has to give to her in terms of parenting on a platter, throws everything away to hang with these horrid uni oxford kids?

Perhaps it's empirical evidence that TCS is shit. You only think they're horrid because they challenge your preconceived ideas of the world.

Hating people that challenge your ideas, and immediately thinking you're superior to them, is a common symptom of a cult.

Anonymous at 7:59 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3934
> because you hate the good for being the good.

So because I disagree with you I "hate the good". What a ridiculous conclusion. You have no idea what my philosophy is; what my ideas are; what I stand for; what I believe and what I what in.

I disagree that TCS is good. That is all you know, apart from thinking that mental illness is indeed real (or rather, as real as any illness can be).

Anonymous at 8:01 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3935
> i didn't say the reason

It's because you know, deep down, that it is impossible to raise a baby TCS.

Anonymous at 8:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3936
>> how does following your elders blindly make you educated? and does delegating decisions to others make you a good thinker?
>
> The choices are not between blind following (something you do) and total, utter independence with no reliance on anyone else. It is not a dichotomy.

I didn't mention anything like "utter independent with no reliance on anyone else". You're filling the gaps with your straw-men. You don't understand what being self-directed is.

So... If it's not a dichotomy, what is it? Explain what you did? Did you arbitrarily sometimes chose to follow your elders?Other times not? Why not other times?

And you said you liked to be told what to do as child/ teen. Why did you like it? Did you automatically agree with everything? Did you prefer not to have to think for yourself and just be a robot?

Leo at 8:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3937
"what I what in" --> "what I believe in"

Anonymous at 8:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3938
> You're filling the gaps with your straw-men.

No. You're the one who assumed I meant blindly following. You're the one who made that assertion. If anyone is introducing strawmen it is you.

> Did you arbitrarily sometimes chose to follow your elders?Other times not? Why not other times?

"arbitrarily"

It's not arbitrary. It is possible to understand when it is and isn't appropriate to follow what someone says.

> And you said you liked to be told what to do as child/ teen. Why did you like it? Did you automatically agree with everything? Did you prefer not to have to think for yourself and just be a robot?

I never said I liked it. Stop inferring these massive leaps of logic with nothing to back them up.

Anonymous at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3939
>> i didn't say the reason
>
> It's because you know, deep down, that it is impossible to raise a baby TCS.

lol. i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.

it was later i slowly gave it up, because i was angry with tcs ppl.

Leo at 8:06 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3940
This is all aside from child psychology that shows children, especially prepubescent children, often lack the ability to make competent decisions.

Potty training is impossible without coercion.

Anonymous at 8:07 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3941
> i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.

How did you feed your baby? You can't speak to it.

Or did it coerce you by demanding food?

Either way, one or other of you wasn't following the philosophy properly.

Anonymous at 8:07 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3942
>> And you said you liked to be told what to do as child/ teen. Why did you like it? Did you automatically agree with everything? Did you prefer not to have to think for yourself and just be a robot?
>
>I never said I liked it. Stop inferring these massive leaps of logic with nothing to back them up.

hold on, babe. you said our problem is that we didn't like to be told what to do. so i assumed you were "superior" and liked to be told what to do.

if it's not that, what is it? explain.

Leo at 8:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3943
>> i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.
>
> How did you feed your baby? You can't speak to it.

him, not it.

i breastfed. babies give cues when they are hungry.

> Or did it coerce you by demanding food?

you don't know what coercion is.

why do you think my preference would be not to feed my baby?

> Either way, one or other of you wasn't following the philosophy properly.

how so?

Anonymous at 8:10 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3944
forgot to sign again. that was Leo

Anonymous at 8:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3945
> hold on, babe. you said our problem is that we didn't like to be told what to do. so i assumed you were "superior" and liked to be told what to do.

The alternative to not liking being told what to do *ever* is not loving being told what to do at all times.

There are times I hated it, but there were other times when I really didn't mind. There are reasons why this was sometimes a reasonable reaction (and why, sometimes, when I didn't like it that was an unreasonable reaction).

You keep introducing these ridiculous dichotomies. Seriously, you need to learn some logic before anything else honestly.

Also, there's a habit the TCS people on here have of demanding other people do things (such as your "explain" up there). It hardly fits with your philosophy of non-coercion.

Anonymous at 8:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3946
> babies give cues when they are hungry.

That baby coerced you.

> why do you think my preference would be not to feed my baby?

So apparently it's fine when you decide to do it, but if a child follows orders they're just brainwashed? Contradictory as fuck. The baby was not reasoning with you.

> how so?

See above.

Anonymous at 8:12 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3947
>> hold on, babe. you said our problem is that we didn't like to be told what to do. so i assumed you were "superior" and liked to be told what to do.
>
The alternative to not liking being told what to do *ever* is >not loving being told what to do at all times.
>
> There are times I hated it, but there were other times when I really didn't mind.

why didn't you mind other times?

and why do you think we didn't like to be told what to do "ever"?

> There are reasons why this was sometimes a reasonable reaction

what are the reasons?

> (and why, sometimes, when I didn't like it that was an unreasonable reaction).

why was it unreasonable not to like it?

Leo at 8:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3948
> Also, there's a habit the TCS people on here have of demanding other people do things (such as your "explain" up there). It hardly fits with your philosophy of non-coercion.

did i point a gun at you? do i have power over you? asking someone to do something is not initiation of force.

and btw, you don't know what tcs-coercion is. tcs-coercion is not initiation of force.

Leo at 8:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3949
> why didn't you mind other times?

I was ordered what to do, once, when my life is in danger. This is by no means the only instance, but it demonstrates the point best.

I'm not dead, but would have been.

> and why do you think we didn't like to be told what to do "ever"?

"so i assumed you were "superior" and liked to be told what to do."

Going to explain when you like being told what to do.

> what are the reasons?

I'm alive.

> why was it unreasonable not to like it?

Because I'm alive.

Sometimes there are reasons for being told what to do, which you can either not hope to understand (for example, with a baby), or there is no time to communicate to you.

Anonymous at 8:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3950
> did i point a gun at you? do i have power over you? asking someone to do something is not initiation of force.

Don't tell me what to do. You're trying to exhibit rhetorical force by manipulating me into doing it.

See how almost anything can be shown as an "initiation of force"?

> and btw, you don't know what tcs-coercion is. tcs-coercion is not initiation of force.

No, you've come up with yet another bullshit definition of something that ends up being contrived or useless. Going to explain?

Anonymous at 8:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3951
>> babies give cues when they are hungry.
>
> That baby coerced you.

lol. how did my baby coerce me.

>> why do you think my preference would be not to feed my baby?
>
> So apparently it's fine when you decide to do it, but if a child follows orders they're just brainwashed? Contradictory as fuck. The baby was not reasoning with you.

you're very confused. i wasn't following orders. i wasn't coerced either as i had no conflicting idea in my mind such as "i rather not feed the baby"

Leo at 8:27 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3952
>> and btw, you don't know what tcs-coercion is. tcs-coercion is not initiation of force.
>
> No, you've come up with yet another bullshit definition of something that ends up being contrived or useless. Going to explain?

it's explained already in the official website and the FI website. go read.

Leo at 8:29 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3953
> lol. how did my baby coerce me.

You seriously can't work this one out?

> you're very confused. i wasn't following orders. i wasn't coerced either as i had no conflicting idea in my mind such as "i rather not feed the baby"

Likewise, then, it's fine for children not raised TCS to want to be told what to do, because there's no conflict in their mind.

Oh look, that seems to contradict your entire philosophy. Try harder.

Anonymous at 8:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3954
> it's explained already in the official website and the FI website. go read.

If you can't sum it up I can only assume you don't know what it is.

Anonymous at 8:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3955
"acting against your own will"

Elliot directly contradicts this when he writes long posts about how women can't be coerced into sex because they choose not to leave, as thy are literally, physically able to.

Fucking hell guys, you are so inconsistent.

Anonymous at 8:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3956
>> why didn't you mind other times?
>
> I was ordered what to do, once, when my life is in danger. This is by no means the only instance, but it demonstrates the point best.

if you didn't want to die you were not coerced.


was that the one time you didn't mind to be ordered?

were you only ordered only in life or death situations?

because that's not how the typical child upbringing goes.

what about non-life or death situations of being told to stop doing things you liked, like watching tv, games, etc. and being told to do stuff you didn't like, your homework, to eat things you didn't want and to be prevented from eating things you wanted and etc? did you mind?

> I'm not dead, but would have been.

you say that like it's a good thing.

you live to hate people who love freedom, who stand for an individual to live the life he wants. how is it a good thing that you are alive?

>> what are the reasons?
>
> I'm alive.

ok, nevermind life or death scenarios. talk about the common stuff kids hate. for instance, being taken to mcdonalds but being told "no, you can't have coke. you can't have the milkshake."

> Sometimes there are reasons for being told what to do, which you can either not hope to understand (for example, with a baby), or there is no time to communicate to you.

telling a baby what to do doesn't work. just help the baby as you think he wants to be helped. babies are easy to satisfy, their basic needs are simple and well known.

what are the reasons, with, with older kids and teens, which is what we were talking about, as you said we don't like to be told what to do as TEENS, and with whom you can communicate easily to be told what to do?

Leo at 8:41 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3957
For someone you claim to like so much, he sure is an example of someone quite obviously abusing all of this philosophy to justify doing whatever he likes, whenever he likes.

Anonymous at 8:41 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3958
>> lol. how did my baby coerce me.
>
> You seriously can't work this one out?

nope. tell me.

Leo at 8:41 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3959
>> it's explained already in the official website and the FI website. go read.
>
> If you can't sum it up I can only assume you don't know what it is.

Do as you are told and go do your homework!

Leo at 8:43 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3960
> if you didn't want to die you were not coerced.

At the time I didn't know I would have died. Therefore I was coerced.

> were you only ordered only in life or death situations?

No, but there are other times when a good thing resulted from being coerced. Such as knowing not to piss on the floor.

> you live to hate people who love freedom, who stand for an individual to live the life he wants. how is it a good thing that you are alive?

You are begging the question. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I "hate freedom". It's pitiful that you think like this.

> talk about the common stuff kids hate. for instance, being taken to mcdonalds but being told "no, you can't have coke. you can't have the milkshake."

It is not good to coerce them all the time. It is a good thing to not let them have whatever they want whenever they want. The phenomenon of spoilt children is a bad one.

> telling a baby what to do doesn't work. just help the baby as you think he wants to be helped. babies are easy to satisfy, their basic needs are simple and well known.

If I don't want to the baby is coercing me. It would still make me a bad person if I didn't feed the baby to the point where it died.

> what are the reasons, with, with older kids and teens, which is what we were talking about, as you said we don't like to be told what to do as TEENS, and with whom you can communicate easily to be told what to do?

Not everyone knows what is best for them in every situation. This is self-evident.

Anonymous at 8:44 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3961
> nope. tell me.

Your definition of coercion is the problem. Either it covers people who like being told what to do, at which point it's a contradictory mess, or it doesn't cover telling anyone what to do, at which point it's meaningless.

Anonymous at 8:46 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3962
> who stand for an individual to live the life he wants

Hitler wanted to bring death to all Jews. Living life how you want affects other people more than you think, even with little things.

Anonymous at 8:46 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3963
>> you're very confused. i wasn't following orders. i wasn't coerced either as i had no conflicting idea in my mind such as "i rather not feed the baby"
>
> Likewise, then, it's fine for children not raised TCS to want to be told what to do, because there's no conflict in their mind.

they were coerced because it's not possible they never disagreed with arbitrary orders from their parents.

if they agree with what they are being told at a single moment, there is no conflict in their mind. no coercion.

but if they always agree, they are broken already from coercion. they gave up using their minds. it's a tragedy. if they do not seek to find problems in ideas and to criticize ideas and they never have initiative to do things without being told they are in a very bad state of mind.

Leo at 8:48 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3964
> This is self-evident.

Homework: go read Atlas Shrugged.

Leo at 8:49 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3965
> they were coerced because it's not possible they never disagreed with arbitrary orders from their parents.

That is not coercion. That's simply them wanting to do what their parents told them to.

It's not about agreeing with what they were told to do, it's about agreeing with being told what to do. Some people genuinely like this. That still doesn't make it coercion.

> but if they always agree, they are broken already from coercion

This conclusion cannot be proven. It's unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

> if they do not seek to find problems in ideas and to criticize ideas and they never have initiative to do things without being told they are in a very bad state of mind.

Someone can like being told what to do while still analyzing it.

You make so many assumptions.

Anonymous at 8:51 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3966
> Homework: go read Atlas Shrugged.

You're hilarous. I've read that pile of crap, and it's just that: a pile of crap.

People do not always know what is best for them. Want to know how I know this? Because when I was in the path of that car, it was not best for me to stay in the path of that car, even though I didn't realize I should have moved.

Therefore I have proven there exist some cases where people don't know what is best for them.

Sorry, but you lose. Your logic is shit, your definitions of words vary wildly and your conceptions of words contradict each other.

Anonymous at 8:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3967
Can you really not see how all of what you say completely contradicts itself?

Anonymous at 8:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3968
>> if you didn't want to die you were not coerced.
>
> At the time I didn't know I would have died. Therefore I was coerced.

What was the conflict of ideas in your mind at the time?

What was the actual situation?

>> were you only ordered only in life or death situations?
>
> No, but there are other times when a good thing resulted from being coerced. Such as knowing not to piss on the floor.

Why do you think learning to not piss on the floor requires coercion?

In what does being in a mental state where you do not fully agree with an idea and act on it while still preferring another idea, helps a person learn?

What happens to adults who piss on the floor and weren't told not to by their parents? Why didn't it work with them?

>> you live to hate people who love freedom, who stand for an individual to live the life he wants. how is it a good thing that you are alive?
>
> You are begging the question. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I "hate freedom".

explain how it doesn't if you think it doesn't. i mean Elliot, FI, TCS, not me, btw.

> It's pitiful that you think like this.

pressuring to give up my ideas with such lame comments is not going to work on me, hun.

Anonymous at 8:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3969
the above signed Leo

forgot again

Anonymous at 8:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3970
> What was the conflict of ideas in your mind at the time?

Yes. I genuinely objected to being told what to do at that moment. Lo and behold, it was good that I was.

> Why do you think learning to not piss on the floor requires coercion?

Good luck persuading a child that can't speak not to piss on the floor.

> In what does being in a mental state where you do not fully agree with an idea and act on it while still preferring another idea, helps a person learn?

Perspective and understanding. I read about ideas I don't like to gain perspective. Children are very bad at doing this, and have an aversion to it. However, many people say it's good that they learnt about alternatives and other ways of doing things when young, even if they didn't want to at the time. (Saying "they're brainwashed" in response to this is also unfalsifiable).

> What happens to adults who piss on the floor and weren't told not to by their parents? Why didn't it work with them?

Brain damage, maybe? (Of course, I'm sure you'll respond "MENTAL ILLNESS ISN'T REAL" or something, which isn't really the point). There are obvious advantages to not pissing on the floor. These are still true regardless of whether the person wants to or not.

> explain how it doesn't if you think it doesn't. i mean Elliot, FI, TCS, not me, btw.

You literally think disagreeing with Elliot and FI means I hate freedom. That's begging the question on the nature of freedom, my motivations etc. There is no way for me to prove otherwise without saying I agree with them, which is a ridiculous leap of logic.

> pressuring to give up my ideas with such lame comments is not going to work on me, hun.

It is pitiful that you think people who don't think like you are better off dead. It's cultish in the extreme.

Anonymous at 9:01 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3971
> explain how it doesn't if you think it doesn't. i mean Elliot, FI, TCS, not me, btw.

>makes assertion

>PROVE ME WRONG

Fucking hell, Leonor. You seriously need to take a logic course. Disagreeing doesn't mean you *hate freedom*.

Anonymous at 9:04 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3972
> Do as you are told and go do your homework!

You sound cute. What's your number?

Anonymous at 9:12 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3973
Harry Walton strikes again.

Anonymous at 9:13 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3974
> Fucking hell, Leonor. You seriously need to take a logic course. Disagreeing doesn't mean you *hate freedom*.

If you disagree with FI and TCS, you hate freedom.

Leo at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3975
> You sound cute. What's your number?

116 123

Leo at 9:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3976
> If you disagree with FI and TCS, you hate freedom.

This begs the question. You're an anti-scholar who hates learning, and refuses to learn new opinions.

You're a disgrace.

Anonymous at 9:25 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3977
>> What was the conflict of ideas in your mind at the time?
>
> Yes. I genuinely objected to being told what to do at that moment. Lo and behold, it was good that I was.

I'm asking what happened, what ideas you had in your had. What were you told to do and what did you want to do instead? And why?

Leo at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3978
>> Why do you think learning to not piss on the floor requires coercion?
>
> Good luck persuading a child that can't speak not to piss on the floor.

It's not luck, it's reason. And I did.

Leo at 9:29 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3979
> I'm asking what happened, what ideas you had in your had. What were you told to do and what did you want to do instead? And why?

I was walking across the road and objected to being shouted at and told what to do by a stranger. It's not difficult to work out.

> It's not luck, it's reason. And I did.

Explain how you can reason with a child that can't speak.

Anonymous at 9:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3980
> 116 123

I called but the guy who answered said his name was "Sam Ritan". He also didn't sound cute and didn't seem to like my dirty talk. You're a damned liar! >:P

Anonymous at 9:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3981
>> In what does being in a mental state where you do not fully agree with an idea and act on it while still preferring another idea, helps a person learn?

Perspective and understanding. I read about ideas I don't like to gain perspective.

This is not a state of coercion.

> Children are very bad at doing this, and have an aversion to it.

Unexplained assertion.

> However, many people say it's good that they learnt about alternatives and other ways of doing things when young, even if they didn't want to at the time. (Saying "they're brainwashed" in response to this is also unfalsifiable).

I'm talking about forcing children do things they don't want to do. And how it's immoral and bad for learning.

Why don't you read FI essays and comment on those?

> Brain damage, maybe?

So every working class male is brain damaged? lol

Leo at 9:34 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3982
> This is not a state of coercion.

That is irrelevant. It is showing that it can be good.

> I'm talking about forcing children do things they don't want to do. And how it's immoral and bad for learning.

What if a child does not want to learn? Ever?

> So every working class male is brain damaged? lol

Intentionally misinterpreting someone's point and taking it out of context makes you a bad scholar.

Anonymous at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3983
>> I'm talking about forcing children do things they don't want to do. And how it's immoral and bad for learning.
> What if a child does not want to learn? Ever?

Then the child is dead, or has been destroyed inside by coercion. Children want to learn by default. If they resist it doesn't mean they don't want to learn, they just don't want to learn what you want to teach them.

Anonymous at 9:38 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3984
>> 116 123
>
> I called but the guy who answered said his name was "Sam Ritan". He also didn't sound cute and didn't seem to like my dirty talk. You're a damned liar! >:P

lol

Leo at 9:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3985
> Then the child is dead, or has been destroyed inside by coercion.

Not necessarily.

> Children want to learn by default. If they resist it doesn't mean they don't want to learn, they just don't want to learn what you want to teach them.

That is a very bold claim. Prove it.

Anonymous at 9:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3986
> Prove it.

You should learn better epistemology. Justificationism is false.

A better response is: How could you refute that idea? What other explanation could there be?

And actually I can come up with some of those responses:
Brain damaged children might lack the capacity to think (tho it's super hard to tell whether someone has lost that capacity or not).

You can refute my idea by finding even one non-brain damaged (because their brains might or might not be functional) non-dead non-coerced child who is not interested in learning anything at all.

Anonymous at 9:46 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3987
>> I'm asking what happened, what ideas you had in your had. What were you told to do and what did you want to do instead? And why?
>
> I was walking across the road and objected to being shouted at and told what to do by a stranger. It's not difficult to work out.

What did the stranger say?

Why did you object to be told what to do by a stranger? Why weren't you curious instead?

>> It's not luck, it's reason. And I did.
>
> Explain how you can reason with a child that can't speak.

Making peeing in appropriate places interesting for the child.

Or give keep the child in nappies until you can talk to the child.

You're worrying with unimportant things. It doesn't matter that much that you accidentally coerce babies and toddlers. It matters later when you can talk that you still think you have reasons to tell teenagers what to do.

Leo at 9:48 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3988
Rami: That's misleading. You also need philosophical knowledge in order to criticize scientific knowledge.

Anon: Yes, but that's not relevant when you want to make the claim that mental illness is a pseudoscience. This doesn't change anything anyway.

Rami: No. The ONLY way to determine if a theory is scientific or pseudo-scientific (or non-scientific and not claimed to be scientific) is with philosophical knowledge.

Anon: I literally just said it wasn't relevant, so I don't know why you're repeating it.

This doesn’t make sense. Philosophical knowledge is needed to determine whether a theory (for example a mental illness theory) is scientific or not. So if… wait a minute…



> Because if it's created by us, it means that the concept of "purpose" is socially constructed, which means that mental illnesses can also exist.

What do you mean that mental illnesses can exist? Exist as what?

You don't seem to be arguing against me at all. My position is that mental illnesses theories are pseudoscience because they aren't empirically-testable. You seem to be arguing about something different. Can you clarify?


>> Might panicking become a habit for you such that you panic even in situations that aren't actually dangerous?

> Sound like an illness to me. Just because it originally came from ideas doesn't mean it can't develop into something that doesn't come from ideas.

Wait. So if somebody has a habit of panicking in certain types of situations, do you agree that he can change that habit such that he no longer panics in those situations?

Rami at 9:48 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3989
> You can refute my idea by finding even one non-brain damaged (because their brains might or might not be functional) non-dead non-coerced child who is not interested in learning anything at all.

That is impossible when your definition of coercion automatically includes all children who don't want to learn.

Therefore it's pseudoscience.

Anonymous at 9:49 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3990
>>> I'm talking about forcing children do things they don't want to do. And how it's immoral and bad for learning.
>> What if a child does not want to learn? Ever?
>
> Then the child is dead, or has been destroyed inside by coercion. Children want to learn by default. If they resist it doesn't mean they don't want to learn, they just don't want to learn what you want to teach them.

Oh, oh. A FI person woke up! Yay. I was all alone here with the oxford boy, it was scary. lol.

Leo at 9:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3991
> it was scary

You literally find having your ideas challenged scary. Pathetic.

Anonymous at 9:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3992
>> This is not a state of coercion.
>
> That is irrelevant. It is showing that it can be good.

It's not irrelevant if you're not talking about coercion when the issue is coercion.

Leo at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3993
>> You can refute my idea by finding even one non-brain damaged (because their brains might or might not be functional) non-dead non-coerced child who is not interested in learning anything at all.
> That is impossible when your definition of coercion automatically includes all children who don't want to learn.
> Therefore it's pseudoscience.

Your premises are false. No-one defined "coerced" as "don't want to learn".

> Oh, oh. A FI person woke up! Yay. I was all alone here with the oxford boy, it was scary. lol.

That's why I opened with a joke, darling ;)

Anonymous at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3994
> This doesn’t make sense. Philosophical knowledge is needed to determine whether a theory (for example a mental illness theory) is scientific or not. So if… wait a minute…

It's not relevant because the ~philosophical~ side is definitions. Which, in this case, doesn't exclude mental illness.

> What do you mean that mental illnesses can exist? Exist as what?

Can exist as social constructs just like physical ones. I phrased that poorly in my previous post though.

> Wait. So if somebody has a habit of panicking in certain types of situations, do you agree that he can change that habit such that he no longer panics in those situations?

It is possible to cure mental illness, yes. That doesn't make it a *habit* though. That person doesn't choose out of compulsion to panic - they have no physical way of stopping themselves.

Anonymous at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3995
>> it was scary
>
> You literally find having your ideas challenged scary. Pathetic.

that's not why it was scary.

and you didn't challenge my ideas. you have no capacity to do so. you don't even understand my ideas.

i want to be challenged, i post on FI.

Leo at 9:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3996
> Your premises are false. No-one defined "coerced" as "don't want to learn".

That isn't what I defined it as either. Leonor had, however, dismissed *all* children that didn't want to learn ever as being coerced.

I asked her to prove this, and she said I had to refute it by providing an example of a child who didn't want to learn anything that hadn't been coerced. With her definitions, this was impossible.

That is begging the question.

Anonymous at 9:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3997
> and you didn't challenge my ideas. you have no capacity to do so. you don't even understand my ideas.

Yes I do. I've shown how they aren't logically consistent. Saying that it is impossible for them to be challenged is just a mantra you tell yourself because you don't like having your ideas challenged.

You keep asserting yourself correct with these unfalsifiable statements. It makes a mockery of the Popper you claim to love so much. There is no self-awareness.

> i want to be challenged, i post on FI.

Fine. You don't like having the foundations of your ideas challenged.

Anonymous at 9:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3998
> It is possible to cure mental illness, yes.

That's not what the medical establishment says.

Leo at 10:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3999
> It's not irrelevant if you're not talking about coercion when the issue is coercion.

You keep defining away awkward things as "not coercion".

If I didn't want to do it, and had ideas against doing it, and believed it to be bad for me, it was coercion. Even though it was good for me.

Deal with it.

Anonymous at 10:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4000
>> i want to be challenged, i post on FI.
>
> Fine. You don't like having the foundations of your ideas challenged.

lol. foundations.

Leo at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4001
> That's not what the medical establishment says.

You sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, you know that?

Not all mental illnesses are the same. Some are curable, as you would know if you knew the first thing about them and didn't just latch onto whatever bullshit Elliot comes out with because you want someone to give you meaning in your life.

Anonymous at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4002
Y u no try and crit szasz mb?

Anonymous at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4003
> lol. foundations.

Your answers are a load of incoherent shit. They keep backtracking, changing definitions and contradicting each other.

Yes, you're having the foundations of your ideas challenged. Any scholar who knows the first thing about scholarship knows that you should be able to refute any challenger. You haven't even begun to do that - you just keep coming up with excuses and saying it isn't possible.

That just makes you a dogmatist.

Anonymous at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4004
> If I didn't want to do it, and had ideas against doing it, and believed it to be bad for me, it was coercion. Even though it was good for me.

True. And it was bad that you were coerced. And there's better ways to parent and TCS teaches that.

> Deal with it.

lol. deal with what?

Leo at 10:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4005
> Y u no try and crit szasz mb?

Szasz also defines away mental illnesses with physical components (like brain damage) as being physical illness, even though any ordinary conception of the term 'mental illness' would include it.

Therefore Szasz also essentially defines mental illness as 'that which is not testable' which gives the trivially true statement 'mental illness is not real' with a stupid definition of the word.

Anonymous at 10:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4006
> True. And it was bad that you were coerced. And there's better ways to parent and TCS teaches that.

"It was bad that you were coerced"

Are you admitting that sometimes it is good to be coerced for the greater good?

Anonymous at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4007
>> That's not what the medical establishment says.
>
> You sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, you know that?

lol. what?

Anonymous at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4008
> lol. what?

Love how you're picking up on the irrelevant things rather than the actual substance.

You're using avoidance techniques as a defence mechanism. Elliot also does this.

Anonymous at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4009
> Leonor had, however, dismissed *all* children that didn't want to learn ever as being coerced.

that's not quite what i said, but i agree. as far as i know, only coercion can destroy learning.

> I asked her to prove this, and she said I had to refute it by providing an example of a child who didn't want to learn anything that hadn't been coerced. With her definitions, this was impossible.

why is it impossible? can you explain this better?

Leo at 10:12 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4010
>> lol. what?
>
> Love how you're picking up on the irrelevant things rather than the actual substance.

lmao what substance.

> You're using avoidance techniques as a defence mechanism. Elliot also does this.

defense from what?

Leo at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4011
> why is it impossible? can you explain this better?

It is possible to conceive of a child who does not want to learn who has had no interaction with any people. That child *cannot* have been coerced. Yet, your definition of the word (necessarily including all children who don't want to learn) would include it.

If you disagree with that statement, you have to explain how that child was coerced, or how it's impossible for a child to not want to learn anything who has had no interaction.

Anonymous at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4012
> lmao what substance.

Saying "this doesn't exist" doesn't make it not exist.

Fucking hell, you're thick.

> defense from what?

Ideas you don't like. You clearly aren't very clever and don't know much when you don't engage with what is being said.

Anonymous at 10:16 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4013
>> defense from what?
>
> Ideas you don't like.

The only defense of ideas I don't like is refutation. Otherwise I have no reason not to like them.

Leo at 10:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4014
> The only defense of ideas I don't like is refutation. Otherwise I have no reason not to like them.

But you don't refute. You assert. Sometimes you don't even attempt to refute them.

That is avoidance, and you do it a lot.

Anonymous at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4015
> Ideas you don't like. You clearly aren't very clever and don't know much when you don't engage with what is being said.

There are like a bazillion different things you're getting wrong all at once which is blocking you from even making rational arguments.

The big one is justificationism, which is false but you keep trying to reason with it so you're tripping yourself up (whether arguing for your idea or against someone elses) with your own false epistemology.

It's making it hard for you to understand anything you're being told or say anything that isn't hard to make sense of (like, it's *possible* to understand things justificationists say, it's just a lot of extra work).

(same applies to relativism and other stuff you use)

I suggest you learn more about epistemology so you'll be able to think better and reason better.

Also you keep flaming, which doesn't help anything.
Here's what people might think of you when you flame:
* You're cruel
* You want other people to feel bad
* You want other people to think you're clever

None of these encourage interlocutors to engage with you rationally, and they'll just end up flaming back like Leo has been.

Anonymous at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4016
> It is possible to conceive of a child who does not want to learn who has had no interaction with any people.

It's possible to conceive nonsense, it's still nonsense.

> That child *cannot* have been coerced. Yet, your definition of the word (necessarily including all children who don't want to learn) would include it.

A child alone in the world would be coerced tons from neglect and not getting proper help.

You like to attack Elliot, FI TCS and other ideas you don't even understand. Why? What's in it for you?

Anonymous at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4017
>> The only defense of ideas I don't like is refutation. Otherwise I have no reason not to like them.
>
> But you don't refute. You assert. Sometimes you don't even attempt to refute them.

Quote examples from above please.

Anonymous at 10:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4018
> A child alone in the world would be coerced tons from neglect and not getting proper help.

Your definition of coercion is totally useless, frankly. It's meaningless. It can't be disproven, and as such is pseudoscience.

Anonymous at 10:27 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4019
> The big one is justificationism, which is false but you keep trying to reason with it so you're tripping yourself up (whether arguing for your idea or against someone elses) with your own false epistemology.

> It's making it hard for you to understand anything you're being told or say anything that isn't hard to make sense of (like, it's *possible* to understand things justificationists say, it's just a lot of extra work).

There are a lot of assertions here. I haven't asked for justifications at all, actually, if you look at most of what I've said. When I say "prove it" I am referring to providing empirical evidence.

You don't get to escape objections to your claim by saying "justificationism!" which is exactly what you do.

> It's making it hard for you to understand anything you're being told or say anything that isn't hard to make sense of (like, it's *possible* to understand things justificationists say, it's just a lot of extra work).

I understand Popper, and I understand what I am being told. Saying "you don't understand it because you disagree with me" is unfalsifiable.

You all make a lot of unfalsifiable claims, and not once have you ever replied to my point where I say this. Almost as though you know I'm right.

Anonymous at 10:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4020
>> A child alone in the world would be coerced tons from neglect and not getting proper help.
>
> Your definition of coercion is totally useless, frankly. It's meaningless. It can't be disproven, and as such is pseudoscience.

How is TCS/ FI definition of coercion useless? It means being conflicted, compelled to do something while you want do something else. It means acting on an idea while not being completely persuaded.

An abandoned baby would experience extreme suffering. What are you imagining? A baby raised by dogs?

Leo at 10:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4021
> You like to attack Elliot, FI TCS and other ideas you don't even understand. Why? What's in it for you?

Because you're fun to tie in knots and to show your philosophy to be based on ridiculous foundations.

This usually comes out by showing your definitions of things make no sense or have no bearing on ordinary conceptions of the thing they purport to define. They're usually question-begging.

Anonymous at 10:31 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4022
> How is TCS/ FI definition of coercion useless?

Because it is unfalsifiable. It does not stand up to scrutiny, because counter-examples are dismissed by simply saying "they are coercion" in all cases.

Anonymous at 10:33 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4023
> It means acting on an idea while not being completely persuaded.

You can't conceive of a child who is not coerced but still doesn't want to learn?

Saying "nonsense" doesn't make it so.

Anonymous at 10:35 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4024
>> Homework: go read Atlas Shrugged.
>
> You're hilarous.
>
> I've read that pile of crap, and it's just that: a pile of crap.

You feel strongly against it. Why?

Why didn't you like it?

Out of curiosity, were you forced to read the books for school?

> People do not always know what is best for them.

True. People are fallible. But it doesn't follow that other people, also being fallible, will know best and that using force on others is legitimate.

> Want to know how I know this? Because when I was in the path of that car, it was not best for me to stay in the path of that car, even though I didn't realize I should have moved.

But letting your kids watch TV when they want, which is not life threatening, is OK, right?

> Therefore I have proven there exist some cases where people don't know what is best for them.

This was never the issue.

> Sorry, but you lose.

lol. win-lose mentality.

> Your logic is shit, your definitions of words vary wildly and your conceptions of words contradict each other.

the hell is full of assertions without explanations.

> Almost as though you know I'm right.

lol you care too much about winning.

that's not what discussion is about.

Leo at 10:37 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4025
> You can't conceive of a child who is not coerced but still doesn't want to learn?

No.

And neither did you. Try again?

> Saying "nonsense" doesn't make it so.

It's nonsense for the reasons I explained which you trimmed out.

Leo at 10:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4026
> that's not what discussion is about.

Not once have you seriously engaged in this discussion in good-faith. You assume you cannot be proven wrong. You assume I cannot understand what you are talking about. You assume so much about me.

It's pretty obvious who has the wrong mentality here.

Anonymous at 10:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4027
> No.

Like I said, you're going to have to back-up that assertion.

Saying "justificationism!" doesn't allow you to make claims at random with nothing behind them.

> It's nonsense for the reasons I explained which you trimmed out.

No, that isn't nonsense. That is a definition which is unfalsifiable. A claim which you refuse to engage with (perhaps because I'm actually using language you understand, and yet don't want to engage with).

Anonymous at 10:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4028
>> This doesn’t make sense. Philosophical knowledge is needed to determine whether a theory (for example a mental illness theory) is scientific or not. So if… wait a minute…

> It's not relevant because the ~philosophical~ side is definitions. Which, in this case, doesn't exclude mental illness.

I don't follow. If somebody claims a theory is scientific (ie empirically testable) and then we find a (philosophical) criticism that explains that said theory isn't actually empirically testable, then this means that the theory is pseudo science not science.


>> What do you mean that mental illnesses can exist? Exist as what?

> Can exist as social constructs just like physical ones. I phrased that poorly in my previous post though.

I don't follow. What do you mean "just like physical ones"?


>> Wait. So if somebody has a habit of panicking in certain types of situations, do you agree that he can change that habit such that he no longer panics in those situations?

> It is possible to cure mental illness, yes.

By "cure" do you mean medicine or do you mean something else?


> That doesn't make it a *habit* though. That person doesn't choose out of compulsion to panic - they have no physical way of stopping themselves.

Sure they do. It's learned. So the person can learn a better way of reacting.

Rami at 10:40 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4029
> Sure they do. It's learned. So the person can learn a better way of reacting.

No they don't. They are literally incapable of stopping themselves.

There is genuinely no point in replying to the rest of your post, because it's obvious you have so little understanding of what constitutes a mental illness that to do so would be inviting false premises.

Anonymous at 10:42 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4030
It makes me laugh how you people simply deny something could exist or define it away when it goes against your ridiculous claims.

That isn't good philosophy - it's just dodging the issue.

Anonymous at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4031
I think Elliot is blocking me.

Leo at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4032
Oh, not. It was a Internet hiccup.

I lost my comment. It was good.

Leo at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4033
>> Sure they do. It's learned. So the person can learn a better way of reacting.

> No they don't. They are literally incapable of stopping themselves.

You claim this without argument. What's your argument?

> There is genuinely no point in replying to the rest of your post, because it's obvious you have so little understanding of what constitutes a mental illness that to do so would be inviting false premises.

Argument pls.

Rami at 10:48 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4034
>> that's not what discussion is about.
>
> Not once have you seriously engaged in this discussion in good-faith.

Maybe I wasn't as serious as I should. I was having fun.

> You assume you cannot be proven wrong.

I don't assume that. Quote?

> You assume I cannot understand what you are talking about.

You can. You just don't yet.

> You assume so much about me.

That wasn't a list of much.

Cheer up, Oxford boy.

> It's pretty obvious who has the wrong mentality here.

I think we both do.

Elliot is really good, he's the less corrupted person I ever met. You really should humble a bit and learn all you can from him.

Leo at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4035
> There are a lot of assertions here. I haven't asked for justifications at all, actually, if you look at most of what I've said. When I say "prove it" I am referring to providing empirical evidence.

Which is a justificationist mistake. If you were not justificationist, you would seek to refute a claim rather than demanding proof.

> You don't get to escape objections to your claim by saying "justificationism!" which is exactly what you do.

If your objections are fundamentally flawed by being on false premises then I do.

And actually I'm not trying to get involved in the argument that's going on around this, you're mistaken in thinking I care about that. I'm just giving you some general advice.

> I understand Popper, and I understand what I am being told. Saying "you don't understand it because you disagree with me" is unfalsifiable.

If you understood Popper you would agree with him or be able to say why he's wrong. Can you say why he's wrong?

> You all make a lot of unfalsifiable claims, and not once have you ever replied to my point where I say this. Almost as though you know I'm right.

More flaming. Also, you're talking to an unknown number of anons. Some anons might not be saying that.

You can refute "you're justificationist".

You could start using better epistemology (if you understand it like you claim to), that would falsify it.

You could explain how what you're doing isn't justification (as you tried to do above but failed to).

Anonymous at 10:51 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4036
>> Sure they do. It's learned. So the person can learn a better way of reacting.
>
> No they don't. They are literally incapable of stopping themselves.

They are not incapable. They just don't know how yet. They can't atm due to unresolved problems.

And you agree it's possible for them to learn how, if you think mental illness has a cure.

Leo at 10:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4037
> You claim this without argument. What's your argument?

That people with panic disorder are literally incapable of moving during a panic attack?

Overoxygenation, from hyperventilation, can cause the muscles to literally stop functioning.

Anonymous at 10:54 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4038
> They are not incapable. They just don't know how yet. They can't atm due to unresolved problems.

You people spout ignorance.

> And you agree it's possible for them to learn how, if you think mental illness has a cure.

It is possible to be cured of panic disorder. It is not possible to cure yourself during a panic attack.

Fucking hell - you people just make whatever assertions fit your preconceived mindset don't you? Even when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Anonymous at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4039
Wait, why is Oxford boy more interesting than my drawings? He's getting a lot of attention. I resent that.

Leo at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4040
> Wait, why is Oxford boy more interesting than my drawings? He's getting a lot of attention. I resent that.

You don't know my gender or where I'm from. You're wrong on both counts.

I know Elliot is butthurt because he got banned from their forum or whatever, but the rest of you should know better.

Anonymous at 10:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4041
> More flaming. Also, you're talking to an unknown number of anons. Some anons might not be saying that.

That carefully dodges the point it is unfalsifiable. That is something you can refute.

How about you try it?

Anonymous at 10:58 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4042
> You could start using better epistemology (if you understand it like you claim to), that would falsify it.

Have you read any philosophy in significant amounts other than Popper, Rand and David Deutsch?

Anonymous at 10:59 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4043
>> They are not incapable. They just don't know how yet. They can't atm due to unresolved problems.
>
> You people spout ignorance.

Why am I wrong? Explain.

>> And you agree it's possible for them to learn how, if you think mental illness has a cure.
>
> It is possible to be cured of panic disorder. It is not possible to cure yourself during a panic attack.

How is it possible to be cured? What does the cure involve?

> You claim this without argument. What's your argument?

>> That people with panic disorder are literally incapable of moving during a panic attack?
>
> Overoxygenation, from hyperventilation, can cause the muscles to literally stop functioning.

I think the argument was that they can learn to stop from panicking. Not that they can stop the physical consequences of panicking. Which you didn't tell us about until now, btw? Why?

Anonymous at 10:59 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4044
> I think the argument was that they can learn to stop from panicking. Not that they can stop the physical consequences of panicking. Which you didn't tell us about until now, btw? Why?

Are you going to argue that panic disorder is a physical illness now?

Wouldn't that be redefining things so you can't be wrong?

Anonymous at 11:00 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4045
(It's called making an unfalsifiable claim. You keep failing to address this.)

Anonymous at 11:00 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4046
> Why am I wrong? Explain.

You evidently don't know the slightest thing about panic attacks or panic disorder. It's easy to find this information online.

Anonymous at 11:01 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4047
>> Wait, why is Oxford boy more interesting than my drawings? He's getting a lot of attention. I resent that.
>
> You don't know my gender or where I'm from. You're wrong on both counts.
>

LOL! Well, now I know your gender.

> I know Elliot is butthurt because he got banned from their forum or whatever, but the rest of you should know better.

I should know better why?

Leo at 11:02 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4048
> LOL! Well, now I know your gender.

There aren't two genders.

(I bet there's loads of transphobia incoming now, which is funny because you people are supposed to be all about making choices and not coercing people.)

Anonymous at 11:03 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4049
> I should know better why?

It's pathetic.

Anonymous at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4050
>> Why am I wrong? Explain.
>
> You evidently don't know the slightest thing about panic attacks or panic disorder.

Why is it evident?

I read tons on mental disorders. I was diagnosed a few as I said. I used to be quite the "mental illness awareness" activist. I've been in a mental hospital. I was friends with "mentally ill" people.

Why did you go from ADHD to Panic Disorder, btw?

> It's easy to find this information online.

It's also easy for you to read more about TCS and FI before attacking something beautiful you don't understand and consider a threat to yourself.

Leo at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4051
> You could start using better epistemology (if you understand it like you claim to), that would falsify it.

Are you doing that psychopathic "holding frame" thing again?

Anonymous at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4052
>> You claim this without argument. What's your argument?

> That people with panic disorder are literally incapable of moving during a panic attack?

Let's start earlier in the process.

A situation happens. A person gets some sense data. Then he interprets the sense data to mean that a certain kind of situation has occurred. This could set off a (learned) trigger. The trigger might be one that results in a series of thoughts and feelings. In extreme cases, physical manifestation occurs. Increased heart and breathing rate. Tensing of muscles. And bad feelings.

Do we agree so far?


> Overoxygenation, from hyperventilation, can cause the muscles to literally stop functioning.

Left for context

Rami at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4053
> I read tons on mental disorders. I was diagnosed a few as I said.

I am not an expert on lupus because I had a cold. You do not understand panic disorder.

I switched because I thought panic disorder was a better example.

> consider a threat to yourself.

You are a tiny community of nobodies who I toy with as some intellectual fun. I enjoy making you tie yourself in knots.

Anonymous at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4054
> It is possible to be cured of panic disorder. It is not possible to cure yourself during a panic attack.

Who are you arguing against? Can you quote the position you are arguing against?

Anonymous at 11:10 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4055
> Do we agree so far?

Are you going to say they can choose not to be triggered?

Anonymous at 11:10 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4056
>Szasz also defines away mental illnesses with physical components (like brain damage) as being physical illness, even though any ordinary conception of the term 'mental illness' would include it.

So ur position is that the "ordinary conception" of cognitive and memory issues from say stroke or brain tumors is that that's mental illness?

Anonymous at 11:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4057
> So ur position is that the "ordinary conception" of cognitive and memory issues from say stroke or brain tumors is that that's mental illness?

Yes. Otherwise you just end up defining everything away that's testable and you're left with a meaningless definition.

Anonymous at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4058
>> LOL! Well, now I know your gender.
>
> There aren't two genders.

lol. why didn't i see this coming.

there's gender as physical gender.

and gender as a cultural role.

> (I bet there's loads of transphobia incoming now, which is funny because you people are supposed to be all about making choices and not coercing people.)

you forgot the intersex.

the term transphobia assumes that any opinion contrary to what current trans culture wants to impose as the truth is to be rejected as not even an opinion.

what i personally don't like about the gay and trans scene is the "born this way" idea. and trans now being a medical diagnosis.

i'd like to see people assuming it as a choice, because it is a choice. hey, got bored of being a man, i want to know what being a woman is like.

btw, there are no current means to actually change physical sex, and have the biological problems of the opposite sex. you have the problems of a person who crippled themselves to look the other gender. and the problems related with gender as a role. you just change roles a bit.

i also think the attention these ppl get with their frivolities is dangerous because there are real problems in the world and they have no real problems, they chose a sinful life.

Leo at 11:16 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4059
> the term transphobia assumes that any opinion contrary to what current trans culture wants to impose as the truth is to be rejected as not even an opinion.

I was right!

Anonymous at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4060
> A situation happens. A person gets some sense data. Then he interprets the sense data to mean that a certain kind of situation has occurred. This could set off a (learned) trigger. The trigger might be one that results in a series of thoughts and feelings. In extreme cases, physical manifestation occurs. Increased heart and breathing rate. Tensing of muscles. And bad feelings.

This is misleading. It's more accurate to describe it like this:

1. Physical action occurs
2. Sense data received by the brain.
3. Mind interprets the sense data. The interpretation process uses the persons ideas.
4. If a trigger exists for the interpretation from step 3, then it triggers a feeling and/or thought (ie an idea).

Step 4 can repeat in series because each triggered feeling or thought can also trigger another feeling or thought.

Step 4 can also repeat in parallel such that one feeling or thought triggers more than one feeling or thought.

Rami at 11:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4061
> they chose a sinful life

How does this even work, when coercion is bad?

The concept of sin is inherently coercive.

See - you're a bundle of contradictions.

Anonymous at 11:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4062
> You are a tiny community of nobodies who I toy with as some intellectual fun. I enjoy making you tie yourself in knots.

there's nothing you like to do in life for yourself? nothing to achieve?

Leo at 11:19 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4063
> there's nothing you like to do in life for yourself? nothing to achieve?

You're fun to toy with, like I said.

I have the ability to do what I want in my spare time.

Anonymous at 11:22 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4064
>> they chose a sinful life
>
> How does this even work, when coercion is bad?

By sinful I mean they chose to live a form of life that is considered sinful and which is also actually sinful in the sense that it's a bad way to live in the context of today's world.

Funny how you ignored all content but the attention seeking sentence.

> The concept of sin is inherently coercive.

I don't know what you mean by this. Explain?

Leo at 11:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4065
>> More flaming. Also, you're talking to an unknown number of anons. Some anons might not be saying that.
> That carefully dodges the point it is unfalsifiable. That is something you can refute.
> How about you try it?

You've dodged all my valid criticism of your mistakes for this?

Fine.

I made no attempt to dodge that this is unfalsifiable. I just didn't care because it seemed unimportant.

Yes this specific thing is unfalsifiable, I can't access the user records, I just thought it was a bit dumb to make blanket statements about "all" of us.

If you think I'm wrong *shrug* I got no argument for you, since I don't have access to server records (and don't know if it even keeps IP logs).

Anonymous at 11:23 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4066
> Funny how you ignored all content but the attention seeking sentence.

Not really, no. There was nothing else in that post that gave context to that comment about them being sinful. Your conception of society is also flawed.

> I don't know what you mean by this. Explain?

Morality is coercive. Think about it.

Anonymous at 11:24 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4067
Or maybe you're still talking about this?
(didn't think of it first since it seemed redundant)

> You all make a lot of unfalsifiable claims, and not once have you ever replied to my point where I say this. Almost as though you know I'm right.

Well I actually did respond to your claim of my explanation being unfalsifiable and explained how you could do this.

I suppose your statement might have been true when you said it (I really don't care enough to falsify it, like who cares? what would anyone learn substantially from that?), though if you were to say it now you'd be wrong.

Anonymous at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4068
>> there's nothing you like to do in life for yourself? nothing to achieve?
>
> You're fun to toy with, like I said.

I don't feel toyed with. I'm waiting for someone from FI to post and reply to my posts. And it's good practice to spot your mistakes.

I'm very low rank in FI. You shouldn't group me with the others, I think. And assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.

I think it's bad if you take what I say as representative of TCS or FI.

> I have the ability to do what I want in my spare time.

Isn't all your time spare time?

Why is it that what you want to do with your spare time is to toy with others? Why do you depend on others instead of doing beautiful things for yourself?

You could be doing parkour, drawing, discovering a cure for cancer...

Leo at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4069
> Morality is coercive. Think about it.

I don't follow. Is it your position that life is inherently coercive?

Rami at 11:29 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4070
>> there's nothing you like to do in life for yourself? nothing to achieve?
> You're fun to toy with, like I said.
> I have the ability to do what I want in my spare time.

It's a pity you waste it on destructive things (toying with people, not actually truth-seeking) rather than creative things (coming up with new ideas, truth-seeking).

Do you hate life? Why don't you want to create?

Anonymous at 11:30 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4071
>> Funny how you ignored all content but the attention seeking sentence.
>
> Not really, no. There was nothing else in that post that gave context to that comment about them being sinful. Your conception of society is also flawed.

How is it flawed?

>> I don't know what you mean by this. Explain?
>
> Morality is coercive. Think about it.

No. Morality is about choice. It's about learning what is good for you, how to make choices and how to be happy.

It's not about following rules.

Leo at 11:31 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4072
> And assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.

You realize how cultish that sounds?

> I suppose your statement might have been true when you said it (I really don't care enough to falsify it, like who cares? what would anyone learn substantially from that?), though if you were to say it now you'd be wrong.

How, exactly, am I wrong? Dismissing something you've been arguing as pointless, when it's the very core of the discussion, just makes you look like a sore loser.

Anonymous at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4073
> It's not about following rules.

The concept of sin is.

Anonymous at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4074
> It's a pity you waste it on destructive things (toying with people, not actually truth-seeking) rather than creative things (coming up with new ideas, truth-seeking).

I can multitask.

Anonymous at 11:33 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4075
>> It's not about following rules.
>
> The concept of sin is.

I explained why I used the term.

Leo at 11:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4076
>> It's a pity you waste it on destructive things (toying with people, not actually truth-seeking) rather than creative things (coming up with new ideas, truth-seeking).
>
> I can multitask.

You can't have as a goal to you with people and truth-seeking, these are opposite things.

What are you creating right now?

Leo at 11:36 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4077
>> Do we agree so far?

> Are you going to say they can choose not to be triggered?

No. I'm trying to find out where we agree so that we can create a jumping off point where we can better focus on where we disagree. Because at this point I'm not entirely clear what your positions are.

Rami at 11:38 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4078
>> And assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.

I meant to say "and DON'T assume"

> You realize how cultish that sounds?

Why should I care if it's cultish?

Leo at 11:39 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4079
> You can't have as a goal to you with people and truth-seeking, these are opposite things.

So I would ask you to prove it, but apparently that's "justificationism".

I can toy with someone whilst seeking the truth. These are not conceptual opposites.

> Why should I care if it's cultish?

You don't understand how cults are anti-knowledge?

Anonymous at 11:43 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4080
> Because at this point I'm not entirely clear what your positions are.

At the moment I am trying to show that there exists a mental illness that has testable symptoms. That is all.

Anonymous at 11:45 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4081
>> Why should I care if it's cultish?
>
> You don't understand how cults are anti-knowledge?

How are they anti-knowledge?

In what way is FI like a cult or anti-knowledge?

Leo at 11:52 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4082
> I explained why I used the term.

As usual, in a weird and warped definition of the term. This seems to be your get-out for everything.

Anonymous at 11:52 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4083
> How are they anti-knowledge?

http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html

Anonymous at 11:53 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4084
>> You can't have as a goal to you with people and truth-seeking, these are opposite things.

I was wrong to not explain myself.

> I can toy with someone whilst seeking the truth. These are not conceptual opposites.

They are opposites. Toying with people is being second-handed, win-lose, oriented towards others, their reactions, depending on others.

Truth seeking is about all about creating knowledge for yourself so you can improve your life. When knowledge is created nobody is beaten, everyone ends happier.

Leo at 11:56 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4085
>> How are they anti-knowledge?
>
> http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html

You can't summarize or explain how it applies to FI?

Leo at 11:57 AM on October 9, 2015 | #4086
> You can't summarize or explain how it applies to FI?

You can't read and think for yourself? I thought that was what FI was all about.

Anonymous at 12:01 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4087
>> You can't summarize or explain how it applies to FI?
>
> You can't read and think for yourself? I thought that was what FI was all about.

You made an accusation, the burden is on your to explained how the accusations applies to FI. I've read that page before, people used to link it in relation to TCS. I don't see how it applies to FI.

Why do you have different standards for yourself and others? You seem to think it's good to think for yourself but you don't do it. You're yet to read about TCS and FI carefully.

Leo at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4088
> Because you're fun to tie in knots and to show your philosophy to be based on ridiculous foundations.

The idea of foundations of knowledge is itself ridiculous. Learn some philosophy.

Anonymous at 12:50 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4091
aww, transgender non-oxford human animal went away.

Leo at 2:02 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4092
Rami, do you think you were effective in this discussion?

Anonymous at 3:27 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4094
Let me know when you can diagnose paranoid schizophrenia during an autopsy.

Anonymous at 3:35 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4095
ASD shaming is mean

Anonymous at 3:42 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4096
> Wait, why is Oxford boy more interesting than my drawings? He's getting a lot of attention. I resent that.

lol. a lot of that attention is from you...

Anonymous at 4:22 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4097
> Elliot is really good, he's the less corrupted person I ever met. You really should humble a bit and learn all you can from him.

Anonymous at 4:22 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4098
> You don't know my gender or where I'm from. You're wrong on both counts.

Is it OK if I guess those things, or would you be upset about being outed?

Anonymous at 4:27 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4099
> lol. i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.
>
> it was later i slowly gave it up, because i was angry with tcs ppl.

later

> I'm very low rank in FI. You shouldn't group me with the others, I think. And assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.
>
> I think it's bad if you take what I say as representative of TCS or FI.

How did you TCS your baby and toddler without knowing enough about TCS to speak as a representative of it?

Anonymous at 4:36 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4100
>And [dont't] assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.

if u know there are *others* more advanced than u, then y do u think that u could fight Lulie for the #2 spot? if u managed to eliminate her, it would just go to someone else

Anonymous at 4:53 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4101
> lol. i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.
>
> it was later i slowly gave it up, because i was angry with tcs ppl.

Why did you get angry?

> I'm very low rank in FI. You shouldn't group me with the others, I think. And assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.
>
> I think it's bad if you take what I say as representative of TCS or FI.

You have flashes of brilliant insight though you are a bit fucked up also. I like you're not at all pretentious. Keep posting.

Oh, you really should correct Elliot on his misinterpretation of your comment where he thought you were initiating force. I read it as you saying Anon would regret wasting time on you. He seems to have ignored my comment on this.

Anonymous at 5:32 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4102
> He seems to have ignored my comment on this.

Elliot ignores everything he doesn't have an immediate answer to. He's a bad philosopher because of this.

Anonymous at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4103
>You have flashes of brilliant insight

What are some examples of brilliant insight Leo has had?

Anonymous at 5:36 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4104
I noticed.

curi at 5:48 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4106
>I noticed.

You noticed what?

Anonymous at 6:09 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4107
> What are some examples of brilliant insight Leo has had?

I also didn't provide examples of why she's fucked up but you didn't ask about that. Why not? Do you doubt one but not the other?

Anonymous at 6:41 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4108
>> What are some examples of brilliant insight Leo has had?

> I also didn't provide examples of why she's fucked up but you didn't ask about that. Why not? Do you doubt one but not the other?

I already know examples of how she is fucked up.

Anonymous at 6:53 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4109
but u kno of no examples of how she can be good too?

Anonymous at 11:12 PM on October 9, 2015 | #4112
btw, look how effective Leo is in this thread. she's got punch and spark. she writes insightful stuff like this:

> the term transphobia assumes that any opinion contrary to what current trans culture wants to impose as the truth is to be rejected as not even an opinion.

> what i personally don't like about the gay and trans scene is the "born this way" idea. and trans now being a medical diagnosis.

> i'd like to see people assuming it as a choice, because it is a choice. hey, got bored of being a man, i want to know what being a woman is like.

Anonymous at 1:03 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4113
Nice analogy that shows the flash of brilliance I was talking about:

> There's no reason for optimism if you let yourself become grey by
letting grey in.

> Imagine you have white paint and a little black drops in it. If you
don't remove the black straight away and allow it to mix with the
white, the white will be tainted forever. Adding more white to paint
that was tainted by black won't ever make the paint as white as it was
before. Removing the black straight away is possible but it's
difficult and can cause the paint to mix. And you can't remove black
safely from white paint without taking some white paint away. It will
cause permanent damage. To fix the damage you need to add pure white.
And this is where you are at danger if you forgive whites that seem
"white enough" in you. And you are content that you are not pure
black.

Anonymous at 1:10 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4114
> Rami, do you think you were effective in this discussion?

A tiny bit. I think I was able to create some agreement between anon and I. That helps create jumping off points to deal with our disagreements better.

many of those agreements revealed that our positions deviate from each other even more than I originally expected. this is effective.

I'm open to criticism about what I could have done better.

Rami at 5:50 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4118
>> Wait, why is Oxford boy more interesting than my drawings? He's getting a lot of attention. I resent that.
>
> lol. a lot of that attention is from you...

lol. you got me there. and i could have been drawing but i'm stuck in a couple problems.

>> I think it's bad if you take what I say as representative of TCS or FI.
>
> How did you TCS your baby and toddler without knowing enough about TCS to speak as a representative of it?

'cause i stopped being tcs. i was away for ages. i was intentionally not being tcs. i got involved in other stuff.

>>And [dont't] assume what I say is what Elliot would say or what others more advanced would say.
>
>if u know there are *others* more advanced than u, then y do u think that u could fight Lulie for the #2 spot? if u managed to eliminate her, it would just go to someone else

as long as it's not lulie having #2 it's fine.

>> lol. i raised my son TCS as a baby. and as a toddler.
>>
>> it was later i slowly gave it up, because i was angry with tcs ppl.
>
> Why did you get angry?

bad shit that happened.

>> What are some examples of brilliant insight Leo has had?
>
> I also didn't provide examples of why she's fucked up but you didn't ask about that. Why not? Do you doubt one but not the other?

lol.

maybe because he can see the fucked up but hasn't seen anything impressive.

> she's got punch and spark.

^_^
oh, a compliment. someone likes me on the internet.

wait, why are you tempting my bad second-handed side with your compliments?

Leo at 6:29 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4119

To Leo

Are you assuming that anon is intentionally tempting you?

Rami at 7:14 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4121
Oh, I saw "To Leo" and thought it was going to be a love declaration. Damn. lol.

> Are you assuming that anon is intentionally tempting you?

No. I was saying that in jest. Even if he is not intentionally tempting me, maybe it's good for him to know that complimenting people is appeasing their second-handedness.

But I said that mostly because I liked the compliment but then became aware it's bad to like compliments.

Leo at 7:18 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4122
a compliment can be useful as a way to know that you're on the right track.

Rami at 3:41 PM on October 10, 2015 | #4125

Leo

This is a bit tricky coz I kinda want to compliment you on ur response xD

Anonymous at 10:28 PM on October 10, 2015 | #4128
What's compliment worthy about my response?

Leo at 2:23 AM on October 11, 2015 | #4132
You were honest in your reaction but also made the very good point that complimenting a person is appeasing their second handedness. That is true of course only if the person is second-handed. If it is intended as an acknowledgement of the good for being good then I don't see a problem. Also compliments are criticism.

Anonymous at 3:01 AM on October 12, 2015 | #4138
So DD was status oriented and wanted ppl to appease his second-handedness. Elliot wouldn't do that and they felll out - though I don't really know the story.

Anonymous at 3:34 AM on October 12, 2015 | #4140
Elliot has given a brief account of some of the sorts of things about which he and DD disagree:

http://www.curi.us/1567-i-changed-my-mind-about-david-deutsch.

Anonymous at 3:42 AM on October 12, 2015 | #4141
So you wrote all that abt DD and u got no comments apart from 4 negs? The agree-ers don't wanna say anything? There must b many agree-ers right coz otherwise u would hv got a lot more comments defending him.

> I believe I have communicated that David has the utmost intellectual integrity and responsibility. He does not. I thought he did; I was surprised when he acted otherwise; I've changed my mind.

How did he act otherwise?

Anonymous at 11:54 AM on October 12, 2015 | #4143

Elliot:

> For non-physical, I don't really know what Coulter is talking about. Is she saying that in addition to locking people up who are potentially dangerous in the sense of physical violence, we should also lock up people we're concerned are mentally ill enough to commit wire fraud? I disagree.

You're talking about "mentally ill" as if it's real. Why are you compromising on that? I'm sure there's a way you could get your point across without implying you agree with something you don't.

Anonymous at 1:01 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4148

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)