Topic on Talk:Psychiatry

From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia
Line 1: Line 1:
You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat reworded manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and comradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.  
You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat reworded manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and uncomradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.  


While I do certainly apologise if I may have samed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:
While I do certainly apologise if I may have seemed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:


''"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"''
''"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"''
Line 7: Line 7:
I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism".
I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism".


No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further interest in repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven.
No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further intention of repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven.
==Adressing your arguments==
==Adressing your arguments==
''"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"''
''"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"''


Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or 'Globalists", and such.
Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or "Globalists", and such.


You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truely cared at the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.  
You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truly cared about the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.  


This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.
This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.
Line 19: Line 19:
''"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"''
''"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"''


What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to being with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it.
What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to begin with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it.


''"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."''
''"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."''
Line 27: Line 27:
''"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."''
''"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."''


By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable.
By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* would have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable.


''"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner '''must''' understand science to apply it properly."''
''"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner '''must''' understand science to apply it properly."''