Yup, that's just humanity. The question is, do you get back up after your collapse? You must, regardless of whether you THINK you can or not. I want to congratulate you on surviving, but I don't know if I can do so when you espouse what you do. I want to say "good job because you're really trying." but I don't know that you are, in fact it seems the opposite, that you're still just obsessed with blaming people for the stuff that only YOU can deal with. I know that sounds harsh to you, and I want to see it some other way really cuz I don't like thinking poorly of people who've been through the shit you have. I simply can't though, as it seems to me you haven't taken your life back and continue to play your role as a victim, finding abuse and horror at every turn. Again, as I've said a few times... I hope I'm wrong. I've called you a wimp because you seem to refuse to get back up. You've allowed them to damage you NOW, when the abuse is long past.... you blame the world for your problems instead of accepting that regardless of who imparted them upon you, you're the one stuck to deal with them. IMO, that's wimpy. It's nothing personal, but said somewhat more vindictively than I might have otherwise since you stated straight up I'm sub-human and directly insulted my beautiful, wonderful children and wife by saying I shouldn't breed, which just annoys the piss out of me in what it represents of an attitude. I heard something earlier today that I'm trying to remember but can't help but slaughter. I wish I remembered the exact phrasing. It was so pertinent. Something like "as long as you see monsters instead of people, you'll never understand blah blah". Damnit. It was said so perfectly. I can't remember it. Grr. Basically it's what I said before, as long as you continue to marginalize people by thinking of them as sub-human, you continue to damage your own humanity. Something like that. Bah. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it if I couldn't get it right.
Did I or did I not tell you, Wes, that they did the last bit of abuse this August? I see them as sub-human because their deeds make them that way. It is not biology or appearance, but deeds that make people monsters. I have known giant predator cats who were more human than a lot of humans I know. And when I don't like what comes out of your keyboard, Wes, and you've called me a wimp and whiney, live with the response you get. All I saw for the first few pages was verbal abuse. You REALLY need to work on your people skills. I don't take verbal abuse well. So sue me. Numerous studies have shown that abuse sticks with people and causes continuing problems. I don't know if you are unaware of this or just don't care. Can you address that with the mouth that you want to eat with? My subconscious was programmed hundreds of times by simple torture, much of it aimed at freezing thought so that I could not even think until someone ordered me to. Are you aware of the concept of subconscious programming? Are you capable of understanding that this isn't something that you can just wave away? Are you capable of understanding that it can take as long to reverse the programming as it did for it to get that way, and that the use of drugs distorts the functioning of the brain and actually makes this more difficult? I'm not sure that you can understand this because you seem to have jumped on the "he wont' do anything about it" bandwagon solely because of the fact that I have talked about it at all. If you were advanced enough to have a real contribution there are a lot of things that you would know that you don't seem to know and don't seem to think that you need to know. This is a lot like thinking that you can deal with electronics by understanding the functions of resistors and capacitors but not transistors. It's also a lot like thinking that you can get your computer to work better by hitting it with a hammer. Maybe right now the best thing to do is nothing. If a man is battering his head against a brick wall he feels better when he stops and he stops further damaging himself. There is also the fact that one definition of insanity is to continue to try to do a thing that doesn't work. You have to try a few times but I've tried many times. Beating my head against a wall isn't going to fix the problem I have now. It won't work better if you order me too, either.
Riverwind.........you are still seeming to call people those labels ADHD etc, when they are just empty label.....you suggest that in a 'democracy' that te other kids in a class--as you use as example--should be considered, more so tat theindividual being FALSEly lablled by a bogus science. well that idea is the politics of te whole oncept of 'mental hygene' that is whats going on aleady the word 'hygene' implies tat 'mental illness' is 'catching' so it must be drugged away. this is what social control means. and it serves..SERVES the existing oppressive State, asthe social controlling strategies of the Church did.....in yourlibrary see if you've got Thomas Szasz's The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement a MUST read when the indivudal HAS to conform to the State we are talking fascism, and communism. Both do that. In Soviet Russia, dissenters were classed menally ill! regarding genetics, read The Gene Illusion tis idea that genes cause 'un-normal' and sub-human behaviour is also fascist ideology. what i meant is that sy a woman is 'highly strung' 'nervy' etc...and child learns the behaviur via whatever means, ten WHO is calling that behaviour mentally ill?....who is claiming what accepted 'normality' is, ANDin what context? the middle class comfortable woman who can afford her drug free therapies which cost abomb, or the poor woman living in a run down council estate? etc...who? the middle --cum upper middle class shrink making a whack from pushin big pharma drugs...? i understand your problems. and you seem to feel the meds worked for you. i have no problem with adults who can CHOOSEto do so IF they choose to. what i am totally against is adults who aare misinformed--about whats being revealed here etc--and coerced, and cxhildren who have no rights whatsoever.....if having to looked into all tis thoroughly you still deie to take th pills,etc., that is your freedom to do so you speak of the correct 'chemcial balance' well what ISthat? THEY cannot tell us what A correct chemical balance is it alo has t be known tat the drugs they give claiming tey are not addictive isa lie, and that they are potentially toxic. Baughman has shown how kids can be harmed by that medication. it is really really wrong they stigmatize them, making them feel they have a bviological disease, they potentially poison their systems, and give the message that in order to be 'normal' they need drugs, whilst contradicting tis message wit teir war on drugs....!...also it has been shown that meds can make people more violent and suicidal. no wonder, it is disrupting natrual feelings, however deemed unacceptab;le by a mechanical oppressive system that attempts tp force all children etc into an accepted 'norm' thus keeping the very oppression going that greatly contributes to various forms and degrees of distress
You mentioned "recently" is all I remember. I question your judgement there, again nothing personal... but you're an adult now. Maybe the idea of being abused in the manner you state, as an adult, is so foreign to me that I simply discredit the notion from the get-go. Yeah pretty much. I don't get it, and have a hard time taking your word for it. As a kid, yeah I'll buy it. As an adult, I just don't know how to. I still think that you seeing them as monsters takes part of your humanity from you. They are people. People who probably suck. I don't get it. It doesn't sound like you're dealing with adults. That's simply not true, or your idea of what comprises a human is distorted. It's the classification for a species. "being human" says little of "decency" as you might conceive of it. I understand that from a perspective of for instance, having been tortured forever and conditioned to accept this or that, you might see people as "not people", or maybe it's just some metaphor for you, but one shouldn't exclude the "bad people" in society as other than human (IMO), as this is false and misrepresentative of what some people are obviously capable of. I'm making too much of semantics maybe. LOL. I'm still here talking to you aren't I? Could that in any way indicate that I can't live with it? It's a two way street man. I didn't come into the thread to attack you, you came in to attack me and anyone that agreed with me, espousing consipiracies to hide bullying, as if it's all a bloodbath, all of humanity killing each other - which is a distorted view of things from my perspective, which I explained earlier. Abuse? I simply can't relate to that term. You cannot verbally abuse me, even screaming in my face. That's just not the way I see it. You may ATTACK me, but that's not abuse, that's combat, and mental combat is bound to happen as values and experiences clash. It would be abuse if I wished to take advantage of you, a condition I would say is completely impossible in this medium. I don't know you, can't touch you, etc. Actually, except in children and captured audiences, I think the application of the notion of verbal abuse is simply innapplicable. Perhaps there are conditions I have considered, but certainly this, in this place... there's no means to abuse someone unless perhaps you stalk them or something and berate them constantly. In this case, I was here first... so you stalked ME and "verbally abused me". LOL. We're adults man, we have to be able to handle a little verbal hot sauce without trying to characterize it as something that it clearly isn't. As if you can be victimized by a conversation. You're free to leave? Did I try to stop you or ask you to? No, you're simply hypersensitive to the notion and find it wherever it suits you. My people skills are actually quite refined in general. This format is sometimes challenging in that regard, because the typical social cues etc. are lacking. I'm not particularly versed with dealing with the helpless though. I'm a part time cheap motivational speaker, living in a van... down by the river. You need to learn to identify the difference between abuse and annoyance/heated argument. In my mind, it's simply impossible for me to abuse you here, thus you come across and a whiner for calling what's going on here "abuse". You are not a victim here. You have the same chance to make a point that anyone else has. Meh. I'm aware of that, but I don't think it makes it better to let those people make excuses for a shit attitude. I understand to some extent that one's attitude must be shit for a while as they recover from their experience, but after 40 freakin years, I have a hard time seeing how any excuse can be valid. That you are uncomfortable with harsh language is your problem. I'm not here to accomodate you. I'm here seeking to further my understanding of lots of stuff. It's quite possible that something will be said to which I react with venom. If it's venom (regardless of the harshness of the language), I think venom is a fair exchange. Then reprogram yourself. Sure. Of course. First, how long it takes to reprogram is entirely dependent on factors regarding the individual. Secondly, yes I'd think drugs may indeed do as you say, but dependent upon the person, might be helpful. Which is really silly. That you mention it isn't a big deal. That you obsess over it and use it as leverage for sympathy, and then marginalize someone who doesn't buy into all that... and that you say "I'm not responsible for anything" and such, that stuff... that's why I think "you won't do anything about it at all"... oh, and that you blame others for losing your job, and that you basically blame everyone else for any problem you seem to have. That. All that. That's the reason. Advanced in what? Honestly man, given that you know how damaged you are, how can you presume to assess my "advancement" of anything? Really? Are you sure? You don't think my contribution is real? So you pretend I've said nothing? You frame it all as abuse so you can feel justified in ignoring it? How very, very convenient to the perpetuation of your inablity to deal with it. Are you getting this?
I understand where you are commming from but let me propose an all to frequent dilemma. A father and a mother heve been watching their 14 year old son beat his head against the wall repeatedly every waken hour for 6 months. The child gets up out of bed and proceeds to beat his head against the wall, every day leaving a bloody mess on the wall and on his head. The doctors have recomended intitutionalisation for the child but the parents have refused on the grounds of "injustice", the doctors have given the parents a bottle of pills suggesting that they try them as they may improve the childs condition, but alas they decline to use them on the grounds of "injustice." The child keeps beating his head against the wall and every one knows his life is not going to last. Then one day the parents decide to try the medication and with in two days the child is quiet and smiling for the first time, and even asking questions. The first question is: "Why did you take 14 years to find a way to help me?" The parents say, "we respected your right to suffer and considered it an injustice to force you to take medication with out your consent." "So what changed your mind?" the child asked. "We gave you the medication because with out it you would have died and we gave it to you hopefully to stop OUR suffering.[ the childs and the parents suffering]" Do you think the parents have a right to reduce their suffering by giving a desparate child medication with out the childs consent? If you had a child that was banging his head against the wall repeatedly would you not try to help that child in any way you could? Would euthanasia cross your mind as an option to think about? If the childs death is going to be the outcome would you not try a medication even if in vain? Is it justice to allow your child to bang his head on the wall if you hold the potential answer in your hand inside a little jar? Duendy, What would you do?
what would i do? If the child has no biological disease, then i would not want her on medication. I would want to UNDERSTAND then the behaviour. cause remember, it is not a biological disease. Ihave known of ypuths and adults doing such as you describe in prisons, as well as covering temselves and cell in shit we also know about how more and more childrewn are harmingthemselves through self-cutting........and drinking, taking hard drugs, etc etc all this is BEHAVIOUR. an expression of distress. so we need to learn WHY thisis so. tis may take US into areas we would usually want to deny, hide from...whatever, for a peaceful life. but if we love he child w will take bullying. a child is being bullied in school. what do we do. keep him in there? or see that it is the very institution that is rotten?..to DO tat manswe move out of the comfort zone of conformity. cause we propbably will face many obstacles, hassles from taking our child out of school so it is not easy, but we cannot allow tis mass druggingof our children under the pretence it is an established science when it is not. again. INFORM parents, the people about this. change tis fukin system. it is the system which greatly contributes to all forms of distress. and some 'loving'parents are unknowingly like JAILERS. having no insight into where their child is at
and I again I reply - "How do you know for sure"? If the addition of a *chemical agent* fixes the self-destructive behavior, then how is the behavior not a biological condition? If the behavior is leading towards death (in this example), then how is it not a disease? In the links I posted on page 10, your Dr. Fred Baughmann states that a condition must have a physical aspect to it for it to be called disease. If a the addition of a chemical to the system fixes the symptoms, then logically, there *must* be a biological component to the behavior, no? There are certainly better ways than drugs to deal with 90% of the ADD/ADHD diagnosed patients out there. Many of them have been given that label incorrectly, and many more can control the symptoms through non-chemical means (as I do now). However, that does not remove the possibility that there is a percentage of the diagnosed *who actually have a biological condition* which causes their behavior to be different from the common (and I submit that my self-study over 20 years suggests that I am in this group). Your arguments, and the arguments of Dr. Baughmann appear to be "some of the tests and test cases for ADD/ADHD may be faulty, therefore all of ADHD medicine is a sham". There is a major logical flaw here that we need to fix before I can be comfortable in saying that ADD is a fraud, and medication is merely poison. This I completely agree with. If we were to focus on the over-drugging, I would be completely on your side. Without a more formal biological diagnosis, medication is way too often prescribed by doctors these days.1 So many people are being given these drugs that consistent studies are nearly impossible - if we define ADHD patients as "those who are diagnosed and given medication", and then turn around and do studies on the effectiveness of ADHD drugs, we have a circular definition which ruins the accuracy and reliability of the studies. Who in the study really has ADHD? Who in the study does not, and is simply throwing off the results by being included? edit: 1for ADD/ADHD, and everything else. My favorite example of this is Brown Recluse spider bites. The spider's venom is a poison which causes the necrosis of the flesh around the bite. But the standard practice of most hospitals is to give antibiotics. It's not a bacterial infection, it's the injection of a protein; antibiotics do nothing but cost the bite victim time and money.
The trouble is, QQ, that head-banging is fairly rare, and acting out in class is fairly common. If you have kids who keep poking at a kid until the kid screams, they too are acting out. These latter actors are quieter, harder to catch, and the teacher is often indifferent or actively collaborating. I have been victim to attempts to correct my behavior by drugging when that behavior came about as a result of extreme stress. It doesn't take a lot of brains to know that the first thing to do is to remove the source of stress. With ADD and ADHD we have yet another "disease by definition." First we define a population then we settle on the characteristics of the disease later. With the "juvenile forms" we include anyone caught acting out in class and automatically exclude those actors who aren't caught or are sanctioned. We wind up diagnosing and treating people who are acting out because of things that other people did to them. The ones we diagnose and treat don't have the disease/disorder that we are treating. They used to punish me severely, with increasing severity, because my behavior was "intractable." As a child who was smaller than the others in my class, I had absolutely no hope of changing my behavior unless they drugged me insensible or removed me from their presence. This hurt me. It ruined my education. It disabled me mentally. They damaged my reputation and my relationship with my mother, making her a much more bitter and vicious person than she had been before. And in spite of the expert opinions that were rendered here, there is only so much that a person can heal at a time. I don't expect to heal in time. One thing that we have to watch for is that the teachers will treat the treated child differently, which will actually help sometimes. They get what they expect. The treated child may be seen to "fit in" better when his behavior hasn't changed at all, or the teacher may sometimes be able to stop others from picking on him so much. People will do a lot to get the results that they expect, so if you change the teacher's expectations, you change the results. This has been tested exhaustively and it should be up front in people's minds, not some dusty historical text.
And no, Wes, dealing with harsh language like yours is not my problem, it's your problem. You may want to eat with that mouth, or kiss your wife. I am getting back up again, but why in hell should that mean that I must also be forced to re-enter a workforce that keeps trying to kill me? I have done far more "trying" than should be required of anyone just to perform some simple tasks for an even simpler paycheck.
Uhm, I don't have a problem with it. You've been complaining about it. You said you had a problem with it, now you change your story. And you know that words have no effect on the capacity for either of the above. The "work force" has no intentions. It just is. Your lacking ability to see people as they are, and instead forcing them into the plot against you almost surely personally alienates you from most people you encounter in the work force. Thus, your percieved plot re-enforces itself automatically - because your perception makes it such that people react badly to you. That you react badly to their bad reaction (fueling even more paranoia on your part)simply escalates the cycle of badness. Pretty soon you find yourself basically ostracized. There is no such thing as a limit to trying. You may struggle your whole life simply to fail miserably. The trick is to make your struggling get you somewhere, which as long as you percieve the world as "trying to kill you", you cannot... because you're setting yourself up for failure. Thus I would recommend that the next time the thought occurs to you "that guy is out to get me" in any of its forms, you think "nah man, he's just trying to get along as he thinks getting along must be", even if it seems like what he's doing is at your expense. Oh, and you might ask yourself "what am I doing that he might percieve to be at his expense", like for instance, framing him into a plot he doesn't know he's in on.
tere is quite a bit wrong wit allopathi medicine and ethics too, but lets tryand keep it not ttoo complex. tis issue is complex enough
I seem to be the only one who knows that workable solutions to this problem have been created a long time ago, and they don't involve drugs. They do tend to produce classrooms of what we think of as geniuses, and this disturbs the status quo. The book Superlearning is a good place to start. I think that their methods help all but the most incorrigible. Had my education simply been geared toward creating competency in any given subject, I would have passed with flying colors. All it accomplished was to create unending battles, both in the classroom and in my head.
I think you may be right. We didn't evolve in cubicles. A psychologist can treat any set of behaviors that are unwanted.
We also didn't evolve sitting glued to our seats at rapt attention to some psychotic fool prattling on and on at the head of the class.
I hear that the best way to live with ADHD is to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ………
Note that I did not use the term disease. I specifically avoided it, because we are trying to come to an agreement as to the existence or non-existence of ADHD as a disease/disorder. If the behavior is due to a chemical imbalance (defined as a balance and/or amount of neurotransmitters in the brain that is statistically different than what is found in a majority of human beings tested), then there must be something physical which is causing the non-standard creation/retention rates of those neurotransmitters. If the addition of a chemical to the system corrects this rate of neurotransmitter creation/retention, then doesn't it suggest that there is a physical difference in the biology of the brain in question; one that allows for a chemical to alter the creation/retention rates such that it brings them in line with the average human of this species? Edit: diet could also be a reason for this result. So the two options which could be sources for any type of neurotransmitter imbalance are : 1)diet 2)physical difference in the cells responsible for the creation/retention of the neurotransmitters no, I mean the average brain structure/function based on the entire human species. "Norm" = your good Dr.'s baseline for identifying the physical differences which he uses in identifying illness. what I wrote and what you read appear to be two different things. Please see the bolded section of my text above; I avoided making a claim either way as to the existence of ADHD, and referred to the currently diagnosed population. Certainly you don't disagree that people exist who have been diagnosed w/ADHD, regardless of their actual state of health? none? at all? are you sure about that? I believe that the link posted a few pages back + fMRI studies + the cases where stimulants have a reverse effects on people labeled as ADHD than would be expected in the general population, all would disagree with you. While there are certainly problems in the current state of mental illness study and treatment, and the only recent look into the effects of diet by mainstream medicine is woefully late to the game, to claim that there is "no true science that says mental illness...exists" seems quite insulting to those who suffer through their apparently non-existent disorders. exactly. Thanks for the discussion, I feel like there is nothing more that I can add. Good luck.
