Time to get real

Post Reply New Topic

I am very glad to hear it, if you can qualify we *NEED* more sane and realistic people in the professions SO badly.

Well not really. Deciding that Richard Branson doesn't need professional psychological help is not actually wrong at all. I am saying people who could very well be fine are being told they need help and so they get in to a mental state where they need help. Talking abotu a self-fulfilling prophecy can't be compared to paedophilia.

No it isn't. I don't think any person I know who has medication has encountered any such phenomenon at all.

What?

That's what I was saying...


So I guess not trying is better than trying to fix something. This reminds me of the buddhist story about the men debating whether they should pull out an arrow when if it stayed in him it would certainly kill him. :/ Not a good example Zeraeph. Also I don't understand how that relates to doesn't need help versus does need help.

You are completely focussed on your ideas. The fact is that I don't need help anything. It isn't just a case of very questionable groups forcing their quack medicines on us, but for me it's also a case of I don't need any medicine for being what I am ever


As I already said the fear of people making bad decisions shouldn't be a way of stopping people from establishing a difference between who actually needs help and who doesn't.


Which is my whole point.

I am not trying to turn us in to little NTs Zeraeph. But the fact is that one can be able to do anything an NT does in our own social environment, which I think is something you find hard to consider and probably why you 'saw' us talking about social darwinianism when actually we were saying that people who can't help themselves should recieve help.


Did any one just notice the sex divide in this argument?

Medication would only represent a tiny proportion of the "help" in question...which includes therapy, care workers, residential services, vocational services, social services etc

As for the rest which do you prefer Pollyane or Pollyannibal...as the male form of Pollyanna...



Honey, you obviously read something between the lines that was not actually put there by me, and the specifics of which are probably best kept between you and your gods.



As I already tried to tell you...





No, you just want to force us all into a group hug that most of us could not tolerate let alone benefit from because that is what *YOU* want...



Girls are right...guys are wrong...so what else is new?

Well even if I don't get into the profession, I will still have that base of knowledge...somehow I do not think it is what those powerful people on top want...they don't want educated, intelligent people in the professions that matter they want people who will do as they are told and they don't want educated, intelligent people outside of the professions either and will do anything them to make them look as uncredible as possible. For instance just some intrestings ways of thinking I have seen.
They do drugs, so they are addicts and crimminals!
Those people on welfare...always stealing my money.
That kids a little different...she/he NEEDs to be drugged immeaditly before he/she learns something
We're just mean to you when the popular kids are around because we don't want to get picked on to, not to be mean or anything...(had to throw a little bit of public school drama in here).
How are humans going to get anywhere behaving and thinking like this...to many absolutes when usually a compromise is nessisary.

It is possible to do drugs without being an addict or criminal, people do it every day...caffine, alcohol, that asprin for a headache, Nyquil to sleep if you have a cold or whatever, benydryl for those allergy symptoms. So why if someone smokes a bowl after work to relax a little for instance he or she is suddenly an addict and a criminal?

So why is the government so strongly opposed to legaling just cannabis for instance? its proven to be much less harmful than ciggerettes and alcohol.....its one of the easiest drugs to aqquire(its just a damn plant.) so it is very possible to get it from people who are not associated with any evil drug lords in mexico or whatever...and the last thing you want to do is go out and cause hell while under its influence. Basically to simplify why can someone have a beer but its illegal to sit back and smoke a joint?

Just that issue alone shows quite a bit about some of the ignorance, exagerrations and lack of using critical thinking going on. I don't want to get too far off topic because there is so much more I could say about various issues within society..that I have an issue with but that would take hours and I have to go to class.

If I got into my issues with society, heaven alone knows when I would finish.

Better to start with what I do not have an issue with:

Cannabis...legalisation, or not...

BUT...

That is only *BECAUSE* I, subjectively, do not like the stuff, it doesn't have a good effect on me (drowsiness and flatulance) and even the smell has unpleasant connotations.

How many other people never consider the rights, wrongs and justices of other issues for just that reason, because they do not like them, and are never likely to be affected by them *WITHOUT* ever recognising that *IS* their entire point of view and that right/wrong, just/unjust, good/bad have never been in the frame for them?

Little musical interlude JUST to be fair on the subject, and a fair parable on a few others
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGCbgpIf3E[/youtube]

Well thankfully I know that this isn't the case where I am. It is still common fact that people get the therapy they require where I am and in the UK generally. It isn't perfect but it is most certainly better characterized as based on need and not on money, with some exceptions.


Is this supposed to be sexist? Pollyannibal, Hannibal Lecter?



No, I said 'what' because what you said makes no sense. You're suggesting I made a wrong step... when I didn't. You were being presumptuous. Don't. Also, is there a need for patronising remarks about me? No. Don't

That's what I was saying...[/quote]

As I already tried to tell you...[/quote]

No you didn't. You called me a social darwinian for saying there is a difference between people who can't and people who wont, despite the fact that by defining a difference I am suggesting anything but social darwinianism.




Yet the fact is that I don't actually do that at all. I have already said people need help with their problems and have already said if someone doesn't want my help then they don't need to get it. The problem you have is that I am pointing out what autism is and what is isn't.
A lot of people don't actually believe the official diagnostic systems namely because they describe symptoms of us being raised by your standard 'NTs' and furthermore they say that because someone has 'autism' then everything wrong with them must be autism. Also aspergers and autism are somewhat of a fad diagnoses. Nearly everything about what autism is, is in dispute. It even says that on TIME magazine articles. For all those diagnostics to have made such a terrible system it is clear their perspectives are shot, their judgement wrong and their accuracy debatable.

The unclearness about the subject is why such harmful groups who want to change us to be like them exist, parasitizing on the paranoia and debateable status of everything. Furthermore, I have a damned thread up saying that I don't like the word autism!

Also is it possible that I want something because it is best for a large number of people and not based on fallacious arguments? I would follow any idea if it made sense and I chose this one because it didn't have holes in it. It is clear that you have tried to prove my argument wrong but the last time you did that you said that everything you couldn't 'fix' was autism. And if you look in the first paragraph that's pretty much one of the big problems about how people are peceiving it and mucking it up. Furthermore you tried to say that the DSM-IV said that people with autism are somehow exhausted by close social contact when you gave it as an example of your problems, when actually it said that autistics lack the ability to make social contact. So you are the pot calling the kettle black when you say that I am out of my bounds trying to say what autism is.

Your patronizing sexism isn't necessary, helpful or relevant. I make a harmless comment about me and Gallow being boys and you and Sweet being girls and you go say that. You have no self-restraint.

Very funny, do you know any more like that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... disability
http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk/node/37
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2011/05 ... -cripples/
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigation ... -atos.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... sts-flawed

Want more?

Just ask...the disparity between what you believe and what is actually happening is, on this point, far too wide for anything you say to be valid until it is corrected.


No, they are just the best I can do for a male form of Pollyanna.

Anna (f) is dervived from Hannah meaning "grace"

Ane (m) anglo saxon meaning "grace"
Anibal (m) spanish/portuguese meaning "grace of god"

But if you would rather go tranny just say?



(Musta touched a nerve there? )



I certainly did *NOT* say that...but, on the other hand, if the cap fits, wear it by all means.




You mean this harmless comment?


NICE TRY

The first one was about improper conduct. That doesn't effect an argument about need versus money considerations.
The second one was about atos again, not need versus money. In fact all of them are about atos! Amazing. I kust realized that all that you were showing was about corruption not need versus money consideration


That's why I asked whether it was. There's no need to make another pointless and snide jibe, although it is troubling to know you have something against hermaphrodites or intersexuals and crossdressers. I guess you're not a fan of Eddie Izzard and like to use an absolutely natural fact of life as a butt of a joke. That's shameful.
Also, maybe you should make jokes where the first thing that comes to mind isn't a serial killer rather than name etymologies.


I can't believe it. You are trying to make up stuff about how I feel again. I tell you not to act presumtuously and you somehow say that I am angry. What are you talking about?


Yes you did, and why suggest that it somehow actually fits when it doesn't? I don't think non-sequiturs are actually going to fool anyone. Maybe you should wear the cap yourself. It fits you just as well as it fits me, as in not at all.

Yes, because making a comment that one side of the argument is all-male and one side of the argument is all-female isn't actually sexism. If I say what was actually true then you can't say the truth is offensive, and no one would do it unless you like to avoid the truth at all costs in order to to fulfill a comfortable, safe delusion. It was a humourous observation if anything. Then you made a crass remark about boys being wrong and girls being right. :/ Fantastic

Atos Origin is the company the UK government are pay rather handsomely to decide "need" based on financial incentives to Atos for reducing claimants regardless of actual need.

Real people are already dying because of it, let alone the hundreds of thousands suffering intolerable distress. I am not a very good sport when the more fortunate try to pretend that isn't happening to score points.

I don't doubt that atos is riven with all sorts of dark issues, but the problem is that atos isn't the UK healthcare system so saying that just because atos are monstrous skimming as*holes doesn't mean the UK healthcare is all about teh monies. Otherwise, why would this news kick up such a fuss?

Also this isn't about atos or anything about corruption, this was about the fact that healthcare tends to think about who needs treatment first. Even in profit-driven enterprises where more patients means more moolah hypochondriacs are looked upon with disdain.

You will never know how relieved I am that you said that...

...but...

The boom is swinging in the UK health system overall, towards all provisions being similarly orientated to Atos origin...

Social service provision has been a such a corrupt and dysfunctional leviathan for so long that it would actually be impossible to attribute the motivation of decisions within it to anything as simple and rational as "need" or "money", nor as empirical as social Darwinism...though there is an appalling coerced adoption agenda that prioritises and incentivises the forced adoption of healthy infants from disabled and disadvantages parents "over" genuinely abused or neglected children since 2002 that would seem to be part of the same overal pattern as Atos origin in a tangental way.

I don't even like thinking about it all.

Exactly I don't really care what people think about it...I just don't see why some peoples dislike would be a good reason for it to be illegal. I mean I don't like to breath exaust from cars when I am going to the college but I certianly do not expect them to make cars illegal.

Of course I know that. That's because the british establishment really believes private sector involvement will revolutionize the NHS. Of course that doesn't mean they are right at all. It means they are thick and idealistic, thinking just pumping in the private sector will solve anything when that isn't how it should work It doesn't diminish the fact that the ideal of treatment for whoever needs it is why the NHS was created and why it still exists. They suck efficiency-wise, but that doesn't change the ideal, which was what you were disputing..


Well not really in the first case. For those with autism it's actually a lot better than in the states, where people screen children for autism. In the UK it's the parents or the individuals who go forward. There's this indelible issue of children in the states being over-proscribed aspergers, which is why people call it the new season's ADHD. Furthermore in the USA there is a tendency for people to use anti-depressants to solve everything.
Also No, it is about need. Just because people are far from perfect it doesn't change the ideal, which is still best characterized as need. Also I don't need to remind you that atos isn't the NHS again. And that atos' corruption scandal pretty much proves my point, that the rest of the would stamp on atos' balls given a politically convenient reason and that need is a big consideration.

I also would like to remind you that social darwinianism is something you have failed to ascribe to me so maybe you should stop mentioning it. Saying that people need treatment for something and therefore should get it is the opposite of eugenics. Saying that some people don't need treatment at all and they are living in a psychological trap isn't eugenics or social darwinianism.

Anyways, not solving the issues of people who would otherwise be hurt, unhealthy or diseased is weakness. Making people healthier is a strength. If it weren't for insulin shots Johnny Cash probably wouldn't have been able become a musician, or Mick Fleetwood, or James Brown or Bo Diddley or Syd f*****g Barrett (too bad they couldn't then solve the problems caused by his drugs). No amount of working islets of langerhans determines who is going to be a good singer and most sane people know this.

"Idealistic" wouldn't be my choice of words..."monsterous" seems a lot closer in context.



I was not disputing that at all because whatever *you* were talking about, I was talking about Social Darwinism in terms of overall provision for disability and disadvantage...which is actually very little to do with the NHS at all. It is mainly about Welfare, Educational and Social Service provision.

Though the fact that, in the UK, regardless of physical disability or need, the only way to get a powered wheelchair is if you can afford to buy and maintain it yourself does not auger well for health provision based on need rather than money either - regardless of the original intention with which it was set up.



Er..what the feck has Social Service Provision got to do with screening for Autism in kids? That is Department of Education...and if you are going to suggest that they are in any way motivated by need over money you had better make darn sure you are totally unidentifiable to any low flying, British mothers who might be unable to resist the urge to lynch you. Because in the real Britain people are having to spent years getting essential interventions and accommodations from school for children who are more likely to be excluded than educated for all that time, simply because they are too autistic to be able to fit into a normal classroom however long you leave them there.

Social Service provision only affects autistic children in care and adults in residential care, which is a licence to print money for the private service providers, and tends to be over provided for profit rather than withheld for Social Darwinism.

As for the NHS, most NHS trusts cannot even provide diagnosis/assessments for Autism in Adults, let alone offer any specific counselling, therapy or treatment...because of costs. So that how the NHS treats an Autistic Adult is what they call a "postcode lottery" where the quality of care and service provision depends on where you live, with wealthy areas in the south being far better provided for.

...and, incidentally, they have been working on the principle that anti depressants solve everything in the UK since the 60s



I only wish that were true but it isn't. The vast majority of British people (including those working within the NHS) are too busy reassuring themselves that there is nothing essentially wrong with Atos and any similar screening, it does more good than harm, and nobody really gets hurt just a wake up call to realise they are not disabled...and disability scroungers are bleeding the country dry...

They do not believe this because they are idiots but because they have been spoon fed propaganda that plays into their own pre-existing susceptibilities.



Y'know, I have begun to wonder if you might have it in you to be something of a control freak...you'd want to watch that...but for now, you do not actually get to tell me what to think and say...as in "ever".

The trouble is that while you obviously do not actually believe in Social Darwinism at all, you are so absent understanding of what is going on in the society you live in that you are effectively, supporting aspects of it anyway, pretty much unbeknownst to yourself.

That *IS* the kind of blindness that makes it easy to get away with ploughing people's lives under en mass.

Last edited by Zeraeph on 26 Aug 2011, 4:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

People are far too willing to project their own likes and dislikes on to morality and justice.

No, really they are just thick. People think they can throw the free market at anything to make it better. There are people in atos that are monstrous, but I doubt free-marketeers around the whole UK are all monstrous and evil. That would be quite a lot of people.



I don't know where social darwinism comes in to how healthcare is provided when I already showed how it wasn't, and how you can just claim the NHS can't be involved in a section of British healthcare when it has a f*****g monopoly.
Also nice try just saying that I wasn't talking about what you were saying, but you were disputing need versus money and interestingly enough you actually do dispute need over money in the quote below.


An auger's a type of drill. It's augur.
Also *facepalm*

So yeah...


Well since you first started by saying that telling between who needs treatment and who doesn't need treatment is somehow social darwinianism I think you have no excuse for saying that what I just said came out of nowhere. Also, since when has social service provision not got anything to do with screening? If you know who and who does not have a certain problem then you know who and who not to provide with social services. :/


*facepalms again*
I doubt British mothers would want to lynch me about the Department of Education, because for starters we don't have a Department of Education, it's the Ministry of Education. And if you can't even get the name right I doubt you know anything about what british mothers think of it. Second I doubt many British mothers would prefer to convince me of how I am wrong rather than go on a needless ranting violent attack, an attitude for which I am thankful because British Mothers tend to not be violent schizoids.

Well I don't know what school environment you are talking about because most of those 'autistic' students are doing fine educationally in my experience, very recent consistent experience. Also I doubt many people actually know how to help us given how people say one thing and then sixty different things and say it somehow means the same thing..


Why do you keep talking about social darwinisim when what I said believed anything but social darwinism? Also I didn't understand the end bit. 'over provided for profit' is where I lost you. Also can you prove all the the private groups are bad before saying they all just want money or something?


I'll highlight the phrase I want you to read.

Also, don't worry, I think atos are jerks and will join anyone angry about atos. Furthermore I think people just don't care about us that much,w hich is why no one is agitating enough.



I have no idea what pre-existing suceptibilities are, but I guess you mean preconceptions to which they are susceptible. Also I don't know how this affects the ideals issue I brought up.


Calling me a control freak for saying that people should be treated according to their need is hysterical. Also I didn't tell you what to think and say. I told you what you were saying was wrong, and because you can't admit to that you keep saying things that are wrong. Otherwise why would I have said maybe?


Because I know nothing I am supporting evil, also I know nothing. Whilst your tautologies are eloquently loquacious, using winding sentences that just say what you feel whilst proving nothing of the sort doesn't only make your sentence soud ironic, it makes you sound obsessive about being right.
So basically you decided to stop accusing me of being a social darwinian. That's a relief.