Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:30 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:33 pm You made up some ridiculous differentiation between 'using and mentioning' words that you didn't actually believe applied to what I was doing.

1. I didn't make it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80 ... istinction
2. I believe the distinction is exhaustive so you were doing one or the other. I had two hypotheses. You eliminated one.

Given your baseless accusation do you think I have presented enough to accuse you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance at this point?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:33 pm ...Well, you didn't need to be intellectually dishonest in order to extract the information that I believe what the vast majority of human beings believe - I would have just told you that mental disorders exist right off the bat, if you had simply asked...though you shouldn't need to do that. You could have just assumed that I think they exist

1. I wasn't intellectually dishonest.
2.1 I know that some human beings believe mental disorders exist.
2.2. I also know that some humans believe mental disorders don't exist.
3.1 I fall into category 2.2.
3.2 I don't know which category you fall into.
4. Because of the problem of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) I CHOSE not to assume anything.
5. Rather than committing a bandwagon fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) I decided to actually keep both options live. Till you categorized yourself.

What you seem to call "intellectual dishonesty" was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Is it truly so unfathomable to you that some people don't like to make assumptions? Are you really this intellectually lazy?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:33 pm Now you're definitely not talking to me like you and I have never talked, before.

There you go again. Jumping to conclusions. You aren't very good at validating your assumptions, are you? Slow learner maybe?

Whoever you think I am, I don't think I have ever interacted with you before. Whatever John did to you (or you did to him) sounds like it traumatized you. Maybe you two need to talk it out in private?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:04 am I would say the obvious hypocrisy of criticizing someone else for something you've done yourself is the point you should've have taken away from that.

If I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem, I probably would have brought up the clear insecurity you feel around other users suggesting that you possibly have an undiagnosed mental disorder. But I would never do that, obviously...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:59 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:29 am ...You know, you have an awful lot of posts for someone who only joined this website 3 days ago...Usually, when something like that happens on here, it's actually a user trying to circumvent a previous ban. Your demeanor also strikes me as one of familiarity with this forum.

Is that an ad-hominem now, or just you falling victim to abdictive (rather than deductive) reasoning?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:29 am I'm not the one who said that.

You are correct. Apologies.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:29 amWell no, I'm not even the one suggesting that john doe 7 has a mental disorder. I said that if I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem against him, I probably would have brought up his obvious insecurity over the general assumption by other people that he has one. Again, though, I would never bring up something like that.

I am not saying you suggested you did that. What I am suggesting is that you don't appear to recognise the use-mention distinction, and therefore the phrase "mental disorder" is a regular part of your vocabulary. See - I don't think mental disorders exist. At least - not in a way that can be empirically verified.

If it can’t be falsified - it isn’t science.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:39 pm Mental disorder is strictly a structuring of the human condition into a sociological framework by applying negative boundaries to the person where society effectively deems the person as deficient to the the construct and hence detrimental to the society itself. The problem occurs due to the particulate and relativistic nature of societies, as localized social groups existing of, through and composing further localized social groups, each society exists as a mental disorder relative to other societies when using "the mental disorder" as a boundary line to compose it.

Hence at the macro level, the premise of mental illness causes division through war, and societal strife and suffering at the individual level effectively leading to a disintegration of that said society through the divisive property of "labeling people".

In simpler terms the application of mental disorders to man is in itself a mental disorder that effectively negates itself in the long run.


That is not a bad post, I think I will make a thread out of it...lol.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:44 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:39 pm Mental disorder is strictly a structuring of the human condition into a sociological framework by applying negative boundaries to the person where society effectively deems the person as deficient to the the construct and hence detrimental to the society itself. The problem occurs due to the particulate and relativistic nature of societies, as localized social groups existing of, through and composing further localized social groups, each society exists as a mental disorder relative to other societies when using "the mental disorder" as a boundary line to compose it.

Hence at the macro level, the premise of mental illness causes division through war, and societal strife and suffering at the individual level effectively leading to a disintegration of that said society through the divisive property of "labeling people".

In simpler terms the application of mental disorders to man is in itself a mental disorder that effectively negates itself in the long run.


That is not a bad post, I think I will make a thread out of it...lol.

The problem I have with "mental disorders" is that they are unscientific. They are extreme confirmation bias and do not meet the falsifiability criterion for science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The key element of every scientific hypothesis is falsification. It MUST have some observation that disconfirms it absolutely and without a doubt! A Black Swan.

And so while a psychiatrist is busy checking all the boxes they need to label you "Bipolar". I simply ask. Suppose that somebody ticked all the "positive" boxes e.g they exhibit ALL the symptoms of "Bipolar Disorder". What is YOUR Black Swan to convince you that you are wrong and that there is some OTHER phenomenon at play here?

Psychiatrists don't have Black Swans! How do you even bring yourself to label somebody with the word "disorder" without first dismissing the non-zero probability that YOU have made a fatal methodical error?!?!? The methodology is junk and produces many false positives.

And it is completely irrational to me! Falsification (proving yourself wrong!) is cheap! All the information is RIGHT THERE! If you are absolutely wrong then you don't have to waste your time or mine. And yet they think they are doing "science".

Whenever I am mandated to pass such exams. I always game them. I tell them what THEY want to hear to give me a clean bill!
And if they knew that - they would tick the boxes for "psychopath".