|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 30 2017 06:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump will sign a package of stiff financial sanctions against Russia that passed Congress with overwhelming support, the White House said Friday. Moscow has already responded, ordering a reduction in the number of U.S. diplomats in Russia and closing the U.S. Embassy’s recreation retreat.
Trump’s willingness to support the measure is a remarkable acknowledgement that he has yet to sell his party on his hopes for forging a warmer relationship with Moscow. His vow to extend a hand of cooperation to Russian President Vladimir Putin has been met with resistance as skeptical lawmakers look to limit the president’s leeway to go easy on Moscow over its meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
by an overwhelming margin, 419-3. Both were veto-proof numbers.
The White House initially wavered on whether the president would sign the measure into law. But in a statement late Friday, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had “reviewed the final version and, based on its responsiveness to his negotiations, approves the bill and intends to sign it.”
Never in doubt was a cornerstone of the legislation that bars Trump from easing or waiving the additional penalties on Russia unless Congress agrees. The provisions were included to assuage concerns among lawmakers that the president’s push for better relations with Moscow might lead him to relax the penalties without first securing concessions from the Kremlin.
The legislation is aimed at punishing Moscow for interfering in the 2016 presidential election and for its military aggression in Ukraine and Syria, where the Kremlin has backed President Bashar Assad. It also imposes financial sanctions against Iran and North Korea.
Before Trump’s decision to sign the bill into law, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the bill’s passage was long overdue, a jab at Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress. McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has called Putin a murderer and a thug.
“Over the last eight months what price has Russia paid for attacking our elections?” McCain asked. “Very little.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Friday said it is ordering the U.S. Embassy in Russia to reduce the number of its diplomats by Sept. 1. Russia will also close down the embassy’s recreational retreat on the outskirts of Moscow as well as warehouse facilities.
Meanwhile, some European countries expressed concerns that the measures targeting Russia’s energy sector would harm its businesses involved in piping Russian natural gas. Germany’s foreign minister said his country wouldn’t accept the U.S. sanctions against Russia being applied to European companies.
A spokesman for the European Commission said Friday that European officials will be watching the U.S. effort closely, vowing to “remain vigilant.”
Trump had privately expressed frustration over Congress’ ability to limit or override the power of the president on national security matters, according to Trump administration officials and advisers. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.
But faced with heavy bipartisan support for the bill in the House and Senate, the president had little choice but to sign the bill into law. Trump’s communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, had suggested Thursday that Trump might veto the bill and “negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians.”
But Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said that would be a serious mistake and called Scaramucci’s remark an “off-handed comment.” If Trump rejected the bill, Corker said, Congress would overrule him.
“I cannot imagine anybody is seriously thinking about vetoing this bill,” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It’s not good for any president — and most governors don’t like to veto things that are going to be overridden. It shows a diminishment of their authority. I just don’t think that’s a good way to start off as president.”
Still, signing a bill that penalizes Russia’s election interference marks a significant shift for Trump. He’s repeatedly cast doubt on the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia sought to tip the election in his favor. And he’s blasted as a “witch hunt” investigations into the extent of Russia’s interference and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.
The 184-page bill seeks to hit Putin and the oligarchs close to him by targeting Russian corruption, human rights abusers, and crucial sectors of the Russian economy, including weapons sales and energy exports.
The bill underwent revisions to address concerns voiced by American oil and natural gas companies that sanctions specific to Russia’s energy sector could backfire on them to Moscow’s benefit. The bill raised the threshold for when U.S. firms would be prohibited from being part of energy projects that also included Russian businesses.
Lawmakers said they also made adjustments so the sanctions on Russia’s energy sector didn’t undercut the ability of U.S. allies in Europe to get access to oil and gas resources outside of Russia.
The North Korea sanctions are intended to thwart Pyongyang’s ambition for nuclear weapons by cutting off access to the cash the reclusive nation needs to follow through with its plans. The bill prohibits ships owned by North Korea or by countries that refuse to comply with U.N. resolutions against it from operating in American waters or docking at U.S. ports. Goods produced by North Korea’s forced labor would be prohibited from entering the United States, according to the bill.
The sanctions package imposes mandatory penalties on people involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program and anyone who does business with them. The measure would apply terrorism sanctions to the country’s Revolutionary Guards and enforce an arms embargo.
Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against the sanctions bill. Source
Do we know Sanders motivation to vote against the bill?
Edit, yes, we do:
I absolutely and strongly support the Russian sanctions. We have got to hold Putin accountable for trying to the wreck the elections, doing the same in other countries, etc, etc, I support the sanctions against North Korea.
What worries me every much is that we have a president who does not want us to have an even playing field in the Middle East. I think the tilt is very much towards the authoritarian Saudi government. I worry very much about a war with Iran, and that concerns me very much.
It is about the fact that we need to have a level playing field and be even-handed in the Middle East, not simply side with Saudi Arabia and always be against Iran. We need to bring these people together, and the United States can be an important power broker in that process.
Source (video)
I like this man. He should be president!
|
On July 30 2017 06:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
"social control by doctors and patients?" are you asserting that ADHD treatment is some kind of plot to produce obedient citizens?
of course the drug is a behaviour modifier, the behaviour is a proxy for a problem of chemical imbalance in the brain. This isn't some kind of sinister Illuminati plan to control the world, it's about alleviating symptoms of ADHD patients social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. My nephew takes ritalin (i think, would need to double check next time he's here). He was diagnosed with ADHD before he ever was even able to hold a tablet (4 years) or play a flashgame, so certain types of bullshitting really annoy the living shit out of me.
Four years old is early, but I'm not going to second guess a doctor. It's not unheard of.
|
On July 30 2017 06:49 Belisarius wrote:
This whole exchange takes the cake, I think.
The point where someone is running around denying things that are the consensus among pretty much every scientist wroking in a field is the point it's not worth bothering anymore.
You're still welcome to provide some actual papers to back up your assertions on ADHD. I'm confident there are no sources to back up your conspiracy theories about medicine as a whole.
The worst part is, it's so easy to read up on it because it's such a big issue. If you don't, or go the route of "CHEMTRAILS TURN FROGS GAY, VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM AND DOCTORS SELLING KIDS METH", you should simply be banned from a discussion.
Four years old is early, but I'm not going to second guess a doctor. It's not unheard of.
He might've been early five years old, my partner said "2-3 years ago", he's 7.
edit: and you can certainly tell that something is "wrong", if his medicine wears off. Again, not sure if it's ritalin (i recall hearing that, but wouldn't swear on it) - but you can tell the difference between him being a normal kid wanting to play soccer and being a demonic dickhead after it's worn off.
I do know though that it was long before he was allowed to use a tablet/smartphone.
|
On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
"social control by doctors and patients?" are you asserting that ADHD treatment is some kind of plot to produce obedient citizens?
of course the drug is a behaviour modifier, the behaviour is a proxy for a problem of chemical imbalance in the brain. This isn't some kind of sinister Illuminati plan to control the world, it's about alleviating symptoms of ADHD patients social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort.
wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do?
|
On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
"social control by doctors and patients?" are you asserting that ADHD treatment is some kind of plot to produce obedient citizens?
of course the drug is a behaviour modifier, the behaviour is a proxy for a problem of chemical imbalance in the brain. This isn't some kind of sinister Illuminati plan to control the world, it's about alleviating symptoms of ADHD patients social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do?
Where did ADHD come from in 1955?
I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it.
Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available?
Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents?
edit:
A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate?
|
On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
"social control by doctors and patients?" are you asserting that ADHD treatment is some kind of plot to produce obedient citizens?
of course the drug is a behaviour modifier, the behaviour is a proxy for a problem of chemical imbalance in the brain. This isn't some kind of sinister Illuminati plan to control the world, it's about alleviating symptoms of ADHD patients social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry"
what are these soccer mom like anti-technology rants, people had mental diseases before we had technology, we just weren't able to diagnose them. The most important reason why we treat more people is that we have more precise methods of evaluating behaviour and more widespread access to medical care
A few decades ago we'd simply written kids with abnormal behaviour off as undisciplined and hit them with the ruler or something. We've actually progressed in that area
|
On July 30 2017 06:49 Belisarius wrote:
This whole exchange takes the cake, I think.
The point where someone is running around denying things that are the consensus among pretty much every scientist wroking in a field is the point it's not worth bothering anymore.
You're still welcome to provide some actual papers to back up your assertions on ADHD. I'm confident there are no sources to back up your conspiracy theories about medicine as a whole. Outside antivax blogs, anyway.
i dont have any conspiracy theories so please elaborate
mobile.nytimes.com
www.google.com
those links arent proof of conspiracy theories that youve seemingy attributed to me but you are free to point to some sources that discuss the "natural" state of the brain chemistry and how adderall "restores" that state rather than acts as a behavior modification which disrupts and modifies brain chemistry itself
|
On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level
leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines
it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate?
i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted
|
On July 30 2017 07:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well.
Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate? i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted
Mhm. So where did it come from in 1902?
To be clear: here's your statement.
teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
Is it over diagnosed? Possibly. Is what you said ignErant as fuck? Without a shred of a doubt.
|
On July 30 2017 07:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
"social control by doctors and patients?" are you asserting that ADHD treatment is some kind of plot to produce obedient citizens?
of course the drug is a behaviour modifier, the behaviour is a proxy for a problem of chemical imbalance in the brain. This isn't some kind of sinister Illuminati plan to control the world, it's about alleviating symptoms of ADHD patients social control is of course only possible as a plot at the conspiracy level leashing my dog is a "plot" for human speciesist domination over canines it is a crude proxy and a crude ethics that asserts a "normal behavior" attained through amphetamines as "a normal. rain chemistry" You're not really getting around asserting a 'normal behaviour' either way. If you tolerate ADHD symptomatic you're still setting a norm. Of course when we treat the symptoms of somebody we usually do so with a goal in mind, we want to make that person function better within society. This is not necessarily bad for the person or even coercion or control, if the person in question wants that as well. Whether you do this through a pill, which is fairly direct, or through some other form of therapy is essentially just a question of what interface you use. Again, going with the cheapest and most effective one I wouldn't consider ethically problematic. yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . . and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society" This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" what are these soccer mom like anti-technology rants, people had mental diseases before we had technology, we just weren't able to diagnose them. The most important reason why we treat more people is that we have more precise methods of evaluating behaviour and more widespread access to medical care A few decades ago we'd simply written kids with abnormal behaviour off as undisciplined and hit them with the ruler or something. We've actually progressed in that area
if you recall i was originally the one advocating for adults' ability to modify their own bodies (and their own brain chemistry). insofar as i am "ranting" against "science" i am against using a jackhammer on the elaborate machinery of children's brains for little reason other than that they are performing poorly in school and are unruly compared to other properly disciplined kids.
|
On July 30 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:09 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
yeah im sure kids and teens are totally rational consenting agents . . .
and what is this fascist logic?: "tolerance of socially aberrant behavior is just a norm too. we might as well enforce sameness for the good of society"
This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs. and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate? i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted Mhm. So where did it come from in 1902? To be clear: here's your statement. Show nested quote +teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
Is it over diagnosed? Possibly. Is what you said ignErant as fuck? Without a shred of a doubt.
nah dude its indisputable that screens are linked to rising diagnoses of adhd either as a diagnostic themselves or as feedback loop. im looking at the bigger picture not passing judgment on some 3 year old you know
|
Where kids can be classified and sorted....rise of women in the work force moving kids from the home to surveillance areas....my god man. This is some soccer mom, "I read that bananas cause agression info young boys" level nonsense.
|
On July 30 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 07:09 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:02 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
This Foucauldian nonsense of thinking every person with a mental illness is some kind of free spirit locked up by evil society is so annoying. Treating people who cannot read two paragraphs of text because their attention span is impaired isn't fascism any more than treating obesity is because you can't get up the stairs.
and what is their attention impaired by? teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate? i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted Mhm. So where did it come from in 1902? To be clear: here's your statement. teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
Is it over diagnosed? Possibly. Is what you said ignErant as fuck? Without a shred of a doubt. nah dude its indisputable that screens are linked to rising diagnoses of adhd either as a diagnostic themselves or as feedback loop. im looking at the bigger picture not passing judgment on some 3 year old you know
No, you're not looking at the bigger picture. You're looking at a mental disorder, like an actual mental disorder not some made up bullshit, and argue that kids nowadays certainly don't have it because flash games.
In regards to indisputable, here's a tidbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#Criticism
So it's very, VERY much disputable what you quoted, but i guess that doesn't fit your narrative.
edit: Allen Frances, M.D., was the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, that's the guy you're quoting. The work they did is far from indisputable. You don't get to pick a single scientist and say "it's indisputable what he's saying" if a considerable amount of other scientists points out that it's bullshit.
|
On July 30 2017 07:15 Plansix wrote:
Where kids can be classified and sorted....rise of women in the work force moving kids from the home to surveillance areas....my god man. This is some soccer mom, "I read that bananas cause agression info young boys" level nonsense.
nah not really. i dont deny that the sorting is possible. i just deny the objectivity of it and the naturalization of desired behaviors along with the branding of undesirable behaviors as strictly deviant and unnatural.
|
On July 30 2017 07:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 07:09 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:22 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
and what is their attention impaired by?
teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
to "restore normal brain chemistry" There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate? i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted Mhm. So where did it come from in 1902? To be clear: here's your statement. teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
Is it over diagnosed? Possibly. Is what you said ignErant as fuck? Without a shred of a doubt. nah dude its indisputable that screens are linked to rising diagnoses of adhd either as a diagnostic themselves or as feedback loop. im looking at the bigger picture not passing judgment on some 3 year old you know No, you're not looking at the bigger picture. You're looking at a mental disorder, like an actual mental disorder not some made up bullshit, and argue that kids nowadays certainly don't have it because flash games. In regards to indisputable, here's a tidbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#CriticismSo it's very, VERY much disputable what you quoted, but i guess that doesn't fit your narrative.
im not sure what you think i said but i have no idea what that tidbit has to do w anything.
"an actual mental disorder" as opposed to a "made up" disorder? when did i say it was "made up?" i mean if anything my chain of posts indicates that kids nowadays are more likely to "have it" because flash games but fine if you insist ill hedge my answer and say the relationship is a chicken and egg one and the "casuality" is unclear. that there is a link, however, is not seriously disputed
|
There is nothing unnatural about ADHD and they don't prescribe drugs to kids to control them or make them act natural. You have a poor of this entire field and you should just quit talking out your ass.
|
On July 30 2017 07:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:19 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 07:09 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:57 IgnE wrote:On July 30 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2017 06:40 m4ini wrote:On July 30 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
There are some days you drop some ignorant shit in this thread, but this takes the cake. Is that in regards to ADHD etc? Which factually was reported in 1902 already in the UK, long before TV/Smartphone? Factually accepted (that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand, just that the APA acknowledged that it is a mental disorder) in the US as a mental disorder somewhere in the 60s - again, long before smartphones, in a time where kids were outside rather than watching TV constantly? Yes. And his assertion that the drugs used to treat it are attempting to restore some sort of imbalance is the peek of misunderstanding. They are to do nothing of the sort. wait what? i am the one asserting that they attempt to restore some sort of imbalance? or did you mispost? what in your opinion do the drugs do? Where did ADHD come from in 1955? I'd like you to answer that since it seems you're blaming modern technology for it. Apart from that, you do know that ritalin etc don't work for every type of ADHD/person, and that there's a selection of nonstimulant drugs available? Or that ADHD can actually be caused by braindamage caused by accidents? edit: A good comparison would be dyslexia. Do you think dyslexic people are just lazy or (close to) illiterate? i dont think i said adhd doesnt "exist" whatever that means but if you asked me where it came from in 1955 id probably point to increased standardization in schooling the rise of women in the workforce moving kids from the home to surveillance areas where they could be classified and sorted Mhm. So where did it come from in 1902? To be clear: here's your statement. teenagers raised on tv and smart phone flash games have a mental illness that is cheapest and best to treat with amphetamines
Is it over diagnosed? Possibly. Is what you said ignErant as fuck? Without a shred of a doubt. nah dude its indisputable that screens are linked to rising diagnoses of adhd either as a diagnostic themselves or as feedback loop. im looking at the bigger picture not passing judgment on some 3 year old you know No, you're not looking at the bigger picture. You're looking at a mental disorder, like an actual mental disorder not some made up bullshit, and argue that kids nowadays certainly don't have it because flash games. In regards to indisputable, here's a tidbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#CriticismSo it's very, VERY much disputable what you quoted, but i guess that doesn't fit your narrative. im not sure what you think i said but i have no idea what that tidbit has to do w anything. "an actual mental disorder" as opposed to a "made up" disorder? when did i say it was "made up?" i mean if anything my chain of posts indicates that kids nowadays are more likely to "have it" because flash games but fine if you insist ill hedge my answer and say the relationship is a chicken and egg one and the "casuality" is unclear. that there is a link, however, is not seriously disputed
Okay. Since everyone seems to severely misunderstand you, i'll bite.
Please explain your position briefly. What are you arguing. ADHD is over diagnosed? ADHD is no big deal and shouldn't be treated?
What exactly is it, so we can stop dancing around the bush and get somewhere.
(in regards to your "undesirable behaviour that gets suppressed" thing, just want to make clear that untreated ADHD literally can ruin your life later down the line)
|
United States43989 Posts
Igne has completely fucking lost the plot.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:49 Belisarius wrote:
This whole exchange takes the cake, I think.
The point where someone is running around denying things that are the consensus among pretty much every scientist wroking in a field is the point it's not worth bothering anymore.
You're still welcome to provide some actual papers to back up your assertions on ADHD. I'm confident there are no sources to back up your conspiracy theories about medicine as a whole. Outside antivax blogs, anyway.
Yeah but like, what if, and bear with me here, the GOVERNMENT is working with BIG PHARMA to push drugs onto children who DON'T EVEN LIKE CONSENT AND SHIT because they're FASCISTS who hate non CONFORMITY and it's like if leashing a DOG because brain chemistry is basically Greek democracy and you can't PROVE that I'm wrong! And that's why we all need NATURAL PLANT EXTRACTS but the government won't let us because little Charlie Gard.
|
On July 30 2017 07:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 06:49 Belisarius wrote:
This whole exchange takes the cake, I think.
The point where someone is running around denying things that are the consensus among pretty much every scientist wroking in a field is the point it's not worth bothering anymore.
You're still welcome to provide some actual papers to back up your assertions on ADHD. I'm confident there are no sources to back up your conspiracy theories about medicine as a whole. Outside antivax blogs, anyway. Yeah but like, what if, and bear with me here, the GOVERNMENT is working with BIG PHARMA to push drugs onto children who DON'T EVEN LIKE CONSENT AND SHIT because they're FASCISTS who hate non CONFORMITY and it's like if leashing a DOG because brain chemistry is basically Greek democracy and you can't PROVE that I'm wrong. And that's why we all need NATURAL PLANT EXTRACTS but the government won't let us because little Charlie Gard.
Interestingly enough, half way through that text i started reading it with alex jones voice in mind.
Interesting. Maybe you should go into radio etc, could make a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
