|
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. |
The ripples from President Trump's recent tweet suggesting he could pardon himself continue to billow out into the body politic.
No president in the history of this country has ever pardoned himself, though President Nixon, and perhaps others, may have contemplated it. Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush were each under investigation by a special prosecutor as their terms drew to a close, but neither chose to pardon himself.
President Trump's tweet responded to a Washington Post story reporting that Trump had discussed with his lawyers whether he could pardon himself. His tweet said this: "While all agree the U.S. President has complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us."
Source
In case anyone was wondering.
|
United States43480 Posts
Blood tests reveal kids who take ritalin have higher than normal levels of conformity in their system. When I asked a scientist if they'd looked into this issue they said, and I quote, "no". Is it safe? Is it part of a plot by ISIS? How much did Obama know about it? All these questions went unanswered by the same scientist. The only possible explanation is that the government is covering it up.
|
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
Is it, though?
The problem with this is that it is one of these statements that might make sense on cursory glance. But that does not make it true. A lot of things make sense on cursory glance, but are utterly false.
Take, for example, SMS. Obviously, the constant texting and SMS make children worse at writing correctly due to all the abbreviations and bad grammar that you use in those.
Except, of course, that that is completely untrue.
To actually figure out what causes ADHD you need to make actual studies, not just guess find some correlation and attribute causation because it makes sense in your head.
People have access to mobile games and more diagnoses of ADHD happening simultaneously does not mean that the first causes the second, or that the second causes the first, or anything like that.
|
Isn't drug usage in the US way out of bounds with the rest of the civilized world? Like, they use about twice or three times as much ritalin or whatever per capita compared to normal countries? It's obvious that pharmaceutical companies are pushing for this in order to serve their own bottom line. It's almost absurd to say anything else. Some kids definitely need it, others don't but still use them to "feel better" or to "concentrate in school (or even college)". Doesn't take away from those who need it to be able to functional normally, but for gods sake to sit here and even slightly hint towards the notion that there isn't some sort of absurd corporate push for legal drug use (opioids, ritalin, viagra, whatever) in the US is just ridiculous.
|
No one is disputing that claim flayer. We all know Americans are a bunch of dopeheads. Otherwise there would be no war on drugs or an opiate crisis.
|
United States43480 Posts
That wasn't Igne's claim though. Igne was saying the government was pushing it on children because the government just couldn't handle all the non conformity in the world and thought that non consenting children were the best target because natural plant extracts should be an issue of bodily autonomy and brain chemistry is a lie made up by the man.
Pharma lobbying is a completely separate issue from whatever the fuck Igne is smoking.
|
Norway28736 Posts
while I think igne hates those rhetoric-buzzwords like 'strawman' I've rarely seen better examples. I read virtually none of the arguments you guys are attributing to him and ridiculing him for in his posts. Sucks, too, because this is a really interesting subject and I thought a good discussion was starting, but instead I just see bad faith arguing. 
|
|
|
On July 30 2017 07:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:while I think igne hates those rhetoric-buzzwords like 'strawman' I've rarely seen better examples. I read virtually none of the arguments you guys are attributing to him and ridiculing him for in his posts. Sucks, too, because this is a really interesting subject and I thought a good discussion was starting, but instead I just see bad faith arguing.
I was literally accused of fascist thought because I dared argue that such a thing as mental health exists and should be cared about
|
But they applauded the line. The police applauded.
|
It's funny, because Trump basically just "said it how it is" in this case, while the police PR firm issued statements that reek of feel-good bullshit. Of course, the notion that Trump then proceeded to encourage police violence is kinda on another level here.
|
On July 30 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:
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.
well that was kwark's original position which i disagreed with so we agree about that p6! as for the part about control and acting natural you've conflated too much and i dont fee like explaining it to you if you didnt bother to read the whole post chain to begin with.
@m4ni
my point is broadly
1) the supplement market should be as transparent as possible with new regulations requiring bottles to clearly indicate what is in the product
2) supplements for the most part (in terms of $ value in the market certainly) are completely ineffective because the product has no inherent activity or because its diluted/adulterated suh that a bottle claiming X doesnt actually contain any active X
3) many supplements in theory and some in practice actually have activity and/or produce measurable changes in bodies, but it is nearly impossible to get good data because of flawed scientific methodologies or lack of funding in studies and because the market is such a shit show
4) adults should be able to buy a wide variety of supplements with real activity, including stimulants
5) the tangent started when i pointed out the hypocrisy in overprescribing serious stimulants to children and teenagers simpy because they were doing poorly in school or because they only seemed interested in video games and had no interest in doing boring school work
6) kwark made the completely bogus statement that prescription adderall "restores their body chemistry" invoking a whole series of naturalizing arguments about natural chemistry and proper behavior
5) adderall and other adhd prescription medicines are commonly used within a disciplinary regime to control behavior of minors withot consideration for how such medications impact other areas of brain chemistry outside of the strictly desirable outcome "is able to focus and behave in school." in fact the operation and function of such medication is obscured by naturalizing myths about "normal brain chemistry" and "restorative" stimulants
6) and despite this uncritical use of powerful pharmaceutical agents on children (oftentimes with very little beyond a cursory description of behavior or subjectively determined mild symptoms) we have drug laws prohibiting adults from using a variety of less-dangerous substances
|
United States43480 Posts
On July 30 2017 07:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:while I think igne hates those rhetoric-buzzwords like 'strawman' I've rarely seen better examples. I read virtually none of the arguments you guys are attributing to him and ridiculing him for in his posts. Sucks, too, because this is a really interesting subject and I thought a good discussion was starting, but instead I just see bad faith arguing.
On July 30 2017 02:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 17:19 Belisarius wrote:On July 29 2017 14:59 IgnE wrote:
sorry no. they directly act on the brain as exogeneous chemicals so they dont "restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain" whatever the fuck that means.
in other words you cant "restore" something that 1) you have no history of and no chemical data of 2) that is necessarily idiosyncratic. like its odd that you would even post this while putting quotation marks around "normal."
or you are going to tell me that methamphetamine isnt a restoration but adderall is. If you know that healthy individuals usually have [factor/hormone/small-molecule] within [some range], and that the factor going outside that range is found to cause [undesirable symptom], then yes, you absolutely can correct the situation by applying [some drug] to restore healthy levels of the factor. It does not matter that the drug may be artificially synthesised, so long as it has been shown to be safe, nor does it matter that the person's usual levels may have never been within that range. Now, if you want to argue that there's some specific deficiency in the literature supporting ADHD drugs, then please go ahead. My understanding is that they're fairly sound, if probably overprescribed. However, challenging the general principle - which you seem to be doing - is tinfoil hat territory. A large chunk of modern medicine works in this way, and has produced very clear and repeatable outcomes. the general principle is a complete myth.
On July 30 2017 02:20 IgnE wrote:
10 million people w an adderall prescription and none of them have any data whatsoever on their brain's "dopamine levels." the drug is a behavior modifier not a "restorer of chemical balance." does your kid have trouble concentrating (ie taking orders to sit still and be quiet?)? sounds like he needs a powerful stimulant to get him to shut up and calm down. oh does your kid now have elevated dopamine transporter levels? that's just an upregulation in response to these powerful stimulants we've prescribed. have you noticed a flattening of emotional range? thats normal. just "restoring brain chemistry" with a large dosage of a powerful stimulant fundamentally altering the structures in the brain in an imbalanced and decidely unnatural way.
On July 30 2017 02:20 IgnE wrote:
this all came up because a few people here were opposed to fully grown adults being able to get access to less powerful stimulants than amphetamine but when powerful and dangerous stimulants are used as a form of social control by doctors and parents, and increasingly as a "productivity" aid for adults who've been on stimulants their whole life, everything is fine because we can just invoke the story of "restoring natural levels of chemicals in the brain."
On July 30 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote:
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"
On July 30 2017 05:45 IgnE wrote:
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"
|
On July 30 2017 07:55 KwarK wrote:
That wasn't Igne's claim though. Igne was saying the government was pushing it on children because the government just couldn't handle all the non conformity in the world and thought that non consenting children were the best target because natural plant extracts should be an issue of bodily autonomy and brain chemistry is a lie made up by the man.
Pharma lobbying is a completely separate issue from whatever the fuck Igne is smoking.
lol please quote me more
|
I really wish this shit could've gotten its own thread. That way anyone masochistic enough to continue this nonsense could do so, and I wouldn't have to look at it here. It's only loosely related to politics to begin with, unless you believe in some tinpot theory that places Obama as some kind of Illuminati mastermind, where he methodically controls the young population with drugs so he can perpetuate his secret reign as part of the KGB.
Seriously, what the fuck.
|
On July 30 2017 08:05 a_flayer wrote:
It's funny, because Trump basically just "said it how it is" in this case, while the police PR firm issued statements that reek of feel-good bullshit. Of course, the notion that Trump then proceeded to encourage police violence is kinda on another level here.
Trump going full Duterte is pretty scary.
Such a discourse can only escalate tensions between the police forces and the communities they police.
|
so whats the internet fallacy buzzword for claiming that your opponent is a conspiracy theorist because they use "active" verbs to describe an emergent societal effect or an only apparently agent-directed outcome?
|
United States43480 Posts
Part of the express purpose of government intervention into the market should be to regulate the degree to which negligence or incompetence by consumers can fuck themselves up. For example, we would not allow a company to sell a literal poison (and please don't go a rant about how processed foods are literal poison) in bright boxes shaped like candy, even if they printed a warning on it saying "keep out of reach of children". We restrict the type of agreements people can have enforced against them, we restrict the types of insurance they can buy, we cap the interest rates that can be charged, we restrict the options for food to exclude all the potential options below a certain quality, we restrict how dangerous the vehicles they can buy are, and so on, and so on.
The reason for this is that while free choice is a great and noble thing, humans are not perfectly informed and perfectly rational consumers who can adequately represent their own interests. In most contracts they will enter into, from buying food at a restaurant or paying their mortgage, the other party has far more information about the product than they do and far more ability to understand the information. Most of the time most of the consumers simply have to take things on faith, they assume that things are probably fine because most of the time they are fine. They assume that the terms of service won't include a 1000% interest rate and daily fees because that's not a thing that happens to people. Except that the reason they can take things on faith is not because a business would never offer an option that could harm them, it's that all the options that would harm them have been hidden from their view. Which is both absolutely necessary and absolutely awesome. I really like the fact that I can just buy things without doing the kind of diligence that you insist supplement purchasers must show, safe in the knowledge that if it was actually going to kill me then they'd not be able to sell it to me.
The supplement industry has lobbied itself into a special place outside of regulation. This is bad. The solution to this is not simply leaving the entire question to consumer choice and placing the responsibility upon the consumers to use their purchasing power to police safety standards, it's to apply the same kind of standards we apply everywhere else. Consumer choice is a really, really bad way of protecting consumers. It has always been so and it will always be so.
|
On July 30 2017 07:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:while I think igne hates those rhetoric-buzzwords like 'strawman' I've rarely seen better examples. I read virtually none of the arguments you guys are attributing to him and ridiculing him for in his posts. Sucks, too, because this is a really interesting subject and I thought a good discussion was starting, but instead I just see bad faith arguing.
I agree, folks have been arguing past each other for quite a few pages now. I have a lot of personal and 2nd hand experience with ADHD through knowledge of my family history of the disease and having witnessed my younger brother's various issues managing his relatively severe case; nothing that IgnE has posted suggests to me that he's in any way indicting the truth of that experience or the experiences of the millions with bona fide diagnoses.
There is an endemic problem in US healthcare with regards to an overemphasis on palliative "make this better so I can join the flock" medicine and this dynamic implicates ADHD and its problems relative to overprescription/diagnostic accuracy in a fairly exemplary manner. Rather than guarantee consistent early childhood access to counselors and pediatric psychiatrists, many are forced to settle for intermittent visits with an overworked general practitioner who lacks the means to adequately supervise anything beyond an arms-length prescription medication-based therapy. Add in the racial disparities present in diagnosis rates and it becomes clear that there's a lot of noise surrounding the ADHD signal.
There's also a lot of "this to the exclusion of that" logic being laid overtop statements that don't necessarily gel with that form.
|
On July 30 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:
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. well that was kwark's original position which i disagreed with so we agree about that p6! as for the part about control and acting natural you've conflated too much and i dont fee like explaining it to you if you didnt bother to read the whole post chain to begin with. @m4ni my point is broadly 1) the supplement market should be as transparent as possible with new regulations requiring bottles to clearly indicate what is in the product
Agreed.
2) supplements for the most part (in terms of $ value in the market certainly) are completely ineffective because the product has no inherent activity or because its diluted/adulterated suh that a bottle claiming X doesnt actually contain any active X
You're talking homeopathy now or generally supplements? Homeopathy is ineffective, it should just be banned altogether, imho. I wouldn't agree that generally supplements have no effective ingredient. I didn't follow the discussion from the beginning, so i don't know if you're talking vitamins and body builder shit too.
3) many supplements in theory and some in practice actually have activity and/or produce measurable changes in bodies, but it is nearly impossible to get good data because of flawed scientific methodologies or lack of funding in studies and because the market is such a shit show
Again. If you're talking homeopathy (diluted to no active ingredient), then no they don't have activity. And even if, at a certain point, something is so diluted that even if you could find trace amounts, it wouldn't change anything in the body. Flawed scientific methodologies always sounds a bit tinfoily, so i'd need you to point out what exactly you mean. No disagreement with the market being a shitshow.
4) adults should be able to buy a wide variety of supplements with real activity, including stimulants
Disagree. It opens the market to abuse. Both from customers and providers.
5) the tangent started when i pointed out the hypocrisy in overprescribing serious stimulants to children and teenagers simpy because they were doing poorly in school or because they only seemed interested in video games and had no interest in doing boring school work
For that argument the burden of proof lies with you, and you didn't provide that. It's very much debatable. Are there wrongly prescribed meds? Hell yeah, especially in the US. But the solution to that isn't "open up the market" but stop doctors from possibly profiting if they prescribe a certain thing. If something is so bad that Scrubs made fun of it, it's bad.
6) kwark made the completely bogus statement that prescription adderall "restores their body chemistry" invoking a whole series of naturalizing arguments about natural chemistry and proper behavior
Actually adderall does "restore" brain chemistry. They increase the amount of available neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. One (i won't say "key" element because i'm no doctor) is this here:
Neurotransmitter- Störung an der Nervenendplatte
Störung der Durchblutung im zentralen Kernen
That's from the german ADHD association (to get around the argument of us pharma lying), translation is "Neurotransmitter-malfunction at the nerve end plate" and "Malfunction of blood circulation in the central cores".
Adderall can and does "solve" that. Well it doesn't, but it fights the symptoms.
5) adderall and other adhd prescription medicines are commonly used within a disciplinary regime to control behavior of minors withot consideration for how such medications impact other areas of brain chemistry outside of the strictly desirable outcome "is able to focus and behave in school." in fact the operation and function of such medication is obscured by naturalizing myths about "normal brain chemistry" and "restorative" stimulants
It's not a myth. Are there parents who mistake their kids being assholes as ADHD patients? Of course. It's the job of your doctors n shit to make sure that they don't prescribe then.
6) and despite this uncritical use of powerful pharmaceutical agents on children (oftentimes with very little beyond a cursory description of behavior or subjectively determined mild symptoms) we have drug laws prohibiting adults from using a variety of less-dangerous substances
So do i understand correctly, instead of trying to fix the system of "kids drug abuse", you want some of that pie too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
