Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 197

Thread: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

  1. #171
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I probably agree with you about shrinks exaggerating and overdiagnosing some mental illnesses (ADD/ADHD, for example) in order to satisfy their pharmaceutical sponsors. However, I don't think there are massive dog corporations who bribe psychiatrists and psychologists into convincing people that PTSD patients need dogs.
    You haven't heard of the canine-industrial complex!?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And he now has a coping skill that allows him to make it through an hour of eating. Problem solved.
    So what if my coping skill is smoking? What if my coping skill is masturbation? If it is just a coping skill then the object used in it needs to be determined to be the only or part of a limited array of objects capable of determining coping. For instance it has been claimed by another the dog senses changes within the person that come before an attack and warns the subject to brace for an attack. Why can't the person simply wear an electronic bio-monitor that can do the same thing and then there is no issue with the health codes? Why can't he use non-health code violating object if all he is doing is using it as a focus? Why does it have to be a dog? Why use a dog in the first place when you know pets are restricted from certain areas? If we are just going to permit the dog why don't we just permit a person to smoke or masturbate as technically neither of those are capable of attacking or biting someone? You are not giving any reason this has to be a dog, where I have given a clear motive for why a scammer would use a dog. A dog is not fully reliable as we have seen some disparity between the claims of accuracy on the part of animals used for purposes like this, and their actual accuracy in prediction and reliable behavior? Let us use Occam's razor here. Which is more probable; Is it that a dog senses attacks and can somehow prevent or lessen their severity better than anything else we already have, or is it that some guy wanted to bring his dog with him and found a shrink that was willing to sign off on a service dog for this purpose?


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, I supported my argument and your next to last line in the above trashed yours. In fact, you pretty much admitted it. The use of a service dog is not mind altering BY A SUBSTANCE. Smoking is.
    Actually no, I did not. Let me finish drawing the picture as I thought the conclusion was obvious. PTYSD is a dysfunction in the electrochemical operations of the brain. Therefor a substance that can correct or level out those changes to a normative state would be physically reliable. The method of using a dog is actually only reliable as a pavlovian response. Pavlovian responses can be altered or lessened by other factors and are therefor less reliable. The basic mechanics of the situation are that the person gains some control over their mental status through the focus on some object and retains control. Essentially giving a person an ability to fopcus and work through the attack. It doesn't actually prevent the attack, nor would it take into account distractions from the focus that could work to make the attack worse if the focus is threatened. For instance this guy has an attack come on, he rtries to do what he does with his dog, an agressor comes over and tries to take the dog or attack him, and the attack gets worse because not only is he dealing with the initial attyack, but an increasing stressor. OTOH a pill which maintains a stabilization of neurochemicals would provide a continued level of attack lowering effect even if there were more stressors because it lowers the threshold of the attack. Not to mention a pill is something you could take without violating health code laws. I may not be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but I could pop nicotine gum. In effect a mind altering substance that was something similar to things like SSRIs and psych meds would be a preferred alternative that could be applied anywhere and have a standard effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is YOUR straw man, not mine. I have never argued that you believe that PTSD doesn't exist. I HAVE argued that PTSD and Major Depression are not the same, something that you have claimed. Your belief that this guy "is full of crap" has no standing and you haven't even come close to proving this.
    Again, you alter the argument. I have not said they are the same, I said their symptoms overlap, and have implied that service dogs could also be used to treat people with severe depression problems so why don't we start letting the nation of people with diagnosed depression start having their dogs with them. Certainly the causes of both can differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post

    As I said, that is YOUR straw man argument. I have not claimed that you do not believe that PTSD exists. I HAVE claimed that you do not understand how PTSD and Major Depression are different... and followed up with PROVING that you don't know that the two are different my demonstrating how they are. Further, I have also demonstrated how your assessment on what this guy can handle, how, and what this means is completely wrong. In other words, I have demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.
    You have used extreme cases, but have yet to prove this guy even has one of those. Please do feel free to prove the honesty and reliability of modern day psychology. Please do disprove allegations of overprescription and fraud on behalf of doctors. I have never argued that PTSD does not exist. I have argued that this guy is a scammer, and that the statement that this guy can eat breakfast without his dog is correct. Just because PTSD exists to incapacitating levels does not mean this guy has it. Your logic says that because PTSD exists this guy has it, and that simply is not the case.

  3. #173
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,745

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    So what if my coping skill is smoking? What if my coping skill is masturbation?
    I don't respond to absurd analogies. I've already demonstrated that smoking is not analogous to the situation. Masturbation is also not analogous.

    If it is just a coping skill then the object used in it needs to be determined to be the only or part of a limited array of objects capable of determining coping. For instance it has been claimed by another the dog senses changes within the person that come before an attack and warns the subject to brace for an attack. Why can't the person simply wear an electronic bio-monitor that can do the same thing and then there is no issue with the health codes? Why can't he use non-health code violating object if all he is doing is using it as a focus? Why does it have to be a dog? Why use a dog in the first place when you know pets are restricted from certain areas?
    The dog has been show to be effective, effective for a number or reasons. If you want to advocate for any of those things, be my guest. We are discussing whether the dog would be effective and if this is reasonable. Both criteria are met. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not. Comparisons are irrelevant. For example, just because one medication works for an problem, doesn't mean that all other medications that also work should be eliminated.

    Try again.

    If we are just going to permit the dog why don't we just permit a person to smoke or masturbate as technically neither of those are capable of attacking or biting someone?
    I already told you that I do not debate absurd analogies. So your first point is irrelevant. As to your second point, obviously you don't understand how service dogs are trained. Biting is not an issue.

    You are not giving any reason this has to be a dog, where I have given a clear motive for why a scammer would use a dog. A dog is not fully reliable as we have seen some disparity between the claims of accuracy on the part of animals used for purposes like this, and their actual accuracy in prediction and reliable behavior? Let us use Occam's razor here. Which is more probable; Is it that a dog senses attacks and can somehow prevent or lessen their severity better than anything else we already have, or is it that some guy wanted to bring his dog with him and found a shrink that was willing to sign off on a service dog for this purpose?
    I have certainly given reasons why it has to be a dog. Your non-acceptance of these reasons is irrelevant. Your assumption that this individual is a scammer has not basis in reality and you have completely failed to prove it's veracity at every turn. All you have done is make suppositions with no foundation of which they are built.




    Actually no, I did not. Let me finish drawing the picture as I thought the conclusion was obvious. PTYSD is a dysfunction in the electrochemical operations of the brain. Therefor a substance that can correct or level out those changes to a normative state would be physically reliable. The method of using a dog is actually only reliable as a pavlovian response. Pavlovian responses can be altered or lessened by other factors and are therefor less reliable. The basic mechanics of the situation are that the person gains some control over their mental status through the focus on some object and retains control. Essentially giving a person an ability to fopcus and work through the attack. It doesn't actually prevent the attack, nor would it take into account distractions from the focus that could work to make the attack worse if the focus is threatened. For instance this guy has an attack come on, he rtries to do what he does with his dog, an agressor comes over and tries to take the dog or attack him, and the attack gets worse because not only is he dealing with the initial attyack, but an increasing stressor. OTOH a pill which maintains a stabilization of neurochemicals would provide a continued level of attack lowering effect even if there were more stressors because it lowers the threshold of the attack. Not to mention a pill is something you could take without violating health code laws. I may not be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but I could pop nicotine gum. In effect a mind altering substance that was something similar to things like SSRIs and psych meds would be a preferred alternative that could be applied anywhere and have a standard effect.
    Firstly, here you made an absurd example. I do not respond to absurd and massively exceptional examples. They have nothing to do with "the rule". Secondly, you do not seem to understand what a coping skill is. It is far more effective for someone to learn how to manage their anxiety, depression, or whatever by focusing on something and learning how to deal with their psychological distress withOUT substances than with. And lastly, as I said, smoking has harm associated with it.

    Again, you alter the argument. I have not said they are the same, I said their symptoms overlap, and have implied that service dogs could also be used to treat people with severe depression problems so why don't we start letting the nation of people with diagnosed depression start having their dogs with them. Certainly the causes of both can differ.
    Now you are just being dishonest:

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Depression manifests with the same set of symptoms as PTSD.
    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Ok, what symptoms are different? In all honesty I have never heard the two have differing symptoms. I am not saying they are the same, but their manifestation on the physical operation of a person overlaps. I am also not talking case by case. Overall possible symptoms for both are pretty close.
    I posted the symptoms of each, proving that they barely overlap and they are quite different... proving you wrong. You said it. Take responsibility for it. As far as allowing people with depression having services dogs, that is a different argument. Stop making slippery slope logical fallacies.

    You have used extreme cases, but have yet to prove this guy even has one of those. Please do feel free to prove the honesty and reliability of modern day psychology. Please do disprove allegations of overprescription and fraud on behalf of doctors. I have never argued that PTSD does not exist. I have argued that this guy is a scammer, and that the statement that this guy can eat breakfast without his dog is correct. Just because PTSD exists to incapacitating levels does not mean this guy has it. Your logic says that because PTSD exists this guy has it, and that simply is not the case.
    You know, I remembered something from last night. You and I have discussed mental illness before.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...ide-issue.html

    We debated from about post #54 on. In this thread, I proved that you are very uneducated on mental health, repeatedly demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about. Your above comments further proven that. You have no substantiation that this guy is a scammer, have proven nothing, have been unable to prove that service dogs do not work, have shown that you don't understand the difference between Major Depression and PTSD, and then LIED about not knowing the difference, don't understand how coping skills work and their efficacy, and you overgeneralize EVERYTHING based on supposition and faulty premises. In other words, as I said in the other thread, you don't know what you are talking about, and in conclusion, your entire argument here has been shown to have no standing, you have proven nothing and your argument is a complete bucket of fail.

    Now, do you have anything of substance to add? Because thus far, all you are doing is making me post basic psychological concepts of which you seem to have little knowledge.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #174
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    These two are VERY different disorders. Though PTSD can manifest itself with depression, there are lots of other very specific symptoms that are different. Here is the descriptor for PTSD from the DSM:
    OK, let us actually go through this and see where I am wrong.

    A: Exposure to a traumatic event This must have involved both (a) loss of "physical integrity", or risk of serious injury or death, to self or others, and (b) a response to the event that involved intense fear, horror, or helplessness (or in children, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior). (The DSM-IV-TR criterion differs substantially from the previous DSM-III-R stressor criterion, which specified the traumatic event should be of a type that would cause "significant symptoms of distress in almost anyone," and that the event was "outside the range of usual human experience."[83])
    Depression can be caused by traumatic events. Yes, I am talking about the crippling dignosable type that requires medical treatment. Events like molestation, rape, accidents, fights, abuse, deatyh, and other traumatic experiences can bring about depression without getting a PTSD diagnosis. Now maybe you could argue that is due to the nature of psychological diagnosis, but that only plays into my argument that the prescription of a therapy dog which a person cannot be without is also as flawed. In order to maintain your argument that the diagnosis means he has it you have to maintain the reliability of the person doing the diagnosing. My argument does not have that difficulty.

    B: Persistent re-experiencing One or more of these must be present in the victim: flashback memories, recurring distressing dreams, subjective re-experiencing of the traumatic event(s), or intense negative psychological or physiological response to any objective or subjective reminder of the traumatic event(s).
    You mean none of these are present in people with depression? Reliving past events, bad dreams, and negative psychological reactions are all part of massive depression.

    C: Persistent avoidance and emotional numbing This involves a sufficient level of:

    avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, such as certain thoughts or feelings, or talking about the event(s);
    avoidance of behaviors, places, or people that might lead to distressing memories as well as the disturbing memories, dreams, flashbacks, and intense psychological or physiological distress;
    inability to recall major parts of the trauma(s), or decreased involvement in significant life activities;
    decreased capacity (down to complete inability) to feel certain feelings;
    an expectation that one's future will be somehow constrained in ways not normal to other people.
    Again, this all seems very depression like. Are you telling me avoidance and the inability to feel certain emotions are not part of depression?

    D: Persistent symptoms of increased arousal not present before These are all physiological response issues, such as difficulty falling or staying asleep, or problems with anger, concentration, or hypervigilance. Additional symptoms include irritability, angry outbursts, increased startle response, and concentration or sleep problems.[18]
    Again, where am I wrong that this could not be seen in a depressed person?

    E: Duration of symptoms for more than 1 month If all other criteria are present, but 30 days have not elapsed, the individual is diagnosed with Acute stress disorder.[18]

    F: Significant impairment The symptoms reported must lead to "clinically significant distress or impairment" of major domains of life activity, such as social relations, occupational activities, or other "important areas of functioning".
    As for E no shrink should be giving you any medication for depression that is short term as it is something we go through, and the same could be said for PTSD it seems. Long term and is effecting your life becomes the basis for a diagnosis. You have not pointed out a single thing that differs from depression. Oh, and there might be a reason for that which should have been obvious in the first place. Depression is one of the symptoms of PTSD. So they might overlap like I said. I know you are looking for me to be wrong, but you just did my homework for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Notice. A triggering event is NECESSARY. This is not true for Major Depression. Here is the descriptor for that diagnosis in the DSM:
    Considering all of those are in the above descriptions, though they use similar wording your entire argument comes down to that PTSD requires a traumatic event while depressing may just have a traumatic event. So my claim that they are overwhelmingly similar in nature still stands, since I have never said they are identical. Thank you for showing they are very similar just as I have maintained since the start. This is why you will want to base your arguments on what I have said, and not what you wish I have said. You wish I had said they were identical. You have tried to put those words in my mouth. Now please do put the post where I said they were identical. I am sure when you go back and read you will find I have said they are very similar. You are correct, the words you tried to jam in my mouth were wrong, and you did a very good job of proving your words from my mouth were wrong, while also doing my homework and proving they are very similar. Human predictability means that like in the story of huck fin you can get other people to do your dirty work for you if you properly work off their motivations. It would be rude of me not to thank you for the help in doing that research and making those quotes for me to show they are so similar, so thank you. I did not really want to go poking around the DSM for that anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    As you can see, there are major differences in these two disorders.
    I would not say that from what you posted. Subtle perhaps, but they are essentially pretty damned similar. You may not wish to admit that, but they overlap quite a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post

    No they aren't. Not to the extent that one would be diagnosed with either.
    Actually the DSM description for both requires that for a clinical diagnosis these things have to be present for a prolonged time, indicating that short term presence of these things is not basis for a diagnosis and therefor can be present in a person who is undergoing normal reactions to life and traumatic events.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    My guess is that he IS under medical attention, but again, there are many levels of medical attention that one can have.
    perhaps depending on the severity of the symptoms and effects the condition it has on ones life? Perhaps lending support to my argument that the guy does not need his dog with him for the hour he eats breakfast or else they would have prescribed more severe medical attention like institutionalization? If that were the case then he certainly could abide by the health codes and his dog would be more theraputic rather than a necessity like a service dog is.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You are incorrect. This individual IS getting help and is using a coping skill in order to allow him to function far better than he could without the coping skill. He can go to a restaurant and eat breakfast and he can drive. He is using a tool, a coping skill in order to do that. The coping skill is not causing him any harm and it is effective in preventing the requirement of a higher level of care.
    He is still capable of abiding by health codes. Nothing you have said implies he is incapable of eating his breakfast without the assistance of the animal. A blind person needs a seeing eye dog all the time when he is walking because he is always blind where this person only wants his service dog when he is having an attack, and since the dog does not give him the physical aterations of being able to cope he is capable of dealing with his attacks for that short period without his dog.



    No, he does not. He is using an effective coping skill to manage his PTSD, allowing him to function better than if he did not use the skill. This is the goal of therapy and the treatment of psychological disorders.[/QUOTE]

  5. #175
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,745

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    OK, let us actually go through this and see where I am wrong.



    Depression can be caused by traumatic events. Yes, I am talking about the crippling dignosable type that requires medical treatment. Events like molestation, rape, accidents, fights, abuse, deatyh, and other traumatic experiences can bring about depression without getting a PTSD diagnosis. Now maybe you could argue that is due to the nature of psychological diagnosis, but that only plays into my argument that the prescription of a therapy dog which a person cannot be without is also as flawed. In order to maintain your argument that the diagnosis means he has it you have to maintain the reliability of the person doing the diagnosing. My argument does not have that difficulty.
    As I have stated, you do not understand mental illness. You also do not understand how to diagnose. A traumatic event is NOT REQUIRED for the diagnosis of depression. It IS REQUIRED for the diagnosis of PTSD. Many people who are depressed had no singular traumatic event. There is the difference. Your argument is trashed.

    You mean none of these are present in people with depression? Reliving past events, bad dreams, and negative psychological reactions are all part of massive depression.
    These things are NOT REQUIRED for the diagnosis of depression and are NOT always present. It IS REQUIRED for the diagnosis of PTSD and are always present. Many people who are depressed do not have some or many of these symptoms. The negative psychological reactions are consistent with both. There is the difference. Your argument is trashed.

    Again, this all seems very depression like. Are you telling me avoidance and the inability to feel certain emotions are not part of depression?
    This comment is dishonest. The focus with the criteria is the traumatic event in regards to avoidance and emotional numbness. There is the difference. Your argument is trashed.

    Again, where am I wrong that this could not be seen in a depressed person?
    These symptoms COULD be seen in a depressed person, however, things like the increased startle response is far more likely with PTSD.

    As for E no shrink should be giving you any medication for depression that is short term as it is something we go through, and the same could be said for PTSD it seems.
    Incorrect. Though length of time is an issue, SEVERITY is more of an issue.

    Long term and is effecting your life becomes the basis for a diagnosis.
    Incorrect. Effecting your life is the basis for diagnosis. "Long term" is your term and your opinion. Most diagnoses are obtained by the distress being present for somewhere between 1-6 months. Depends on the diagnosis.

    You have not pointed out a single thing that differs from depression. Oh, and there might be a reason for that which should have been obvious in the first place. Depression is one of the symptoms of PTSD. So they might overlap like I said. I know you are looking for me to be wrong, but you just did my homework for me.
    No, I proved you wrong, completely and totally. I demonstrated the differences. Your non-acceptance does not make them wrong. Your argument has been trashed and you have been proven incorrect. I have demonstrated the difference.

    Considering all of those are in the above descriptions, though they use similar wording your entire argument comes down to that PTSD requires a traumatic event while depressing may just have a traumatic event. So my claim that they are overwhelmingly similar in nature still stands, since I have never said they are identical. Thank you for showing they are very similar just as I have maintained since the start. This is why you will want to base your arguments on what I have said, and not what you wish I have said. You wish I had said they were identical. You have tried to put those words in my mouth. Now please do put the post where I said they were identical. I am sure when you go back and read you will find I have said they are very similar. You are correct, the words you tried to jam in my mouth were wrong, and you did a very good job of proving your words from my mouth were wrong, while also doing my homework and proving they are very similar. Human predictability means that like in the story of huck fin you can get other people to do your dirty work for you if you properly work off their motivations. It would be rude of me not to thank you for the help in doing that research and making those quotes for me to show they are so similar, so thank you. I did not really want to go poking around the DSM for that anyway.
    You have been proven dishonest and have been proven wrong. All of your attempts to dismiss the differences have been trashed. Now, you can try all the bluster you want, but bluster does not replace your incorrect statements that are quite obvious. You made a serious error. You probably thought I wouldn't post the actual diagnoses. I did. Trashed your argument. Your equivocating will not help you, not at all.

    I would not say that from what you posted. Subtle perhaps, but they are essentially pretty damned similar. You may not wish to admit that, but they overlap quite a bit.
    No, major differences. You may not want to admit that, but I've shown them clearly.

    Actually the DSM description for both requires that for a clinical diagnosis these things have to be present for a prolonged time, indicating that short term presence of these things is not basis for a diagnosis and therefor can be present in a person who is undergoing normal reactions to life and traumatic events.
    And the DSM outlines the time required to make these diagnoses. I have no issue with them.

    perhaps depending on the severity of the symptoms and effects the condition it has on ones life? Perhaps lending support to my argument that the guy does not need his dog with him for the hour he eats breakfast or else they would have prescribed more severe medical attention like institutionalization? If that were the case then he certainly could abide by the health codes and his dog would be more theraputic rather than a necessity like a service dog is.
    Perhaps if the queen had balls she'd be king. All you have above is supposition based on your own agenda. Nothing of substance.

    He is still capable of abiding by health codes. Nothing you have said implies he is incapable of eating his breakfast without the assistance of the animal. A blind person needs a seeing eye dog all the time when he is walking because he is always blind where this person only wants his service dog when he is having an attack, and since the dog does not give him the physical aterations of being able to cope he is capable of dealing with his attacks for that short period without his dog.
    Of course I have indicated why he needs the service dog. Clearly. As I have told you, your non-acceptance is irrelevant to this reality.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #176
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I don't respond to absurd analogies. I've already demonstrated that smoking is not analogous to the situation. Masturbation is also not analogous.
    The claim that you need a god with you so you can eat breakfast is absurd. This is where the argument of service animals for psych patients becomes absurd. A blind person does not have a dog with them because of an attack. They have a dog with them because they can never see. They have the same need at every moment for the dog. A PTSD patient may be doing the exact same thing they want to do during an attack without a dog and doing it fine. That does not occur with blind people and service animals for proper reasons. I am arguing against an absurd argument when you stop spinning it into an argument over PTSD existing. The argument for service animals is that the need is so constant and prevelant in their life that denying them the animal creates a restrictive situation that hibnders their ability to get along in the activity. A blind person has to get from the door to the table which the dog will help them with. A blind person may have to walk to the bathroom, or the dog will indicate the necessity for them to act in certain situations based on visual cues. This dog doesn't do any thing like that. This man is perfectly capable of eating his breakfast and going back to his dog without interfering with the activity. You are talking about levels of discomfort. The man is not comfortable without his dog. He is not hindered from accomplishing any task without the dog. I am very unsympathetic to the idea that uncomfortable means other people should have to act differently.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The dog has been show to be effective, effective for a number or reasons. If you want to advocate for any of those things, be my guest. We are discussing whether the dog would be effective and if this is reasonable. Both criteria are met. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not. Comparisons are irrelevant. For example, just because one medication works for an problem, doesn't mean that all other medications that also work should be eliminated.
    Actually, we are arguing a threshold. Just as I have avoided claiming the dog does not work at all you should avoid arguing against that idea because I never said it. I have said repeatedly that I would be in support for use of the dog for therapy, and that I am even willing to provide tax money for the purchase and training of such animals to help out the people who suffer from PTSD. What I am saying, and repeating over and over because certain people cannot argue against my point, is that it is not necessary to be there every moment of every day and therefor the guy can abide by health codes. Health codes were not established for the purpose of discrimination. The exceptions made for them should be minimal and only for extreme cases which this clearly is not. This is not an absolute argument, and that is why your conclusion you have accomplished a win is wrong. You have yet to explain why this guy's problem is so debilitating that he needs that dog on a constant basis, or that his reactions are so severe it prevents him from being able to get to the dog if he has an attack. Many of the symptoms of PTSD involve long term symptoms that could be worked through until the point to which he could be with the dog, and some of the symptoms would not even effect him while awake because he is not entering a dream state.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post

    I already told you that I do not debate absurd analogies. So your first point is irrelevant. As to your second point, obviously you don't understand how service dogs are trained. Biting is not an issue.
    Actually the point is relevant, you just claimed you do not debate things you perceive as absurd. Oh, and yes I do understand how service dogs are trained, and yes they are still capable of biting. Even if you wanted to claim biting is very unlikely given the training you still have to admit the dog may itself succumb to mental problems which might cause abnormal violent reactions. Perhaps something along the lines of a degenerative mental disease like rabies, or an owner who abuses the **** out of them which would override the training they receive. These things happen. The reality is a smoke or masturbation will not bite another person. In one case a cigarette is incapable of biting, and in the other biting is simply not part of the process.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I have certainly given reasons why it has to be a dog. Your non-acceptance of these reasons is irrelevant. Your assumption that this individual is a scammer has not basis in reality and you have completely failed to prove it's veracity at every turn. All you have done is make suppositions with no foundation of which they are built.
    No, you have said what the dog does, and those things can be accomplished by something else. For example let me ask why the process could not involve a plushie fitted with a biomonitor? You have a little plushie dog that passes health codes. It has medical sensors in it perhaps attached to the patient which can detect an attack just like a dog would. It's alarm goes off indicating the subject needs to prepare. Then he can cuddle with it or whatever he does with the dog until it is over. Please do explain why that cannot be as effective as a live dog. If you cannot then my sugtgestion becomes more effective because it passes health codes.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Firstly, here you made an absurd example. I do not respond to absurd and massively exceptional examples. They have nothing to do with "the rule". Secondly, you do not seem to understand what a coping skill is. It is far more effective for someone to learn how to manage their anxiety, depression, or whatever by focusing on something and learning how to deal with their psychological distress withOUT substances than with. And lastly, as I said, smoking has harm associated with it.
    Yes yes, I know you don't deal with examples that are hard for you to deal with....I mean absurd. However, since youy are admitting it is just a focus, why couldn't he learn to cope with something that passes health codes? Why does it have to be the dog? What happens if the dog gets sick or if the dog dies? Even you call it something in your statement indicating your research has caused you to have an understanding that the object is somewhat irrelevant in comparison to the technique of focusing.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Now you are just being dishonest:





    I posted the symptoms of each, proving that they barely overlap and they are quite different... proving you wrong. You said it. Take responsibility for it. As far as allowing people with depression having services dogs, that is a different argument. Stop making slippery slope logical fallacies.
    Even in your own claim you could only come up with the difference that PTSD had to have a event, while depression could have an event but did not need one. That was about it. The rest of that is pretty much the same except for some different wording and synonyms.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You know, I remembered something from last night. You and I have discussed mental illness before.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...ide-issue.html

    We debated from about post #54 on. In this thread, I proved that you are very uneducated on mental health, repeatedly demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about. Your above comments further proven that. You have no substantiation that this guy is a scammer, have proven nothing, have been unable to prove that service dogs do not work, have shown that you don't understand the difference between Major Depression and PTSD, and then LIED about not knowing the difference, don't understand how coping skills work and their efficacy, and you overgeneralize EVERYTHING based on supposition and faulty premises. In other words, as I said in the other thread, you don't know what you are talking about, and in conclusion, your entire argument here has been shown to have no standing, you have proven nothing and your argument is a complete bucket of fail.

    Now, do you have anything of substance to add? Because thus far, all you are doing is making me post basic psychological concepts of which you seem to have little knowledge.
    Still trying to avoid the argument and attacking the person making the argument. You have yet to prove this guy is not a scammer and has this heavy mental problem that requires a service animal. You have yet to prove that it has to be a service animal. You keep on avoiding the argument and hoping to attack something easier.

  7. #177
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,745

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    The claim that you need a god with you so you can eat breakfast is absurd. This is where the argument of service animals for psych patients becomes absurd. A blind person does not have a dog with them because of an attack. They have a dog with them because they can never see. They have the same need at every moment for the dog. A PTSD patient may be doing the exact same thing they want to do during an attack without a dog and doing it fine. That does not occur with blind people and service animals for proper reasons. I am arguing against an absurd argument when you stop spinning it into an argument over PTSD existing. The argument for service animals is that the need is so constant and prevelant in their life that denying them the animal creates a restrictive situation that hibnders their ability to get along in the activity. A blind person has to get from the door to the table which the dog will help them with. A blind person may have to walk to the bathroom, or the dog will indicate the necessity for them to act in certain situations based on visual cues. This dog doesn't do any thing like that. This man is perfectly capable of eating his breakfast and going back to his dog without interfering with the activity. You are talking about levels of discomfort. The man is not comfortable without his dog. He is not hindered from accomplishing any task without the dog. I am very unsympathetic to the idea that uncomfortable means other people should have to act differently.
    Firstly, you keep claiming that I am arguing that PTSD exists. I am not. That is just you straw manning. Secondly, of course these service dogs are required, similar to dogs for the blind. The dog helps to alert him to dangers and assists him in being able to manage situations that he could not without the dog. Notice... this is similar to what a dog for the blind does. Your perception that this is not an extreme situation is nothing but your opinion, something that you have completely failed to prove and something that I have easily refuted. As has been demonstrated, there are activities that the man cannot accomplish without the dog. This is clear and documented. All you are doing is making false claims that are not backed by facts.




    Actually, we are arguing a threshold. Just as I have avoided claiming the dog does not work at all you should avoid arguing against that idea because I never said it. I have said repeatedly that I would be in support for use of the dog for therapy, and that I am even willing to provide tax money for the purchase and training of such animals to help out the people who suffer from PTSD. What I am saying, and repeating over and over because certain people cannot argue against my point, is that it is not necessary to be there every moment of every day and therefor the guy can abide by health codes.
    And what I am saying is that it IS necessary for the dog to be there and because of this necessity, just as with dogs for the blind, the health codes are irrelevant. This is a coping skill that has been found to be effective. Your opinion on whether this is necessary is irrelevant. FACTS are that in this case, it has been found to be necessary and effective. YOUR opinion that the man needs a higher level of care due to this is irrelevant. It has been determined that he does not as this coping skill is effective and necessary. As I have said, you are arguing supposition and "perhaps". Nothing substantial.

    Health codes were not established for the purpose of discrimination. The exceptions made for them should be minimal and only for extreme cases which this clearly is not. This is not an absolute argument, and that is why your conclusion you have accomplished a win is wrong. You have yet to explain why this guy's problem is so debilitating that he needs that dog on a constant basis, or that his reactions are so severe it prevents him from being able to get to the dog if he has an attack. Many of the symptoms of PTSD involve long term symptoms that could be worked through until the point to which he could be with the dog, and some of the symptoms would not even effect him while awake because he is not entering a dream state.
    No, this is an extreme case. If you believe it is not, you do not understand PTSD... and from your posts, this is pretty evident. I never claimed that it is an absolute argument, but it applies in this case. You have failed to prove that it doesn't. All you have done is made erroneous accusations based on supposition and conjecture. Have you seen the psychological evaluation of the man? Do you know what the exam revealed? No, of course you don't. You made a supposition based on nothing, objecting to what has been determined necessary because you don't like it. No evidence, no support. You have failed to understand what a service dog in this case would do and focus on extreme situations.

    Actually the point is relevant, you just claimed you do not debate things you perceive as absurd. Oh, and yes I do understand how service dogs are trained, and yes they are still capable of biting. Even if you wanted to claim biting is very unlikely given the training you still have to admit the dog may itself succumb to mental problems which might cause abnormal violent reactions. Perhaps something along the lines of a degenerative mental disease like rabies, or an owner who abuses the **** out of them which would override the training they receive. These things happen. The reality is a smoke or masturbation will not bite another person. In one case a cigarette is incapable of biting, and in the other biting is simply not part of the process.
    I told you I do not debate absurd and extreme exception arguments. If you want to attempt to prove your position, you really need to do much better than using these silly or already debunked exceptions or analogies. Just make your argument look weak... which it is.

    No, you have said what the dog does, and those things can be accomplished by something else.
    Which is irrelevant as I explained in my post, using the medication analogy.

    For example let me ask why the process could not involve a plushie fitted with a biomonitor? You have a little plushie dog that passes health codes. It has medical sensors in it perhaps attached to the patient which can detect an attack just like a dog would. It's alarm goes off indicating the subject needs to prepare. Then he can cuddle with it or whatever he does with the dog until it is over. Please do explain why that cannot be as effective as a live dog. If you cannot then my sugtgestion becomes more effective because it passes health codes.
    Go prove the effectiveness and then get back to us. Until you do, this is another absurd and unsubstantiated argument. Health codes are irrelevant when it comes to service dogs. This is a service dog and has been proven effective. You keep running into this problem and can't refute it.


    Yes yes, I know you don't deal with examples that are hard for you to deal with....I mean absurd.
    No, I don't respond to absurd examples that you make because you can't refute real ones.

    However, since youy are admitting it is just a focus, why couldn't he learn to cope with something that passes health codes? Why does it have to be the dog? What happens if the dog gets sick or if the dog dies? Even you call it something in your statement indicating your research has caused you to have an understanding that the object is somewhat irrelevant in comparison to the technique of focusing.
    What if. Perhaps. Nothing of substance, AGAIN. You claim that you are not trying to prove the lack of effectiveness of the service dog, but in order to prove your position, that's what you have to demonstrate. OR you have to prove the efficacy of an alternate solution, one that is as effective for this individual as the dog. Thus far, you have failed to do either of those things. This is one big reason why your argument is a failure.

    Even in your own claim you could only come up with the difference that PTSD had to have a event, while depression could have an event but did not need one. That was about it. The rest of that is pretty much the same except for some different wording and synonyms.
    No, I mentioned several things, but the event is key. It's like saying that the difference between a raspberry and a tomato is that one is a fruit and one is a vegetable. Yes, they are both red, both are eaten, both grow and are not animals, but the first thing I mentioned is the KEY difference. That's how it is with PTSD and depression. The event is VERY distinctive and makes the two disorders very different.

    Still trying to avoid the argument and attacking the person making the argument. You have yet to prove this guy is not a scammer and has this heavy mental problem that requires a service animal. You have yet to prove that it has to be a service animal. You keep on avoiding the argument and hoping to attack something easier.
    No, I am providing context. You do not understand mental health issues as demonstrated in that thread and in this one. You have completely failed to prove that this guy is a scammer. All you have posted is supposition, conjecture, and what ifs. Nothing substantial, no proof at all. Prove that any of the alternatives that you suggested are as effective as the service dog for this guy and then we can talk. Thus far you have proven zero efficacy of anything and can't even understand the distinction between major depression and PTSD... and have lied about your claim about it.

    So, in conclusion, your argument is built on something with no foundation whatsoever. Offer proof of anything that you have said... and absurd, ridiculously exceptional, and maybe conclusions don't cut it.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Firstly, you keep claiming that I am arguing that PTSD exists. I am not. That is just you straw manning.
    I say the guy is a scammer, then I get the argument here is what PTSD is and it exists. I have agreed with that part of the argument. There is a second part to that which is that the guy has been wrongfully diagnosed by someone, for some reason. I have presented evidence to that effect through rational argumentation that he would be institutionalized if he was actually incapable of eating breakfast without an attack. I have also made the argument that referring to what is essentially a therapy dog as a service dog needs to be differentiated under the law better because this is not a service dog like is used by cripples and blind people. There is a fundamental difference between the purpose for this guys service dog and other service dogs which means his dog should not have been given an exception because it does not get to that point of necessity.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Secondly, of course these service dogs are required, similar to dogs for the blind. The dog helps to alert him to dangers and assists him in being able to manage situations that he could not without the dog. Notice... this is similar to what a dog for the blind does. Your perception that this is not an extreme situation is nothing but your opinion, something that you have completely failed to prove and something that I have easily refuted. As has been demonstrated, there are activities that the man cannot accomplish without the dog. This is clear and documented. All you are doing is making false claims that are not backed by facts.
    That is not actually true. A seeing eye dog reacts to continuing situations that the blind person never sees. This guys dog at best reacts to a occurrence that he goes through. I just want to make it perfectly clear that you are now saying this man cannot eat breakfast without his dog. he is not being denied every activity in the world. A blind man is denied seeing every activity in the world. This man can accomplish eating breakfast without his dog. He can accomplish eating breakfast without his dog without having an anxiety attack. He can even accomplish getting back to his dog if he has an attack. Masybe i am logically presenting this wrong. You have a blind man with a service dog and this guy with a service dog. Given all things remain the same have them go for a walk with and without the dog. There will be a huge difference in the results for the blind man. There will not for him. Walking and motion is such a basic necessity that yes we will be happy to make whatever arrangements we can to help a person without that ability to have it. This guy is not on that level and is not even close to being on that level.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And what I am saying is that it IS necessary for the dog to be there and because of this necessity, just as with dogs for the blind, the health codes are irrelevant. This is a coping skill that has been found to be effective. Your opinion on whether this is necessary is irrelevant. FACTS are that in this case, it has been found to be necessary and effective. YOUR opinion that the man needs a higher level of care due to this is irrelevant. It has been determined that he does not as this coping skill is effective and necessary. As I have said, you are arguing supposition and "perhaps". Nothing substantial.
    They are not even close to the same level. If I offered you a choice of being blind or having PTSD you would chose PTSD. People who are PTSD would chose PTSD. People who are blind would not say I would rather be blind than have PTSD. That is because they are not comparible in effects on your life. What is really amazing is that p[eople who are blind try to work above their disability and do not want to be treated as cripples. People like this dog guy wear their disability like a friggen badge. If a blind person were capable of walking into a restaurant and eating as a normal sighted person they would chose to do that. This guy actually has that choice. If this guy doesn't have that choice, if he is so sick he cannot eat breakfast without having a psychotic break because he does not have his dog, then he needs more than a dog. They would not let him go it alone in that case.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, this is an extreme case. If you believe it is not, you do not understand PTSD... and from your posts, this is pretty evident. I never claimed that it is an absolute argument, but it applies in this case. You have failed to prove that it doesn't. All you have done is made erroneous accusations based on supposition and conjecture. Have you seen the psychological evaluation of the man? Do you know what the exam revealed? No, of course you don't. You made a supposition based on nothing, objecting to what has been determined necessary because you don't like it. No evidence, no support. You have failed to understand what a service dog in this case would do and focus on extreme situations.
    I have made a rational point based upon the facts in the situation. You are the one who has offered up the what if he has this horrible symptom and cannot cope. In the case of a blind person or a cripple there is no what if. A person who is blind cannot see. A person without a limb cannot use that limb. this guy is not like that. He is perfectly fine most times. He operates just like the rest of us most of the time. I am telling you I do not think it is as necessary for this guy to have his dog like other service dogs. Yes, I have seen your sources. I have seen your claims and your evidence. I am not convinced. I am not convinced this reaches the same necessity as seeing eye dogs. I am not convinced his condition is as severe as blindness. I am not convinced this therapy in absolutely necessary at the time of the attack like perhaps a shot of antihystemine is to a allergic reaction. I am not convinced that this guy cannot simply deal like the rest of us for that brief amount of time and go back to his dog and do what he has to. You have not even come close to showing any of that. The best you have done is to say other people suffer severe symptoms. Yes, of course they do, and I know he is not one of them because he has seen a shrink and been evaluated so he is capable of acting on his own. If he wasn't he would be under constant supervision. You have never shown this guy actually freaks out and becomes crippled. You do not even know he does or not. He might according to you, but he seems to do just fine most of the time, and even the shrinks do not think he is especially dangerous to himself or others if he has an attack. So he can get by without the dog for a short time. That can be logically determined from this situation. Your claim that he is incapable and crippled because of his condition like in some extreme cases where people are institutionalized is not proven by the evidence. Since PTSD can exist in a state that people can work through, this guy's problem falls in the category of workable because we remove truly dysfunctional people from society when we find them. Since he has been seen and evaluated he is presently not at that level.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I told you I do not debate absurd and extreme exception arguments. If you want to attempt to prove your position, you really need to do much better than using these silly or already debunked exceptions or analogies. Just make your argument look weak... which it is.
    Yes, it is very inconvenient to have arguments you cannot deal with. I do not call that absurdity like you do, I call that a good argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Which is irrelevant as I explained in my post, using the medication analogy.
    I must have missed that one so please restate it for me why it has to be a dog and cannot be something like a plushie.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Go prove the effectiveness and then get back to us. Until you do, this is another absurd and unsubstantiated argument. Health codes are irrelevant when it comes to service dogs. This is a service dog and has been proven effective. You keep running into this problem and can't refute it.
    Oh, sop the scientific studies about psychology are relevant, but the scientific knowledge on biology is not? Health codes are based on science about biology. BTW that science is much more truly scientific than psychology. You are now comparing biology to psychology and you do not want to be the guy on top of the psychology box. If the health codes are there for a purpose to keep contaminents from the food we eat, that is a scientifically proven method. However, what you are basing your argument on are things like case study and methodology which often does not put forth true cause and effect like biology does. So if one is more important than the other, or to be taken more importantly it would be the health code because it is based on much more direct factors that have a more reliable outcome.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, I don't respond to absurd examples that you make because you can't refute real ones.
    Yes, I know you cannot refute it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What if. Perhaps. Nothing of substance, AGAIN. You claim that you are not trying to prove the lack of effectiveness of the service dog, but in order to prove your position, that's what you have to demonstrate. OR you have to prove the efficacy of an alternate solution, one that is as effective for this individual as the dog. Thus far, you have failed to do either of those things. This is one big reason why your argument is a failure.
    But this goes back to the argument above that you ignore because it is absurd. Why does it have to be a dog? You are saying it does not matter that it is a dog and we should just forget laws banning dogs rather than seeking out alternative objects. I say why not use pot. Why not use a gun? Why not use an elephant? You just said the object does not matter, and my arguments are absurd because the object does matter. That is the argument you are avoiding because it blows yours away.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, I mentioned several things, but the event is key. It's like saying that the difference between a raspberry and a tomato is that one is a fruit and one is a vegetable. Yes, they are both red, both are eaten, both grow and are not animals, but the first thing I mentioned is the KEY difference. That's how it is with PTSD and depression. The event is VERY distinctive and makes the two disorders very different.
    Actually in the case that you mentioned both are so similar and overlapping they belong to the same groups right down to a few delineating factors. Very different would be comparing a raspberry to an insect or a human.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, I am providing context. You do not understand mental health issues as demonstrated in that thread and in this one. You have completely failed to prove that this guy is a scammer. All you have posted is supposition, conjecture, and what ifs. Nothing substantial, no proof at all. Prove that any of the alternatives that you suggested are as effective as the service dog for this guy and then we can talk. Thus far you have proven zero efficacy of anything and can't even understand the distinction between major depression and PTSD... and have lied about your claim about it.

    So, in conclusion, your argument is built on something with no foundation whatsoever. Offer proof of anything that you have said... and absurd, ridiculously exceptional, and maybe conclusions don't cut it.
    No, actually the attempt to discredit me based on another completely different argument would be an ad hom logical fallacy. The reality is that right or wrong in the other argument, which BTW you did not establish either, has absolutely no bearing on right or wrong here. If we were talking about suicide it might have a relation, but since we are not you are way off. You can keep on claiming you are right, but that does not make it so.

  9. #179
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,745

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I say the guy is a scammer, then I get the argument here is what PTSD is and it exists.
    You presented a supposition that the guy is a scammer of which you have not proven. You THEN tried to argue that PTSD is pretty much the same as depression... as I quoted you. This presentation has ALSO been debunked. So, thus far you are 0 for 2. I'll start keeping score.

    I have agreed with that part of the argument.
    But since that was not what was argued, your agreement is irrelevant.

    There is a second part to that which is that the guy has been wrongfully diagnosed by someone, for some reason. I have presented evidence to that effect through rational argumentation that he would be institutionalized if he was actually incapable of eating breakfast without an attack.
    And I have thoroughly trashed this argument. Firstly, you have presented zero evidence of a wrong diagnosis. Secondly, you have demonstrated that you do not understand mental health treatment, levels of care, and what that things are not black or white. You have failed to prove that he needs to be institutionalized by the mere fact that he CAN eat breakfast without an attack. He uses a coping skill. More evidence that you do not understand mental health issues.

    You are now 0 for 3... and that's pretty generous considering how much was wrong with what you said and how much was refuted.

    I have also made the argument that referring to what is essentially a therapy dog as a service dog needs to be differentiated under the law better because this is not a service dog like is used by cripples and blind people.
    And yet it's NOT differentiated. What you want is irrelevant to what IS. You are now 0 for 4.

    There is a fundamental difference between the purpose for this guys service dog and other service dogs which means his dog should not have been given an exception because it does not get to that point of necessity.
    Should is irrelevant. It has been shown that the dog qualifies as a service dog based on his training and what he does... and that is accepted legally.

    You are now 0 for 5.

    That is not actually true. A seeing eye dog reacts to continuing situations that the blind person never sees. This guys dog at best reacts to a occurrence that he goes through. I just want to make it perfectly clear that you are now saying this man cannot eat breakfast without his dog. he is not being denied every activity in the world. A blind man is denied seeing every activity in the world. This man can accomplish eating breakfast without his dog. He can accomplish eating breakfast without his dog without having an anxiety attack. He can even accomplish getting back to his dog if he has an attack. Masybe i am logically presenting this wrong. You have a blind man with a service dog and this guy with a service dog. Given all things remain the same have them go for a walk with and without the dog. There will be a huge difference in the results for the blind man. There will not for him. Walking and motion is such a basic necessity that yes we will be happy to make whatever arrangements we can to help a person without that ability to have it. This guy is not on that level and is not even close to being on that level.
    You do understand that there are different types of disabilities, right? There are also different types of treatments. A blind man can also walk with a cane. Is it as effective? Probably not, but he could still get around and accomplish tasks. Same for the guy with PTSD. The service dog assists both people with their functioning levels and their ability to cope with situations that affect their disabilities. There is no reason to not allow this because you don't think it's necessary. His physician DOES.

    That's 0 for 6.

    They are not even close to the same level. If I offered you a choice of being blind or having PTSD you would chose PTSD. People who are PTSD would chose PTSD. People who are blind would not say I would rather be blind than have PTSD. That is because they are not comparible in effects on your life. What is really amazing is that p[eople who are blind try to work above their disability and do not want to be treated as cripples. People like this dog guy wear their disability like a friggen badge. If a blind person were capable of walking into a restaurant and eating as a normal sighted person they would chose to do that. This guy actually has that choice. If this guy doesn't have that choice, if he is so sick he cannot eat breakfast without having a psychotic break because he does not have his dog, then he needs more than a dog. They would not let him go it alone in that case.
    This further demonstrates that you do not understand mental illness or PTSD. This guy CANNOT walk into a restaurant as a person without PTSD could. That makes his situation analogous to the blind person's. This is not about what is worse. It is about how each affects functionality. Your dismissal of the affect on functionality that PTSD has demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue.

    That's 0 for 7.

    I have made a rational point based upon the facts in the situation.
    No you haven't as I have shown.

    You are the one who has offered up the what if he has this horrible symptom and cannot cope.
    No, I offered no what if. I offered evidence of the effects of PTSD. Your non-acceptance of this irrelevant to it's accuracy.

    In the case of a blind person or a cripple there is no what if. A person who is blind cannot see. A person without a limb cannot use that limb. this guy is not like that. He is perfectly fine most times.
    No, he isn't fine most times. That's why he needs a service dog... to help him function... just like a blind person.

    He operates just like the rest of us most of the time.
    No he doesn't.

    I am telling you I do not think it is as necessary for this guy to have his dog like other service dogs.
    Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant. You have offered nothing of substance to back this opinion. Only your "shoulds", "I don't believes", your "what ifs", and your dismissal of the severity of PTSD. You CLAIM to not be doing this, but you are doing it repeatedly.

    Yes, I have seen your sources. I have seen your claims and your evidence. I am not convinced. I am not convinced this reaches the same necessity as seeing eye dogs. I am not convinced his condition is as severe as blindness. I am not convinced this therapy in absolutely necessary at the time of the attack like perhaps a shot of antihystemine is to a allergic reaction. I am not convinced that this guy cannot simply deal like the rest of us for that brief amount of time and go back to his dog and do what he has to.
    Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant. Your denial of facts for whatever your reasons are do not interest me. Seems to me that you will dismiss facts because you don't WANT to believe them. This is the logical fallacy of belief perseverance, beliefs that persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false. Probably some confirmation bias on your part, too.

    Btw... you get negative credit for this sequence. That's 0 for 8.

    You have not even come close to showing any of that.
    Of course I have. Your denial of this is irrelevant.

    The best you have done is to say other people suffer severe symptoms. Yes, of course they do, and I know he is not one of them because he has seen a shrink and been evaluated so he is capable of acting on his own. If he wasn't he would be under constant supervision. You have never shown this guy actually freaks out and becomes crippled. You do not even know he does or not. He might according to you, but he seems to do just fine most of the time, and even the shrinks do not think he is especially dangerous to himself or others if he has an attack. So he can get by without the dog for a short time. That can be logically determined from this situation.
    No, this sequence demonstrates that you have no logic and you misinterpret facts to fit your position... confirmation bias. Completely illogical. This guy has been evaluated by a shrink, and it has been determined that his symptoms are severe enough that he needs a service dog in order to improve his functioning so he can do standard actions. He does not need to be under constant supervision... and your comment surrounding this CONTINUES to expose your lack of understanding of mental health issues and a continuum of functionality rather than it being black or white. You have no evidence that he seems fine most of the time nor that he hasn't had anxiety attacks... in fact, if he was diagnosed with PTSD, we KNOW that he has had anxiety attacks. Your entire comment above ignores facts and logic and is completely erroneous, bordering on the ridiculous and dishonest.

    If I could give you more than one point I would, but I'll be nice. That's 0 for 9.

    Your claim that he is incapable and crippled because of his condition like in some extreme cases where people are institutionalized is not proven by the evidence. Since PTSD can exist in a state that people can work through, this guy's problem falls in the category of workable because we remove truly dysfunctional people from society when we find them. Since he has been seen and evaluated he is presently not at that level.
    Again, confirmation bias. He has been seen and evaluated and the evaluation determined that his symptoms were severe enough to allow him to have a service dog. These are the facts of the case. Anything that you say that opposes this is pure supposition on your part and is not based in fact.

    You are now 0 for 10.

    Yes, it is very inconvenient to have arguments you cannot deal with. I do not call that absurdity like you do, I call that a good argument.
    You make absurd argument when you can't make good ones. That's what you've done here. Responding to your absurd arguments gives them credence, and since they have none, I have no desire to alter that.

    I must have missed that one so please restate it for me why it has to be a dog and cannot be something like a plushie.
    There are several different medications to treat the same disorder. Just because one works does not mean that you eliminate all the others.

    Oh, sop the scientific studies about psychology are relevant, but the scientific knowledge on biology is not? Health codes are based on science about biology. BTW that science is much more truly scientific than psychology. You are now comparing biology to psychology and you do not want to be the guy on top of the psychology box. If the health codes are there for a purpose to keep contaminents from the food we eat, that is a scientifically proven method. However, what you are basing your argument on are things like case study and methodology which often does not put forth true cause and effect like biology does. So if one is more important than the other, or to be taken more importantly it would be the health code because it is based on much more direct factors that have a more reliable outcome.
    Your entire comment here is irrelevant since you did not even understand what I said. Here, I will restate it. Service dogs for the blind are allowed in restaurants regardless of health codes. It has been shown that service dogs in these situations are efficient treatments. Service dogs for those with PTSD are allowed in restaurants regardless of health codes. It has been shown that service dogs in these situations are efficient treatments. In other words, health codes are irrelevant in these cases. As I have shown, repeatedly, they are analogous.

    I will not give you any negative points, since you didn't really make an error. You just didn't understand what I said.

    Yes, I know you cannot refute it.
    Nothing to refute. You made an absurd argument because you cannot make a real one. I won't feed into your absurd arguments.

    But this goes back to the argument above that you ignore because it is absurd. Why does it have to be a dog? You are saying it does not matter that it is a dog and we should just forget laws banning dogs rather than seeking out alternative objects. I say why not use pot. Why not use a gun? Why not use an elephant? You just said the object does not matter, and my arguments are absurd because the object does matter. That is the argument you are avoiding because it blows yours away.
    No, what I'm saying is prove that any of your objects will work as efficiently. Show me the studies. I am avoiding no argument... because it's not my argument. It's YOURS. You believe that other options would be as effective? Prove it.

    Actually in the case that you mentioned both are so similar and overlapping they belong to the same groups right down to a few delineating factors. Very different would be comparing a raspberry to an insect or a human.
    No, I have shown the fundamental difference between the two. Your disagreement is not pertinent. One cannot mistake someone with one diagnosis for someone with the other.

    No, actually the attempt to discredit me based on another completely different argument would be an ad hom logical fallacy. The reality is that right or wrong in the other argument, which BTW you did not establish either, has absolutely no bearing on right or wrong here. If we were talking about suicide it might have a relation, but since we are not you are way off. You can keep on claiming you are right, but that does not make it so.
    No, as I told you it goes towards fund of knowledge and credibility. You have already shown both your lack of understanding of mental health issues and your dismissal of mental health issues. As I have pointed out, that goes to your confirmation bias, which is a logical fallacy and permeates your entire argument.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #180
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You presented a supposition that the guy is a scammer of which you have not proven. You THEN tried to argue that PTSD is pretty much the same as depression... as I quoted you. This presentation has ALSO been debunked. So, thus far you are 0 for 2. I'll start keeping score.
    Though quite entertaining this has reached way beyond my boredom level. The argument has become circular, and you are not going anywhere new. It is cool that you at least kept up and continued to try and make your point with me, and i thank you for actually extending a good long bit of debate here. I have no new statement aside from a reitteration of my past points which even I have become tired of saying. It is pretty much dead, there is no more audience, and if you wish to claim a longevity victory I am cool with saying you can argue the same thing much longer than I have here. Have a nice day, I have new stupid to complain about. But I do look forward to future endeavors between us as that was a lot of fun.

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •