- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know, I remembered something from last night. You and I have discussed mental illness before.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/153666-why-dont-any-folks-dc-seem-have-any-interest-solving-suicide-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.