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.
