• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

mental illness

Quag said:
Just saw this and figured this would spark a lot of debate

Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Personally I think it goes overboard but understand how some ideologies can be harmfull
Click to expand...

"Mental illness" is a pseudoscientific concept. The disease model of mental problems has not basis in scientific fact. There are no lab tests for so-called mental illness.

"Mental illness" is nothing more than prejudice. A generation ago, prevailing prejudices against homosexuals led to homosexuality being labeled a mental illness, for no scientifically valid reason. This is not much different.

Thorgasm said:
Mental illness is a myth.
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
Hard Truth said:
Is there any doubt that some people's religious fanaticism is harmful to both themselves and others? However, generally I think it is a symptom, not a condition on its own.
Click to expand...

Harmful to self and others? That's your definition of mental illness?

So I guess you think cigarette smoking is a mental illness?
 
Paschendale said:
Slavery is wrong. Plenty of religions think that slavery is right. That's not subjective. Burning people alive is wrong. Gouging out people's eyes is wrong. Beating a woman into being subservient to a man is wrong. Selling a woman into marriage is wrong. These are all things promoted by religions. Not subjective at all.

You say the "process" is subjective. You mean like in deciding whether or not it's okay to lie to spare someone's feelings in a specific social situation? Of course that's subjective. But kindness and generosity are right and selfishness and brutality are wrong. Engaging in brutality because someone else told you to might just be a sign of mental illness. And doing so because you hear voices in your head definitely is.
Click to expand...


An example of that subjectivity and how things change:

Slavery originated with captives taken in tribal warfare. It was a moral step UP taken when food surpluses via agriculture enabled a tribe to be wealthy enough to keep captives as slaves. It was a moral step UP because previously the captives were typically executed... so slavery was more moral than that which came before it.

Subsequently, we've swapped slavery for "employment"... another step up, but on bad days by gosh I can tell you the similarities are striking.



Getting back to the topic in question... this is disturbing stuff. The woman in question notes one of the problems with it...

The moral-ethical dimension arises from the predictable tendency when acting on the problem, armed with a new technology, to apply to the label "fundamentalist" only to our ideological opponents, while failing to perceive the "fundamentalism" in ourselves.
Click to expand...
Read more: Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness
 
Guy Incognito said:
"Mental illness" is a pseudoscientific concept. The disease model of mental problems has not basis in scientific fact. There are no lab tests for so-called mental illness.

"Mental illness" is nothing more than prejudice. A generation ago, prevailing prejudices against homosexuals led to homosexuality being labeled a mental illness, for no scientifically valid reason. This is not much different.
Click to expand...

So, schizophrenics are just weird?
 
Cephus said:
Now while I agree with you subjectively, please demonstrate that this is a factually correct statement. You can't do it.

You seem to be confusing your own subjective views with being "right". It's not necessarily so.
Click to expand...

Do you take the position that there are such a thing as intrinsic rights? Or human rights? Or even free will? If you do, then you have to agree that it is wrong to deprive a person of that free will.

How do I know that hurting people is objectively wrong? Because no one wants to be hurt. No one wants to live in fear or suffering or misery. That is a basic part of being human. As physical, tangible, biological lifeforms, we exist within limited parameters. All this lofty "everything is subjective" nonsense is just that, nonsense. It's pretentious, unfounded, and unrealistic. We are all basically alike. We fear the same things, and love the same things. We don't like to fear and we like to love. What we like is right and what we don't like is wrong. Those are the objective moral rules of being alive. Rocks and stars and empty space and hydrogen atoms are not alive. The universe has no morality. Human beings do, because we are alive.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Name me a place that has gone "no kill". Also, I would like you to show me comparisons to other shelters to support your last claim.
Click to expand...

I'll name you several dozen.

No-kill is defined as a save rate of better than 90%. Obviously, we have to allow for some very sick or injured animals who will be euthanized. This is especially common with strays.

But 90+% is entirely achievable, and it's been done many times.

Here's a nice map of several known no-kill communities in the US. Please note the presence of some fairly substantial cities, including Austin and Kansas City, as well as several entire counties.

http://greatsheltersconference.com/no-kill-communities/

Here's another one that lists dozens. The 90+% save rate communities are listed by state on the right side.

http://outthefrontdoor.com/

There are also no-kill countries. Meet Italy and India.

No-kill shelter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
The claim that PETA kills perfectly healthy animals because they want to eliminate domestic animals. and don't think people should be allowed to keep them appears to be untrue disinformation. PETA has a lot of well-funded enemies who don't appreciate their activities exposing abuse of animals used as livestock, for circuses etc.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I can't take a memo from their own organization seriously. Of course they're going to deny the charges, but their actions tell a totally different story.

Also, they're lying.

They pick up "unclaimed" animals from shelters -- not dying, not extremely mean, just unclaimed -- and kill them usually the same day or the following.

In one case, several autopsies were performed on the animals. They were found to be perfectly healthy, and far too young to be "mean" or "unsocialized." They were killed for no reason.

WARNING: There is a picture of dead animals in garbage bags.

Shocking photos show reality of PETA animal home | Mail Online

Testimony underway in PETA trial | The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

They pick up animals from all over the place, as is evidenced by their report that I posted earlier. They also say on a DIFFERENT page that they don't think animals should be kept at all. So now they want "loving homes" for these animals? This is unmitigated BS.
 
Paschendale said:
Do you take the position that there are such a thing as intrinsic rights? Or human rights? Or even free will? If you do, then you have to agree that it is wrong to deprive a person of that free will.
Click to expand...

Nope, no such thing as any of those. They're all things that humans came up with.

How do I know that hurting people is objectively wrong? Because no one wants to be hurt. No one wants to live in fear or suffering or misery. That is a basic part of being human. As physical, tangible, biological lifeforms, we exist within limited parameters. All this lofty "everything is subjective" nonsense is just that, nonsense. It's pretentious, unfounded, and unrealistic. We are all basically alike. We fear the same things, and love the same things. We don't like to fear and we like to love. What we like is right and what we don't like is wrong. Those are the objective moral rules of being alive. Rocks and stars and empty space and hydrogen atoms are not alive. The universe has no morality. Human beings do, because we are alive.
Click to expand...

So what? There's a difference between you personally thinking a thing is wrong and a thing being objectively wrong. So far, you've only given your opinion and declared it universal. Now you have to demonstrate that it actually is universal. Humans invent their own morality, it's entirely subjective, based on our own desires. To prove it objective, you'd need to find a legitimate source of morality that transcends human wants, that came from outside of us. Since you can't, morals are subjective.
 
lizzie said:
I would really hate to see this happen, as religious fundamentalism is essentially the same, in concept, as environmentalism, humanism, and any of a variety of strongly held belief systems regarding what is right vs what is wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is rather dogmatism and unflexible ideological thinking than strong values, in case of fundamentalism (and such dogmatism is certainly not limited to religious worldviews). Not sure if it's a mental illness, but it's certainly extremely authoritarian and dangerous. I'd rather compare it to non-religious dogmatic ideology, such as communist or Nazi ideology.

Hannah Arendt, one of my favorites, wrote interesting analyses describing the ideological mindset (she focused on Nazis and Stalinist communists), most important the lack of capacity to process new information without compulsively trying to interpret it into the own ideology, which is an endless chain of conclusions -- A leads to B, B leads to C, and so on ... so every new information will inevitably be interpreted as a fact somehow tied to the final end of this ideology. There is no "natality", there is never a new "A" unconnected to other points in that chain, for ideologues. They will compulsively draw conclusions inside their ideology that claims to perfectly explain the world in its entirety. And that's very dangerous, as no individual has a meaning or value except for the role it plays for the "greater plan".

Not sure if this explanation makes sense as I worded it, but I found Arendt's explanation very convincing. And I think much of this applies to religious fundamentalists too.
 
lizzie said:
It is true. There is equivalency. When it comes to judgements of what is right and what is wrong, it's a subjective process, no matter the source of those beliefs.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't think the problem about many fundamentalists are their convictions about right and wrong. It's their lack of capacity to allow anything else in their world they can't interpret with their ideology.

Even good things are bad when taken to the extreme, and "you can no longer see the forest because all the trees are in the way", as that German saying goes. ;)
 
Guy Incognito said:
"Mental illness" is a pseudoscientific concept. The disease model of mental problems has not basis in scientific fact. There are no lab tests for so-called mental illness.

"Mental illness" is nothing more than prejudice. A generation ago, prevailing prejudices against homosexuals led to homosexuality being labeled a mental illness, for no scientifically valid reason. This is not much different.



This is correct.
Click to expand...

The more I think about this the more it sounds like thought police
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, probably not, but just so we're clear: if you weren't born in the west, you probably wouldn't be a Christian.

Still, there is a world of difference between your average religious person, and a religious zealot. Religious zealots are more likely to not only harm others, but also to harm themselves. How many stories do we read about high-exposure zealots living closested, disordered lives?

There's also a difference between your average environmentalist, and an environmental extremist -- although I'd like to note that one can arrive at environmentalism regardless of their location, and without any "leap of faith," which makes it fundamentally different from religion.

Still, an environmental extremist is more likely to harm others, or themselves, just like a religious fundamentalist, yes.

And in either case, these are anti-social, paranoid, self-damaging behaviors. Yeah, I'd say we should look into whether it should be classed as a mental illness.

And even more tellingly, there seem to be some people who swing to different kinds of extreme over their lifetime. For example, starting out a religious zealot, and becoming an environmental zealot. There seem to be people who just can't modulate their thinking, and there's even suggestion that genes may contribute to this.

There's also proof that even the majority of relatively normal people can be brainwashed into zealotry. They can literally have their brains re-wired by influence. And yet, some people are invulnerable to this. What makes them different?

I think that certainly warrants investigation.



Oh, they do a lot of things. PETA actually kills most of the animals in their "shelters." About 90%. Some vandalize or even set fire to research facilities. Yeah, they can get pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Agree very much!

Arendt, who I mentioned before, recognzed the bolded part too, when observing Nazi and communist ideologues: It's not so difficult to change the ideology of an ideologue, but very difficult to get ideological thinking out of him.

And ideological thinking means following an ideology that claims to sufficiently explain the entire world, then compulsively ordering every piece of information into this context, compulsively drawing conclusions and the lack of capacity to acknowledge new information without giving it its place inside this ideology. Totalitarian ideologies then always work towards an admired goal (like a racial pure, social Darwinist society, i.e., or a "classless society"), which means that the world has to be in constant movement, and individuals that become mere exponents of this ideology become dispensable:

You disagree with the ideology? You are an enemy because you stand in the way of natural/utopian order. The ideology defines that you have no place inside the new order? You are "life unworthy of living". You are not part of the "solution"? Then you are part of the problem. You agree? Fine, then join my cause 100%.

One of that, it has to be. Because nobody is an individual, nobody is a loving son or father or mother or brother, a human -- all you are is either a zealot or an enemy. And isn't it justified even killing people who don't want the perfect society? Is achieving a "classless society" or "racial purity" or "heaven on earth" not worth breaking a few bones and necks? Pretty small price.
 
Quag said:
The more I think about this the more it sounds like thought police
Click to expand...

As I know first hand, I disagree. There are in fact mental illnesses that are very painful illnesses and the people suffering from it need help, or they will destroy their lives, their ability to ever be happy again and maybe even commit suicide.

I agree, though, that there are many prejudices attached to mental illnesses, and I think it's a worthy goal to battle this prejudice. People suffering from schizophrenia or depression, for example, should not be singled out and ridiculed or feared, but instead enjoy understanding and help by others, for that they can have a life they wish as well as possible, as people with other medical conditions (from diabetics to amputees) can too.
 
Paschendale said:
You might notice that I did not say it was a mental illness, and that I was talking about knowledge. Why don't you tell me, though, why a person would compromise their intellect and adhere to beliefs that are demonstrably false? Adherence to any of the major religions requires an astounding amount of cognitive dissonance and doublethink.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make how some people look at religious beliefs? It's not against the law to be mentally ill. We don't incarcerate people who are mentally ill. And we don't force treatment upon those who are either. *shrug*

If it's so designated, does that mean it'll be covered under Obamacare?
 
German guy said:
As I know first hand, I disagree. There are in fact mental illnesses that are very painful illnesses and the people suffering from it need help, or they will destroy their lives, their ability to ever be happy again and maybe even commit suicide.

I agree, though, that there are many prejudices attached to mental illnesses, and I think it's a worthy goal to battle this prejudice. People suffering from schizophrenia or depression, for example, should not be singled out and ridiculed or feared, but instead enjoy understanding and help by others, for that they can have a life they wish as well as possible, as people with other medical conditions (from diabetics to amputees) can too.
Click to expand...

I agree with helping people but the idea of calling peoples faith a mental disorder and treating it as such seems to me a lot like thought police. Now if someone becomes a danger to themselves or others I believe they need to get help. it is where you draw the line though that makes it difficult.
Again the more I think about this article the more I think this line of thinking leads to thought police. In other words a group of people will decide what is and what isn't acceptable to accept or believe a very Orwellian situation IMHO.
 
Quag said:
I agree with helping people but the idea of calling peoples faith a mental disorder and treating it as such seems to me a lot like thought police. Now if someone becomes a danger to themselves or others I believe they need to get help. it is where you draw the line though that makes it difficult.
Again the more I think about this article the more I think this line of thinking leads to thought police. In other words a group of people will decide what is and what isn't acceptable to accept or believe a very Orwellian situation IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree absolutely.

I just wanted to say that mental illness in general is not a subjective or arbitrary thing, even if certain particular diagnosises are. There are certain mental illnesses that are well defined, can more or less reliably be diagnosed and the affected people suffer from it as much as people with other medical conditions too. Clinical depression is one that comes to my mind... I think it serves the affected people more when we treat them with respect and acknowledge they have an illness, rather than claiming depression is an entirely subjective thing and they aren't ill, and/or claiming it's all their own fault.

I don't think that religious convictions are a mental illness, though. At best, certain religious behavior is a symptom for some other mental condition.
 
Cephus said:
Nope, no such thing as any of those. They're all things that humans came up with.

So what? There's a difference between you personally thinking a thing is wrong and a thing being objectively wrong. So far, you've only given your opinion and declared it universal. Now you have to demonstrate that it actually is universal. Humans invent their own morality, it's entirely subjective, based on our own desires. To prove it objective, you'd need to find a legitimate source of morality that transcends human wants, that came from outside of us. Since you can't, morals are subjective.
Click to expand...

You know that's now how it works, right? Subjective is not the null hypothesis. And you are using false criteria. Morality doesn't mean cosmic laws etched into the fabric of the stars. It means why we do what we do. My point is that our morality does not come from outside of us, but from within us, from the things that we all share as a result of being human. You have nothing to contradict that evidence, just changing the goalposts and claiming that it doesn't count. If you want to invalidate my position, provide some real counter-evidence. Offer a culture that thinks that living in fear is desirable. Offer one where people have a strong sense of ownership of property, but then think stealing is fine. Our morality is built into our nature as humans. We "came up with" them not as some kind of fun mental exercise, but as a result of our being human. Without changing what we are, we could not have developed any other set of strong moral positions. Human beings have empathy and a capacity for suffering built into us. It's in our DNA. That informs what we think is right and wrong, and that doesn't change from culture to culture, or even from person to person except for a few psychopaths who are just wired a little wrong. They, for example, are mentally ill. People who hear voices are mentally ill, too.

Let's get back to actual topic and leave pretentious armchair philosophy in the trash where it belongs.

Guy Incognito said:
"Mental illness" is a pseudoscientific concept. The disease model of mental problems has not basis in scientific fact. There are no lab tests for so-called mental illness.

"Mental illness" is nothing more than prejudice. A generation ago, prevailing prejudices against homosexuals led to homosexuality being labeled a mental illness, for no scientifically valid reason. This is not much different.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Most mental illnesses are just physical problems in the brain. People who hallucinate are not the victims of bigotry. They see things that aren't there. Sufferers of PTSD have extreme physical reactions that are out of whack with the stimuli they're receiving. Retarded people often have brain damage. All of those conditions are recognizable, diagnosable, and sometimes treatable.

When did you get so far into the science denial camp?
 
Quag said:
Just saw this and figured this would spark a lot of debate

Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Personally I think it goes overboard but understand how some ideologies can be harmfull
Click to expand...

Over the years I have found a number of people with certain types of mental health issues tend to be attracted to more fundamentalist/extreme interpretations of religious belief - and from my observation, extreme religiosity tends to exacerbate their condition.
 
Paschendale said:
You know that's now how it works, right? Subjective is not the null hypothesis. And you are using false criteria. Morality doesn't mean cosmic laws etched into the fabric of the stars. It means why we do what we do. My point is that our morality does not come from outside of us, but from within us, from the things that we all share as a result of being human. You have nothing to contradict that evidence, just changing the goalposts and claiming that it doesn't count. If you want to invalidate my position, provide some real counter-evidence. Offer a culture that thinks that living in fear is desirable. Offer one where people have a strong sense of ownership of property, but then think stealing is fine. Our morality is built into our nature as humans. We "came up with" them not as some kind of fun mental exercise, but as a result of our being human. Without changing what we are, we could not have developed any other set of strong moral positions. Human beings have empathy and a capacity for suffering built into us. It's in our DNA. That informs what we think is right and wrong, and that doesn't change from culture to culture, or even from person to person except for a few psychopaths who are just wired a little wrong. They, for example, are mentally ill. People who hear voices are mentally ill, too.
Click to expand...

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And yes, you are right, our morality does come from within us, that makes it, by definition, subjective. It is changeable. It is mutable. There is no single universal standard that stands across cultures and throughout time. To say, to use one of your examples, that slavery is wrong, that's just your personal, and perhaps cultural, belief. It doesn't make it true for 18th century slave owners, it doesn't make it true for people of the 25th century, it just makes it true for you and probably for the culture in which you live. That's my point. I agree with your pronouncement, but that's hardly surprising because we likely come from the same general culture where that's a common view. We have to recognize that there is a significant difference between "this is true" and "I think this is true".

As for examples, it's easy. Most religions are based around fear of their gods. They think that's very desirable. There are plenty of poor sub-cultures that think stealing is just fine and dandy, yet would fight to protect what is theirs. There are sub-cultures where life is cheap and death comes easy and respect for life is minimal at best. You and I might consider these to be failed sub-cultures but they exist nonetheless.

Whether or not any of that is in our DNA is debatable. Our morality often extends from enlightened self-interest. We want others to treat us a certain way, therefore we try to treat others the way we want to be treated in hopes they will reciprocate. That changes from culture to culture. You have cultures that hack off the hands of thieves and blame women for their own rapes. You have cultures that kill infant girls because they'd rather have boys. Historically, you've had cultures that practiced ritual torture, cannibalism and ritual mass murder. None of the things that you talk about are universal by any means.

Let's get back to actual topic and leave pretentious armchair philosophy in the trash where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing facts, you're arguing emotionally satisfactory platitudes. Knock it off.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Harmful to self and others? That's your definition of mental illness?

So I guess you think cigarette smoking is a mental illness?
Click to expand...

Not a definition, but if someone is engaging in activities that harmful to themselves or others it is a symptom of mental illness. Any addiction to a harmful substance is a form of mental illness. If someone is mentally ill that doesn't necessarilly mean that they can't function adequately overall, just like you can have a physical illness and still function, if it isn't too severe or debilitating.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I'm sorry, but I can't take a memo from their own organization seriously. Of course they're going to deny the charges, but their actions tell a totally different story.

Also, they're lying.

They pick up "unclaimed" animals from shelters -- not dying, not extremely mean, just unclaimed -- and kill them usually the same day or the following.

In one case, several autopsies were performed on the animals. They were found to be perfectly healthy, and far too young to be "mean" or "unsocialized." They were killed for no reason.

WARNING: There is a picture of dead animals in garbage bags.

Shocking photos show reality of PETA animal home | Mail Online

Testimony underway in PETA trial | The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

They pick up animals from all over the place, as is evidenced by their report that I posted earlier. They also say on a DIFFERENT page that they don't think animals should be kept at all. So now they want "loving homes" for these animals? This is unmitigated BS.
Click to expand...

They claim to take animals already slated for imminent euthenasia and try to find homes for them. That could explain their high kill rate.

I could not find anything on their web page or anywhere else saying that they oppose all pet ownership. The link to their pet policy is dead, perhaps it was controversial within the group and taken down. I did find a lot of information on how to be a better pet owner. I am not convinved that they currently oppose all pet ownership. I also don't believe they want all people killed.

If you have links showing that these are actual official PETA policies please provide links.
 
Hard Truth said:
They claim to take animals already slated for imminent euthenasia and try to find homes for them. That could explain their high kill rate.

I could not find anything on their web page or anywhere else saying that they oppose all pet ownership. The link to their pet policy is dead, perhaps it was controversial within the group and taken down. I did find a lot of information on how to be a better pet owner. I am not convinved that they currently oppose all pet ownership. I also don't believe they want all people killed.

If you have links showing that these are actual official PETA policies please provide links.
Click to expand...

First of all, at a kill shelter, an animal usually gets a minimum of 3 to 7 days to be adopted AFTER they are listed as "unclaimed." These animals were not scheduled for imminent euthanasia.

Second of all, when another shelter takes animals in who ARE scheduled for euthanasia, the entire point of that is to "reset the clock," so to speak, to give them a better chance to be adopted.

And like I said, PETA was killing these animals the same day they got them. They were never given any chance to be adopted, despite being highly adoptable (young and healthy).

Their claims are lies, as my links show.

Dude... I JUST posted a working link to where they say they don't believe in domestic ownership. I'm not doing all this homework again. Read the thread.

And furthermore, I don't have a PROBLEM with that stance. I can kind of see where they're coming from. I have no contention with them saying they don't think animals should be owned. My contention is that they use it as a justification to kill all the animals they get, rather than trying to place them in loving homes, since they're already here anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom