• 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

Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your lack of understanding of the fundamental issues is palpable. People who have special needs, you crudely referred to them with the "r" word, are not mentally ill, nor even purported to be. Hallucinations are a symptom with numerous causes, and are not themselves a mental illness, nor even purported to be.

Personally, I am only interested in science, not preserving the status quo. The disease model of mental "illness" is a scientific failure. There is no lab test for PTSD, for example. It is, of course, perfectly natural that a person would be disturbed after experiencing trauma. It is not an illness.
 
afr0byte said:
You're the one that seemed to be saying mental illness wasn't real.
Click to expand...

You're obviously not reading very carefully if that is what you take from what I've been saying.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
.....
Dude... I JUST posted a working link to where they say they don't believe in domestic ownership..
Click to expand...

I tried your link on two different computers in two different days. I found plenty of opinions and info re. pets on their web pages, but nothing indicating disaproval of all pet ownership. Are you look at their site from England? I'm not.

From the news story that you posted (I didn't read the tabloid one) it seems like one small group of PETA people were killing prematurely, but there's no proof that it the organization's policy.

If I thought they were really doing that, I would say so. I'm not a big supporter of PETA, but I do appreciate that they have uncovered a lot of abuses. Their videos have been so effective that a few states have now banned video recording of livestock facilities.

I have seen a lot of lies and exagerations about them because they threaten a lot of people's profits, so I am very skeptical of such claims.
 
So far my search found only this:
"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
PETA pamphlett as quoted on Yahoo answers

"....A spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Agriculture responded that "PETA will basically take anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that," and that it had considered changing PETA's status from "shelter" to "euthanasia clinic."[67]

In another case, two PETA employees were acquitted in 2007 of animal cruelty after at least 80 euthanized animals were left in dumpsters in a shopping center in Ashoskie over the course of a month in 2005; the two employees were seen leaving behind 18 dead animals, and 13 more were found inside their van. The animals had been euthanized after being removed from shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties.[68][69] During the trial, Daphna Nachminovitch, the supervisor of PETA's Community Animal Project, said PETA began euthanizing animals in some rural North Carolina shelters after it found the shelters killing animals in ways PETA considered inhumane. She also stated that the dumping of animals did not follow PETA policy.....

PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding them as "pets" never emerged, that the desire to own and receive love from animals is selfish, and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause immeasurable suffering.....PETA writes that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that even in good homes animals are often not well cared for. They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people never to purchase animals from pet shops or breeders, but to adopt them from shelters instead."
Wikipedia

This information is consistent with the info on PETA's website.
 
Hard Truth said:
I tried your link on two different computers in two different days. I found plenty of opinions and info re. pets on their web pages, but nothing indicating disaproval of all pet ownership. Are you look at their site from England? I'm not.

From the news story that you posted (I didn't read the tabloid one) it seems like one small group of PETA people were killing prematurely, but there's no proof that it the organization's policy.

If I thought they were really doing that, I would say so. I'm not a big supporter of PETA, but I do appreciate that they have uncovered a lot of abuses. Their videos have been so effective that a few states have now banned video recording of livestock facilities.

I have seen a lot of lies and exagerations about them because they threaten a lot of people's profits, so I am very skeptical of such claims.
Click to expand...

Well, works on mine. Don't know what to tell ya.

Dude, that was PETA's headquarters. That's where their shelter is.

Did I mention they only have one shelter, despite being one of the richest animal organizations in the country? And that they don't advertise any of their animals anywhere?

Obviously they aren't working very hard at getting these animals adopted.

Putting on ineffective campaigns that do nothing but get you banned from learning more information is not "successful." Actually doing something to stop animal abuse is successful. So they're going out and filming this stuff, usually resulting in nothing but them getting banned from the establishment, while they kill thousands of animals in their care? Yeah, not impressed.

As far as I can tell, the biggest group of people who are against PETA is actually other animal rescuers. It's not hard to see why.
 
Well the thing is, it is a mental illness. If you genuinely believe the earth is 5000 years old and you're drinking the blood of a god, you are deranged.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Your lack of understanding of the fundamental issues is palpable. People who have special needs, you crudely referred to them with the "r" word, are not mentally ill, nor even purported to be. Hallucinations are a symptom with numerous causes, and are not themselves a mental illness, nor even purported to be.

Personally, I am only interested in science, not preserving the status quo. The disease model of mental "illness" is a scientific failure. There is no lab test for PTSD, for example. It is, of course, perfectly natural that a person would be disturbed after experiencing trauma. It is not an illness.
Click to expand...


I guess it depends on how you define illness. One such definition is "2 a : an unhealthy condition of body or mind "
 
afr0byte said:
I guess it depends on how you define illness. One such definition is "2 a : an unhealthy condition of body or mind "
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that Websters is peer-reviewed.:roll: An unhealthy condition of the body is fundamentally different from an unhealthy condition of the mind. There is a sound scientific basis for the disease model of bodily illness.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I didn't realize that Websters is peer-reviewed.:roll: An unhealthy condition of the body is fundamentally different from an unhealthy condition of the mind. There is a sound scientific basis for the disease model of bodily illness.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone ever said that there weren't differences.
 
I've always looked at religious fundamentalists as being more insanely naive than cuckoo insane. For a person to ACTUALLY believe WORD FOR WORD from ANY religious text… yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom