Duck and Cover

Okay, you have got to stop doing that.

Subhuman wrote:Okay, you have got to stop doing that.

I'm dreadfully sorry, but your skill at compelling argument is lacking.

Darryl, there's something you have got to do, too. You have got to realise that I, and no doubt others, are unconcerned by your feckless posturing, and petty demands. Actually, there is one thing I have got to do, a question : You are physically above the age of majority, aren't you Darryl ? Accept what you cannot change, and move on.

'And with the final breath, joy.' - BoN 167:12

Blargh wrote:
That's fairly general, TG

Alright, I was quoting a documentary I watched a few monthes ago.

Holy shite, you've converted me.

And the church of the guardian is still accapting donations!

Aside from the (in my opinion) rather artistic composition, 'tis certainly a interesting and fresh insight. Dealing with the disturbing mind fuckery takes the edge off of one's ability to see, and more importantly appreciate such things. So I find it, at least.

All I'm saying is, if the things that trouble your mind are bug eyed flying monkeys who want to eat your soul instead of bills, then hey, you've escaped mediocrity, or at least, the boredom and mundanity of it. But I admit a lot of my opinion takes an overly jocular tone. I can't help it, I can't be serious.

Yes, it is, and while I have my reasons to be bitter, jaded and prejudiced

You're in my church, after all.

I acknowledge there are many good people in the sector, many of whom do good work and help a lot of people. Now I'd like to know where they are, as my experiences have been somewhat skewed.

Speaking from experiance, being as that I've worked with many of them(as much as a medic can do, anyway), they're mostly tarnished from seeing bullshit, over and over again. And you know something? I can't blame. It's hard to give a shit about 100 people a day, and at the end you realy just try to do a job without getting fired(or go to jail. Never pull a syringe at a patient and tell him to fuck the hell off. CRAZY TIMES THEY WERE).

Point(s) again, I simply resent the blithe judgement that one's mind is 'wrong', or 'ill', that you are a threat to yourself and/or others because so called experts 'see things' and 'understand what you're going through'.

What is daviance from the norm but what it literally means? If you do not think like us, you must be faulty. If you're faulty, then by golly, you might act unexpectingly. And, so long as I'm holding the guns, you will conform to our way of thinking and experiancing, Blargh.

But I understand you on that notion.

All these meaningless platitudes disguise the reality that as a mind in itself is unique, how can one know our knowledge of their workings will apply in every aspect without fault ? I do not believe you can standardise sentience, or average people. An entity that indulges self examination infrequently or not at all is a dangerous one, doubly so when some of the most vulnerable, marginalised members of society end up depending upon it.

Well, I disagree with you on some aspects of this thoughts. For one, maybe you can't get a standard of the average person, but you can get guide lines of him. We know that the average person, for instance, doesn't eat brains. We've deducted this because the people around us don't eat brains, therefor it's "not normal" to eat brains.

But in certain caltures, it's perfectly normal You must of heard about anthropology. The point I'm getting to is, there is no "normal" person, it all depends on the calture and what in itself is considered as the norm... If memory serves me right from all them psychology books I've been reading, an "attack" of schizophrenia is considered normal in some African tribes, when they dance around the campfire and do what they do. And let's not forget about the incidents where entire villiges take yage in the rainforest areas. But hey, I wouldn't like to expand on the subject, because I'm pretty forgotful on the details at the moment, but you get the concept.

Correct, not that often. And at least they do knock you out beforehand.

Bring back icepick lobotomies, I always say.

Subhuman wrote: Okay, you have got to stop doing that

What, handle discussions?

I think he means talk about stuff that aren't gay sex oriented, it makes him sad.

No, I mean making posts so ludicrously packed with quotes that it takes an MBA and a pot of espresso to get through the whole thing. It's annoying to read. Sum up your point in a few paragraphs, not a few hours.

Blargh wrote:You are physically above the age of majority, aren't you Darryl ? Accept what you cannot change, and move on.

I don't get it.

I don't know Subhuman, I found the discussion to be rather amusing.

Spazmo wrote:No, what he means is that since you can't predict on who(m?) pot might have dire effects and it's an (alleged) majority that could be afflicted, smoking up is not a safe bet.

Myself, I don't smoke, but it's more a lifestyle thing. Many of my friends do smoke and, well, they're all more or less doomed academically. Those friends of mine who do fine at school either never smoked in the first place, smoke very rarely if at all or chose to stop altogether so they could get on with important matters in life. I know school isn't necessarily the important thing in life for everyone, but is for me, so I'm not interested in drugs. You can say that weed isn't messing you up and all but... fuck you. The evidence that pot = bad is there in half the people I know who are my age. One of my friends is going to have to take at least an extra semester in college before he can go on to university, assuming he doesn't get kicked out of school altogether because he's already on academic probation. Another has already been kicked out of his own school for slacking off all the time. A third is a theater student, for chrissake. From what I've seen firsthand, smoking up just doesn't help things.

Thats pretty much my arguement except I really stopped caring about school. Too many years of bad teachers and getting screwed by them really pisses me off and I could be doing something substantially better with my life than either doing drugs, or going to fucking school when the teachers objective is to fail you, not to see if you learned anything.

So out of curiousity, what exactly are you doing now, MFG?

the guardian wrote:I can't help it, I can't be serious.

Huzzah !

the guardian wrote:Speaking from experiance, being as that I've worked with many of them(as much as a medic can do, anyway), they're mostly tarnished from seeing bullshit, over and over again.

That doesn't surprise me at all, 'tis not as though they stop being human when they're on duty. Hell, I've seen the same bullshit, just from the other end. It's not the understandable employment fatigue that worries me. 'Tis the tendency for the numerous doctors and specialists I have consulted to condescend -

'Automotive metaphors ? My heart is like an engine that needs an oil change ?! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST TELL ME AS IT IS ?'

- and, all the worse, approach (in my opinion) ultimately grave matters inappropriately, i.e casually informing you that you may well have leukemia, before the fateful blood test is sent off for analysis. There are other examples, but I can't go into them as I haven't anyone on hand to maim as an outlet for the anger. I suppose it's just rotten luck.

the guardian wrote:Never pull a syringe at a patient and tell him to fuck the hell off. CRAZY TIMES THEY WERE).

*laughs*

I don't know, I think I'd enjoy that sort of honesty to the issue dodging, condescending, grating, thoughtless shites I've dealt with . . .

the guardian wrote:What is daviance from the norm but what it literally means?

Simple, predominantly harmless difference, perhaps ? Hypothetically 'tis a small step from that sort of insistence upon 'correction' to detaining someone indefinitely for preferring green to red, as green is a sign of an evil, treacherous personality. Extreme and simplified illustration perhaps. Difference = Bad is a disturbing sociological maxim.

Yes, some mentally ill people do require (inhumane, barbarous) treatment to preserve their wellbeing (and sometimes that of others), it is however awful to be counted amongst them based upon nothing more convincing than a label. It is a sadly common perception than mental illness = retardation. Ignorance is extremely harmful, and few work to alleviate it. Stigma, what fun.

the guardian wrote:Well, I disagree with you on some aspects of this thoughts. For one, maybe you can't get a standard of the average person, but you can get guide lines of him.

Fair enough, I still see it as an issue of confidence, however. Few appear to question the validity of the standards and guidelines, I see that as potentially very harmful. Even if the only result is confirmation of their worth and relevance, it cannot hurt to be certain one's diagnosis is based upon accurate and valid deduction. An issue of trust, faith or paranoia, perhaps ?

the guardian wrote:But in certain caltures, it's perfectly normal

I shall have to book some flights. Regarding your comment on anthropology, I shall certainly have to emigrate, as the standards contemporary Australian society insist upon offend me and are compromising my personality. Time to <something illegal an lucrative> and purchase an island somewhere.

the guardian wrote:But hey, I wouldn't like to expand on the subject, because I'm pretty forgotful on the details at the moment, but you get the concept.

Yes, I understand, and would also like to discuss the topic(s). Conveniently perhaps, I have forgotten almost everything I learnt in Psych. Memory is a distressing thing.

Subhuman wrote:I don't get it.

Thank you for answering. Very informative.

Blargh wrote:
'Automotive metaphors ? My heart is like an engine that needs an oil change ?! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST TELL ME AS IT IS ?'

Because most people can't take it the way it is.

Yes, some mentally ill people do require (inhumane, barbarous) treatment to preserve their wellbeing (and sometimes that of others)

Most often it is the well being of others than their own.

it is however awful to be counted amongst them based upon nothing more convincing than a label. It is a sadly common perception than mental illness = retardation.

Well it is an illness by definition. It hinders you in certain aspects. Borderlines Mutilate themselves and tend to see life in black and white terms(I'm very general here, try not to explode) and tend to jump between love and hate forward an individual; Agrophobics can't cope with open spaces without going into anxiety; Cyclothymic sufferers are depressedl; All this are in the catagory of mental illnesses. So you can see how that can affect you negatively.

Ignorance is extremely harmful, and few work to alleviate it. Stigma, what fun.

Eh, that applies to just about any aspect in life. If you can't change the mass, adapt.

Fair enough, I still see it as an issue of confidence, however. Few appear to question the validity of the standards and guidelines, I see that as potentially very harmful. Even if the only result is confirmation of their worth and relevance, it cannot hurt to be certain one's diagnosis is based upon accurate and valid deduction.

Well gee whiz Mr.Blargh, you think? Most people don't like to think too much. It's why I constantly grumble about being surrounded by morons. Most people also like the serenity in knowing(read : Thinking) some things are true. But you've probably learned that already.

An issue of trust, faith or paranoia, perhaps ?

Of trust perhaps, for even I have a great amount of trust in the professional, though never absolute trust. They have blind faith, more like it.

I shall certainly have to emigrate, as the standards contemporary Australian society insist upon offend me and are compromising my personality.

Bacon! My kingdom for ubiquitous, purchasable bacon! I need to threat old Russian ladies for my pig in this country. Fucking need to move to Nezeret and get it over with.

Conveniently perhaps, I have forgotten almost everything I learnt in Psych. Memory is a distressing thing.

Maglomaniac is a person who's crazy for magazines.

Blargh wrote:

Subhuman wrote:I don't get it.

Thank you for answering. Very informative.

So...how about explaining it to me? Or would that ruin the element of mystery?

the guardian wrote:Because most people can't take it the way it is.

Personally, I'd prefer they at least have the generosity to wait until the patient in question asks them to dumb it down for them, instead of indulging the assumption that the patient is (of course !) a fuckwit prior to ascertaining that possibility for themselves.

Humans are rude cunts.

the guardian wrote:Most often it is the well being of others than their own.

You dispute the trend of mental illness to be first and foremost harmful to the person suffering from it, rather than those suffering it ? Possible misunderstanding.

the guardian wrote:Well it is an illness by definition. It hinders you in certain aspects.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people assume mental illness is conducive to sub standard intelligence. While some truly unfortunate souls suffer from both mental disability and mental illness, they do not go hand in hand by default. Stating the obvious perhaps, but at the risk of miscommunication, actions tend to be necessary.

the guardian wrote:So you can see how that can affect you negatively.

It might be the lack of sleep, but I do not recall stating that mental illness has no adverse affect or in fact, provides benefits.

the guardian wrote:Eh, that applies to just about any aspect in life. If you can't change the mass, adapt.

If one were to force you into mental, social, financial, spiritual and physical stagnation, only to keep you there, how would you adapt ? Adaptation cannot occur under such artificial circumstances. For the sake of control, many are swept under the carpet of society into stasis, limbo, and kept there. The drugs, and my extension, society, aim to do just that for certain 'problematic' individuals, by virtue of the 'magic bullet' appeal of modern anti-psychotic medicine. You will take the tablets. The tablets can do no wrong, it is not the tablets that do not work, it is you who does not work. The tablets will fix you. You will take the tablets.

the guardian wrote:Most people don't like to think too much.

And they get what they want, in a sense. It tends to reinforce their complacency and satisfaction with their lot.

the guardian wrote:But you've probably learned that already.

I should hope so. If so basic a lesson has escaped me, I should end it now before things become less tolerable.

the guardian wrote:Bacon!

Hmm, yes, that must be rather irritating, to write the least. Galling.

Subhuman wrote:So...how about explaining it to me? Or would that ruin the element of mystery?

But you have answered my question. There is no further point.

Uh...the further point would be explaining what the hell you meant.

Christ, it's like talking to a Magic 8 ball.

*smirks*

Oh I understood your request. However, you answered the question in your own way, Darryl. That is sufficient.

Blargh wrote:
You dispute the trend of mental illness to be first and foremost harmful to the person suffering from it, rather than those suffering it ? Possible misunderstanding.

Think about it : Who "needs" treatment the most, the person hurting himself or the person hurting others? Who's often forced into treatment? The first and foremost concern is that in your insanity you won't hurt the surrounding rather than yourself, way I see it, anyhow.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people assume mental illness is conducive to sub standard intelligence. While some truly unfortunate souls suffer from both mental disability and mental illness, they do not go hand in hand by default. Stating the obvious perhaps, but at the risk of miscommunication, actions tend to be necessary.

Fair enough. I agree with you that people usually conclude that if a person has a mental disorder he probably is mentally deficient as well.

It might be the lack of sleep, but I do not recall stating that mental illness has no adverse affect or in fact, provides benefits.

Then I ran into conclusions too fast.

If one were to force you into mental, social, financial, spiritual and physical stagnation, only to keep you there, how would you adapt ?

I'd avoid revealing my "problem". Alternatively, I'd avoid the surrounding. Alright, maybe I ought to be more specific - I'd fnd out what it is that makes me "stand out" and "stained" in their eyes, and avoid revealing it. Not to say that my main concern here is not to stir waves to be normal, I'm just aware of how others think. I also avoid my surrounding, so hey.

For the sake of control, many are swept under the carpet of society into stasis, limbo, and kept there.

Well, it's a fine way to deal with problems . I don't condone this, I just can see how it's an easier way to deal with those that aren't... well. Still, we've improved from just tossing them into cellers and tagging "crazy" on them, eh? We now have more accurate tags!

The drugs, and my extension, society, aim to do just that for certain 'problematic' individuals, by virtue of the 'magic bullet' appeal of modern anti-psychotic medicine. You will take the tablets. The tablets can do no wrong, it is not the tablets that do not work, it is you who does not work. The tablets will fix you. You will take the tablets.

Look, I'm pretty sure a lot of work and consideration was put into anti psychotic medicine. You don't just pick up a tablet, say "this will help the insane by rendering them sane", and lunch it into the market : There's research to see the prolonged effects, monitoring the patient afterwards, the lots. Maybe I'm just a bit naive on the subject.

Subhuman fails to grasp the irony

There is no irony. You're just not explaining yourself, and it's maddening to those of us who appreciate actual conversation. Neither of you are oracles and neither of you have whispy white beards to stroke thoughtfully, so knock it off already. Your comment made no sense.

the guardian wrote:Think about it : Who "needs" treatment the most, the person hurting himself or the person hurting others? Who's often forced into treatment? The first and foremost concern is that in your insanity you won't hurt the surrounding rather than yourself, way I see it, anyhow.

By extension of your theory, one could successfully argue that simply locking away the afflicted and letting them starve to death is a method of treatment. Then again, in the past such has been done quite frequently. You do have a point though, I suppose my perspective has been tinted by seeing far too many friends suffer.

the guardian wrote:I'd avoid revealing my "problem".

Oh I try, and I'd be happy to wager a ludicrous amount that others do to, 'tis just that occasionally, one loses control. Perhaps for a moment, or a few days, years even, it varies. Yet even a few seconds can be disastrous under the right (wrong) circumstances. Even when properly medicated, one has no 100% assurance that things won't become fucked at some point.

So, short of shutting oneself away from anyone and everyone (an attractive prospect, I think), time is a guarantor of future problems and (more often than not) the presence of people who have issues with you.

the guardian wrote:Well, it's a fine way to deal with problems

Yes, until there's no more space under the carpets.

the guardian wrote:We now have more accurate tags!

*laughs*

You sod.

the guardian wrote:Look, I'm pretty sure a lot of work and consideration was put into anti psychotic medicine.

I never explicitly claimed otherwise. It is the lack of thought that goes into who to medicate and how to medicate them that concerns me. Often, too little energy is spent on either. I've had physicians barely stop to breathe whilst recommending variants of a single brand of medication, a brand that just happens to be on their stationary and other effects, as though they had quotas to fill. That sort of mercenary approach is disconcerting to say the least.

Too often a doctor will fail to make the patient aware of any possible complications, even fatal ones.

'Oh, you're feeling a bit blue, eh ? This tablet will clear that right up ! Oh, you've read that this tablet can exacerbate heart problems, which you have ? Nevermind ! You don't have to worry about that. Not at all.'

It can often take an inordinate amount of effort to even discuss the issue with a doctor. The desire for easy, low effort solutions can be catastrophic. Then there's the human propensity for mistakes, and in such an area they too can be catastrophic, especially on the level of a pharmaceutical giant releasing a new tablet. Certainly, they check double and treble, yet errors do occasionally get through. When you're dealing with inherently (yet unintentionally) harmful chemical solutions, the errors tend to be especially awful.

the guardian wrote:Subhuman fails to grasp the irony

A sad day . . .

Subhuman wrote:Neither of you are oracles and neither of you have whispy white beards to stroke thoughtfully,

You do not know that.

Subhuman wrote:Your comment made no sense

That's right, Darryl, dismiss the meaning you cannot find as absent. A dangerous way to operate.

Blargh wrote: By extension of your theory, one could successfully argue that simply locking away the afflicted and letting them starve to death is a method of treatment. Then again, in the past such has been done quite frequently. You do have a point though, I suppose my perspective has been tinted by seeing far too many friends suffer.

So you break a few eggs in order to make the machine sizzle, so what. Wait, mixing metaphors again.

It's all a matter of overall demage, but it's also a matter of opinion.

Oh I try, and I'd be happy to wager a ludicrous amount that others do to, 'tis just that occasionally, one loses control.

Tell me about it. I snap like a rattlesnake on speed if the setting's right.

Perhaps for a moment, or a few days, years even, it varies. Yet even a few seconds can be disastrous under the right (wrong) circumstances. Even when properly medicated, one has no 100% assurance that things won't become fucked at some point.

True, but whatever lower the odds, the better. And anyway, they force medicated treatment apon you only if it's an intergral part of the treatment... it all depends on the case.

Yes, until there's no more space under the carpets.

There'll always be more room in the closet

I never explicitly claimed otherwise. It is the lack of thought that goes into who to medicate and how to medicate them that concerns me. Often, too little energy is spent on either. I've had physicians barely stop to breathe whilst recommending variants of a single brand of medication, a brand that just happens to be on their stationary and other effects, as though they had quotas to fill. That sort of mercenary approach is disconcerting to say the least.

Well, that's the thing, ain't it? First hand experiance you have and I lack. The worse I've seen being perscribed without due consideration was Valium. Oh I do loved the idiots who came to me with the ampule and the needles, and begged me not to give them the shot even after careful explaination that it will aid them against the pain. Another addition to my collection, heh. But I'm digressing into anecdotes.

'Oh, you're feeling a bit blue, eh ? This tablet will clear that right up ! Oh, you've read that this tablet can exacerbate heart problems, which you have ? Nevermind ! You don't have to worry about that. Not at all.'

The absent-mindness of doctors, yeah. But we do have to assume that if they'll do something wrong, it'll fall on their heads later in court, so I'm positive they must be putting some consideration, here and there.

Then there's the human propensity for mistakes, and in such an area they too can be catastrophic, especially on the level of a pharmaceutical giant releasing a new tablet. Certainly, they check double and treble, yet errors do occasionally get through. When you're dealing with inherently (yet unintentionally) harmful chemical solutions, the errors tend to be especially awful.

If you think doctors have it bad, wait 'till you meet the nurses on their fourth nightshift in a row.

the guardian wrote:but it's also a matter of opinion.

That's life. An opinion that can kill. Joyous.

the guardian wrote:Tell me about it. I snap like a rattlesnake on speed if the setting's right.

Yet you're not mentally ill, or at least you have said nothing to suggest you are. We all snap occasionally, certain mental illnesses increase the frequency. Stating the obvious again perhaps, but it is something I'm good at, apparently.

the guardian wrote:Well, that's the thing, ain't it? First hand experiance you have and I lack.

You lucky bitch. See enough of doctors, different scenario entirely. I'm at the point where I consider considering the merits of just not bothering the next time I have a consultation worthy complaint. Let it burn out by itself, or let myself burn out. I'm just that weary. Fuck, enough moaning.

the guardian wrote:The worse I've seen being perscribed without due consideration was Valium.

For some reason, Valium makes me feel extremely aggressive. Sort of fun in retrospect.

the guardian wrote:But I'm digressing into anecdotes.

Join the club, I shall try to curb mine however.

the guardian wrote:The absent-mindness of doctors, yeah. But we do have to assume that if they'll do something wrong, it'll fall on their heads later in court, so I'm positive they must be putting some consideration, here and there.

It might just be me, but future legal action isn't very reassuring. If that legal action involved time travel and execution, I might feel differently.

the guardian wrote:If you think doctors have it bad, wait 'till you meet the nurses on their fourth nightshift in a row.

Hades walking. Fun.

Blargh wrote:That's right, Darryl, dismiss the meaning you cannot find as absent.

Prove that there is meaning. Go ahead.