Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol use/vs.helplessness

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/27/01 4:55:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining aa,

being told she was powerless, and that if she didnt abstain she

would a fail? guess absitence kills? or is it just aa's way of

teaching it?

maybe is she was offered some practical tools for living life

sober, rather than relgious conversion, something other than

prayer, turning her will over to her " Living Creator " , calling a

sponsor or reading the blathering of bill wilson, she may have

abstained successfully. we will never know.

ethier way she is ultimatly repsonsiable for her choice to join AA,

the drinking and the deaths she caused did while practicing aa

mind fuck program.

nor does her mishap have any releavnce for those who

moderate and live productive lies, becuase she was trying to

abstain! and she was taught if she drank she would lose control,

and guess what, she did what she was taught to do.

>

> > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also dangerous?

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/27/01 4:55:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining aa,

being told she was powerless, and that if she didnt abstain she

would a fail? guess absitence kills? or is it just aa's way of

teaching it?

maybe is she was offered some practical tools for living life

sober, rather than relgious conversion, something other than

prayer, turning her will over to her " Living Creator " , calling a

sponsor or reading the blathering of bill wilson, she may have

abstained successfully. we will never know.

ethier way she is ultimatly repsonsiable for her choice to join AA,

the drinking and the deaths she caused did while practicing aa

mind fuck program.

nor does her mishap have any releavnce for those who

moderate and live productive lies, becuase she was trying to

abstain! and she was taught if she drank she would lose control,

and guess what, she did what she was taught to do.

>

> > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also dangerous?

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> for

> > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

>

> Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> around him.

[Guest guest]

>

> > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> for

> > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

>

> Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> around him.

[Guest guest]

>

> > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> for

> > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

>

> Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> around him.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> > > does that fit into your views?

> >

> > Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

> > treat specific medical conditions.

A drug's action or " value " is not dependent on who administers or

prescribes it.

> At least there is one prejudice you dont have, but you are still

> coming out with a claim of universal toxicity of alcohol against

all

> the epidemiology suggesting otherwise.

Even without using this example, Hunter's argument makes no sense.

He ignores cost/benefit to the individual. The value, or net benefit,

of moderate, hard, or no drinking varies from person to person. It's

also a subjective value that cannot be measured. Most things we do

are potentially harmful, or have some risk associated with them, and

they are not essential for the survival of the organism. Most good

things can become bad or deadly when taken to excess. As you point

out, there is evidence that a glass of Cabernet taken with dinner may

be healthy for many people.

>In the last 50 years or so

> Psychiatry is scientific.

Coming from someone who is so eloquent in debunking Homeopathic

quakery, I am disapointed. Psychiatry is a classic psuedoscience best

understood as an institution of social control.

Jim

[Guest guest]

>

> > > what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

> > > does that fit into your views?

> >

> > Anti-depressant drugs are valuable when prescribed by doctors to

> > treat specific medical conditions.

A drug's action or " value " is not dependent on who administers or

prescribes it.

> At least there is one prejudice you dont have, but you are still

> coming out with a claim of universal toxicity of alcohol against

all

> the epidemiology suggesting otherwise.

Even without using this example, Hunter's argument makes no sense.

He ignores cost/benefit to the individual. The value, or net benefit,

of moderate, hard, or no drinking varies from person to person. It's

also a subjective value that cannot be measured. Most things we do

are potentially harmful, or have some risk associated with them, and

they are not essential for the survival of the organism. Most good

things can become bad or deadly when taken to excess. As you point

out, there is evidence that a glass of Cabernet taken with dinner may

be healthy for many people.

>In the last 50 years or so

> Psychiatry is scientific.

Coming from someone who is so eloquent in debunking Homeopathic

quakery, I am disapointed. Psychiatry is a classic psuedoscience best

understood as an institution of social control.

Jim

[Guest guest]

> aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm.

A person can get injured during aerobic exercise. A person can

acquire a sexually transmitted disease during sex. And a person can

get hit by a car while walking. These are potential dangers that

exist in the above activities. But you are omitting the fact that

these are all non-volitional dangers. A person does not volitionally

twist his ankle while running, nor does he volitionally step in front

of a car while walking.

But drinking alcohol or taking drugs is a volitional process that

directly impairs thought and harms the organism. Thus, one has direct

control over hurting oneself through the use of alcohol or drugs. But

one does not have direct control over accidents that might occur

during daily life.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm.

A person can get injured during aerobic exercise. A person can

acquire a sexually transmitted disease during sex. And a person can

get hit by a car while walking. These are potential dangers that

exist in the above activities. But you are omitting the fact that

these are all non-volitional dangers. A person does not volitionally

twist his ankle while running, nor does he volitionally step in front

of a car while walking.

But drinking alcohol or taking drugs is a volitional process that

directly impairs thought and harms the organism. Thus, one has direct

control over hurting oneself through the use of alcohol or drugs. But

one does not have direct control over accidents that might occur

during daily life.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

> can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

> will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

> goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

> these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

> can cause harm.

A person can get injured during aerobic exercise. A person can

acquire a sexually transmitted disease during sex. And a person can

get hit by a car while walking. These are potential dangers that

exist in the above activities. But you are omitting the fact that

these are all non-volitional dangers. A person does not volitionally

twist his ankle while running, nor does he volitionally step in front

of a car while walking.

But drinking alcohol or taking drugs is a volitional process that

directly impairs thought and harms the organism. Thus, one has direct

control over hurting oneself through the use of alcohol or drugs. But

one does not have direct control over accidents that might occur

during daily life.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

[Guest guest]

> You keep making the same unsubstantiated

> pronouncements…

Did I say alcohol use damages the human organism without providing

specific evidence? Sorry, my mistake. Here is the evidence to back up

my claim that alcohol is harmful to human beings:

1. About 100,000 deaths a year can be wholly or partially attributed

to drinking alcohol

2. Alcoholism reduces life expectancy by 10 to 12 years

3. People who drink regularly have a higher rate of deaths from

injury, violence, and some cancers than non-drinkers

4. Alcohol plays a major role in more than half of all automobile

fatalities

5. Alcohol also increases the risk of accidental injuries from many

other causes

6. Among emergency room patients who were admitted for injuries, 47%

tested positive for alcohol and 35% were intoxicated

7. Alcoholism is the primary diagnosis in one quarter of all people

who commit suicide

8. Alcohol is implicated in 67% of all murders

9. 41% of children of alcoholics have serious coping problems that

may be life long

10. Alcohol can affect the body in so many ways that researchers are

having a hard time determining exactly what the consequences are of

drinking

11. The more alcohol someone drank, the greater the increase in blood

pressure

12. Chronic alcohol abuse can also damage the heart muscle, which

leads to heart failure

13. Moderate to heaving drinking was a greater risk factor for

coronary artery disease than smoking

14. Other studies found light drinking was protective. More research

is needed to confirm or refute this new study. In any case, moderate

drinking does not appear to offer any heart benefits for people who

are at low risk for heart disease to begin with.

15. Daily drinking increases the risk for lung, esophageal, gastric,

pancreatic, colorectal, urinary tract, liver, and brain cancers,

lymphoma and leukemia

16. About 75% of cancers of the esophagus and 50% of cancers of the

mouth, throat, and larynx are attributed to alcoholism

17. Smoking combined with drinking enhances risks for most of these

cancers dramatically

18. In the liver, alcohol converts to an even more toxic substance,

acetaldehyde, which can cause substantial damage

19. Alcohol can also contribute to serious infections of the pancreas

and to ulcers in people taking the painkillers known as nonsteroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs

20. Alcohol suppresses the immune system

21. One study on laboratory animals suggests that alcohol

specifically damages the bacteria-fighting capability of lung cells

22. Alcohol has widespread effects on the brain

23. Habitual use of alcohol eventually produces depression and

confusion

24. In chronic cases, gray matter is destroyed, possibly leading to

psychosis and mental disturbances

25. Alcohol can also cause milder neurologic problems, including

insomnia and headache

26. Alcohol may increase the risk for hemorrhagic stroke

27. Alcohol-dependent women seem to face an increased risk for damage

to muscles, including muscles of the heart, from the toxic effects of

alcohol

28. Alcoholism increases levels of the female hormone estrogen and

reduces levels of the male hormone testosterone, factors that

contribute to impotence in men

29. Alcohol can cause hypoglycemia, a drop in blood sugar, which is

especially dangerous for people with diabetes who are taking insulin

30. In addition to replacing food, alcohol may also interfere with

absorption of proteins, vitamins, and other nutrients

31. Even moderate amounts of alcohol may have damaging effects on the

developing fetus, including low birth weight and an increased risk

for miscarriage

32. As people age, it takes fewer drinks to become intoxicated, and

organs can be damaged by smaller amounts of alcohol than in younger

people

Reference: WebMD Corporation

http://webmd.lycos.com/content/dmk/dmk_article_5461917

[Guest guest]

This is a funny one. Someone just accuses a guy of being in a cult

(maybe he is, but maybe she is, I don't know) because they can't agree. I

think its hilarious how the paragraph at the bottom by Spock, I mean Hunter,

or the Bicentennial Man, whoever - just the way it is so proper is funny.

But its a tough argument really. One side says alcohol causes damage and

disorientation - that is true. The other side says it can be good for you

and may not hurt you - that is true. See both sides are correct, so what

can we do? I think the problem is control (the reason behind cults, as I

discovered yesterday). See Hunter is trying to tell others what to do and

it isn't working. It's amazing it's not working, there are some smart and

experienced people here :-)

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

>

> >

> > > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> > for

> > > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

> >

> > Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> > a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> > actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> > around him.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is a funny one. Someone just accuses a guy of being in a cult

(maybe he is, but maybe she is, I don't know) because they can't agree. I

think its hilarious how the paragraph at the bottom by Spock, I mean Hunter,

or the Bicentennial Man, whoever - just the way it is so proper is funny.

But its a tough argument really. One side says alcohol causes damage and

disorientation - that is true. The other side says it can be good for you

and may not hurt you - that is true. See both sides are correct, so what

can we do? I think the problem is control (the reason behind cults, as I

discovered yesterday). See Hunter is trying to tell others what to do and

it isn't working. It's amazing it's not working, there are some smart and

experienced people here :-)

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

>

> >

> > > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> > for

> > > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

> >

> > Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> > a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> > actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> > around him.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is a funny one. Someone just accuses a guy of being in a cult

(maybe he is, but maybe she is, I don't know) because they can't agree. I

think its hilarious how the paragraph at the bottom by Spock, I mean Hunter,

or the Bicentennial Man, whoever - just the way it is so proper is funny.

But its a tough argument really. One side says alcohol causes damage and

disorientation - that is true. The other side says it can be good for you

and may not hurt you - that is true. See both sides are correct, so what

can we do? I think the problem is control (the reason behind cults, as I

discovered yesterday). See Hunter is trying to tell others what to do and

it isn't working. It's amazing it's not working, there are some smart and

experienced people here :-)

Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

use/vs.helplessness

>

> >

> > > alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

> > > can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life

> > for

> > > people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

> > > comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

> > > on scincere concern for anyones well being.

> >

> > Alcohol disorients man's survival tool: the conscious mind. With

> > a disoriented conscious mind, man is prone to make decisions and take

> > actions that can cause long-range suffering to oneself and others

> > around him.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Could we get this one to stop posting as egroups? It looks like an egroups

notice when it comes in my mailbox.

> Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

>use/vs.helplessness

[Guest guest]

Could we get this one to stop posting as egroups? It looks like an egroups

notice when it comes in my mailbox.

> Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

>use/vs.helplessness

[Guest guest]

> Coming from someone who is so eloquent in debunking Homeopathic

> quakery, I am disapointed. Psychiatry is a classic psuedoscience

>best understood as an institution of social control.

You gotta stop reading that Szasz Jim! I think we need to define our

terms here carfully. Let me agree for purpose of argument that

psychiatry is merely an institution of social control. Even if true,

I would say that psychiatry *scientifically* pursues that objective.

One does not judge a discipline a pseudoscience on the legitimacy of

its objectives (apart from commitment to truth-seeking, science is

value free) but on its modus operandi. Psychiatry generally uses the

same protocols for development of its treatment that general medicine

does, which I believe are as scientific as possible oprating within

ethical constraints. Whatever or not Psychiatry may be up to, and

whether or not it is ethical or not, I believe it is pursuing its

objectives scientifically. Ironically, for those who see Psychiatry

as Nazi-Lite, I would say that if it were indeed only a pseudoscience

and employed homeopathic 'remedies' say then they would have far less

cause to find it threatening.

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Science relies on measurable, objective evidence. To report that lab

rat #1 rang the food bell three times after recieving the shock may

be scientific; to report that the rat was evasive and paranoid is

psychiatry.

The unscientific criteria used to diagnose the fictitious diseases

that they treat, if applied logically and uniformly, which they are

not, would have all of us being mentally ill, and therefore without

any human rights or dignity save what is allowed by these priests and

their monopoly on " reality. " Psychiatry borrows the window-dressing

of the medical model- much like 12step hospitals and chiropracters,

who, not surprisingly, also treat fictitious diseases with

pseudoscientific methods. Dozens--no, hundreds--of new " diseases "

have been discovered by these quacks in recent years.

Furthermore, the diagnosis is nothing but a subjective opinion, the

opinion of a twentieth century witch-doctor who can deprive one of

all civil liberties (including due process) and subject the witch

(patient) to a multitude of experimental tortures by coercion.

Of course, none of this is to say that there is not legitimate

scientific research in the fields of neurology and psychology, or

that human beings are not subject to unpleasant emotions and thought

proceses.

Sorry, voting Republican may be an anti-social behavior that

indicates delusion, but it's not a disease, nor is it a symptom of

one. ;-)

Jim

> You gotta stop reading that Szasz Jim! I think we need to define

our

> terms here carfully. Let me agree for purpose of argument that

> psychiatry is merely an institution of social control. Even if

true,

> I would say that psychiatry *scientifically* pursues that

objective.

> One does not judge a discipline a pseudoscience on the legitimacy

of

> its objectives (apart from commitment to truth-seeking, science is

> value free) but on its modus operandi. Psychiatry generally uses

the

> same protocols for development of its treatment that general

medicine

> does, which I believe are as scientific as possible oprating within

> ethical constraints. Whatever or not Psychiatry may be up to, and

> whether or not it is ethical or not, I believe it is pursuing its

> objectives scientifically. Ironically, for those who see

Psychiatry

> as Nazi-Lite, I would say that if it were indeed only a

pseudoscience

> and employed homeopathic 'remedies' say then they would have far

less

> cause to find it threatening.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Science relies on measurable, objective evidence. To report that lab

rat #1 rang the food bell three times after recieving the shock may

be scientific; to report that the rat was evasive and paranoid is

psychiatry.

The unscientific criteria used to diagnose the fictitious diseases

that they treat, if applied logically and uniformly, which they are

not, would have all of us being mentally ill, and therefore without

any human rights or dignity save what is allowed by these priests and

their monopoly on " reality. " Psychiatry borrows the window-dressing

of the medical model- much like 12step hospitals and chiropracters,

who, not surprisingly, also treat fictitious diseases with

pseudoscientific methods. Dozens--no, hundreds--of new " diseases "

have been discovered by these quacks in recent years.

Furthermore, the diagnosis is nothing but a subjective opinion, the

opinion of a twentieth century witch-doctor who can deprive one of

all civil liberties (including due process) and subject the witch

(patient) to a multitude of experimental tortures by coercion.

Of course, none of this is to say that there is not legitimate

scientific research in the fields of neurology and psychology, or

that human beings are not subject to unpleasant emotions and thought

proceses.

Sorry, voting Republican may be an anti-social behavior that

indicates delusion, but it's not a disease, nor is it a symptom of

one. ;-)

Jim

> You gotta stop reading that Szasz Jim! I think we need to define

our

> terms here carfully. Let me agree for purpose of argument that

> psychiatry is merely an institution of social control. Even if

true,

> I would say that psychiatry *scientifically* pursues that

objective.

> One does not judge a discipline a pseudoscience on the legitimacy

of

> its objectives (apart from commitment to truth-seeking, science is

> value free) but on its modus operandi. Psychiatry generally uses

the

> same protocols for development of its treatment that general

medicine

> does, which I believe are as scientific as possible oprating within

> ethical constraints. Whatever or not Psychiatry may be up to, and

> whether or not it is ethical or not, I believe it is pursuing its

> objectives scientifically. Ironically, for those who see

Psychiatry

> as Nazi-Lite, I would say that if it were indeed only a

pseudoscience

> and employed homeopathic 'remedies' say then they would have far

less

> cause to find it threatening.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/01 12:31:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, kenr1@...

writes:

<< What ever happened to " the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness " ? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke

cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or take

hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide to do

so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.

I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who know

what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and everyone

else doesn't need.

Ken Ragge

P.S. What about red meat?

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net

>>

This is the interesting aspect of belief systems that escaped me until

recently--that the believer MUST pass on the belief to others--a

self-reinforcing loop? Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/01 12:31:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, kenr1@...

writes:

<< What ever happened to " the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness " ? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke

cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or take

hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide to do

so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.

I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who know

what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and everyone

else doesn't need.

Ken Ragge

P.S. What about red meat?

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net

>>

This is the interesting aspect of belief systems that escaped me until

recently--that the believer MUST pass on the belief to others--a

self-reinforcing loop? Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/1/01 2:05:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wn115@... writes:

<< Sorry, voting Republican may be an anti-social behavior that

indicates delusion, but it's not a disease, nor is it a symptom of

one. ;-)

Jim >>

Are you sure? LOL. Many of the personality disorders listed in

the DSM-IV-Revised, are actually based upon psychoanalytic concepts. You

can't get much more primitive than that. Many of these AXIS-II categories, I

believe are politically motivated, especially anti-social personality

disorder. We won't even go into borderline personality disorder or

narccisism. (<holds head). There is much to look forward to though as Jim

says in cognitive and neuropsych endeavors, so not to despair totally. I

personally, am grateful to pharmacology advancements--so the diagnoses aren't

so hot--- primitive, infantile fields have to grow step by step. I just wish

the psychodynamics hadn't regressed everything a decade or so. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/1/01 2:05:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wn115@... writes:

<< Sorry, voting Republican may be an anti-social behavior that

indicates delusion, but it's not a disease, nor is it a symptom of

one. ;-)

Jim >>

Are you sure? LOL. Many of the personality disorders listed in

the DSM-IV-Revised, are actually based upon psychoanalytic concepts. You

can't get much more primitive than that. Many of these AXIS-II categories, I

believe are politically motivated, especially anti-social personality

disorder. We won't even go into borderline personality disorder or

narccisism. (<holds head). There is much to look forward to though as Jim

says in cognitive and neuropsych endeavors, so not to despair totally. I

personally, am grateful to pharmacology advancements--so the diagnoses aren't

so hot--- primitive, infantile fields have to grow step by step. I just wish

the psychodynamics hadn't regressed everything a decade or so. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/1/01 2:05:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wn115@... writes:

<< Sorry, voting Republican may be an anti-social behavior that

indicates delusion, but it's not a disease, nor is it a symptom of

one. ;-)

Jim >>

Are you sure? LOL. Many of the personality disorders listed in

the DSM-IV-Revised, are actually based upon psychoanalytic concepts. You

can't get much more primitive than that. Many of these AXIS-II categories, I

believe are politically motivated, especially anti-social personality

disorder. We won't even go into borderline personality disorder or

narccisism. (<holds head). There is much to look forward to though as Jim

says in cognitive and neuropsych endeavors, so not to despair totally. I

personally, am grateful to pharmacology advancements--so the diagnoses aren't

so hot--- primitive, infantile fields have to grow step by step. I just wish

the psychodynamics hadn't regressed everything a decade or so. Piper.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim

This one could run and run, so I'll try to keep it brief. I would say

that psychiatry contains a mixture of scientific and non-scientific

practices. Human behavior is more complex than rats and bell pushes

and hence more global, less specific terms must be used to describe

it. If a patient reports that the Democrats have planted a radio in

his brain ordering him to commit suicide and monitoring his thoughts

for example, this will be a unique experience but with broad

similarity to other things that paranoid ppl report. If after

administration of an antipsychotic that patient loses all trace of

that symptom and looks back acknowledging the claims were delusional

this could be said to be effective treatment of the paranoia. Such

treatments are not administered on an anecdotal basis but evaluated by

clinical trial, and hence imo scientific.

P.

>

> > You gotta stop reading that Szasz Jim! I think we need to define

> our

> > terms here carfully. Let me agree for purpose of argument that

> > psychiatry is merely an institution of social control. Even if

> true,

> > I would say that psychiatry *scientifically* pursues that

> objective.

> > One does not judge a discipline a pseudoscience on the legitimacy

> of

> > its objectives (apart from commitment to truth-seeking, science is

> > value free) but on its modus operandi. Psychiatry generally uses

> the

> > same protocols for development of its treatment that general

> medicine

> > does, which I believe are as scientific as possible oprating

within

> > ethical constraints. Whatever or not Psychiatry may be up to, and

> > whether or not it is ethical or not, I believe it is pursuing its

> > objectives scientifically. Ironically, for those who see

> Psychiatry

> > as Nazi-Lite, I would say that if it were indeed only a

> pseudoscience

> > and employed homeopathic 'remedies' say then they would have far

> less

> > cause to find it threatening.

> >

> > P.