Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 First off there is nothing stopping one from leaving a violent relationship. One may feel intimidated to, but there is no spell that keeps them in that situation. As for public funding, there is nowhere in the constitution that states we should have these programs funded by tax dollars. The founding fathers realized that such organizations do better and go alot farther when the are PRIVATELY funded. Mercy Ministries is one example. They help girls in their teens and 20's get off the streets and on with their lives. The founder said for 8 years they tried relying on the government and it got them nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 I don't mean to be repetitive, but RR is just as reductionist in its message as AA. They are mirror images of each other. AA says we are powerless. RR says each of us has all the power. RR has turned every issue into a black and white knee jerk response with their own language, AVRT and their own slogan, Just say NO. Jack had the utter audacity to tell me that women in domestic violence situations are there by choice and should Just say No. He did not feel public funding should be wasted on protecting women from their own stupidity. I guess our best thinking got us here. In AA we are powerless, in RR we are stupid. For myself I prefer a humanistic approach. None of us is perfect. And by the way, I cannot cure myself of flashbacks with positive thinking. I am not particularly concerned about them, nor am I afraid of them. But I cannot think them away. I will not use them as an excuse to use, either. I kind of embrace them. But I still have them. Pop psychology is not based on scientific knowledge. As I like to say, if self help books helped, why would they need to keep writing new ones? Not to bash psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatry is not based on sound science either. We really don't know all that much about the brain yet. We psychiatrists are pretty much stumbling around in the dark, throwing medication darts at people until one works. Think about this. In the US 20% of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 are diagnosed with ADHD, but in England only 0.5% are. And this is biological? I'm thinking bad parenting, laziness, and social acceptance of rotten kids is way more to blame. Kind of like the disease model of addiction vs the cognitive behavioral model vs chemically enhanced stupidity. I guess the great thing about America is that we always have a choice. Liz Re: Curing addictions---Liz > > > Another very poor attitude is that one must change their > lives to remove the " causes " of addiction. The only cause of addiction > is consumption of = > > the substance. > > True users need no excuses to use, though they tell others they use > because= > > of this and that, but the truth is that users use because they > like the high. This is sometimes difficult for the user to > acknowledge, because it lays = > > the responsibiity squarely where it belongs---with the user. It's > too easy to blame ones using on their genes, their boss, their wife, > or any other convenient outside source. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 hehehe You entertain me. You become indignant when a person makes a crack (no pun intended) about psychologists, then a few days later admit how little psychologists know. Not only do you entertain me, but so does you entire industry. Here is how I compare the step solution to disorders to home heating. In the 1930s or so, people used coal to heat their homes. What if the coal ompanies had somehow convinced everyone in America that if you could not heat your home with coal, then you couldn't heat your home... there is no other way. And if that industry convinced the government of same, and used the government to impair the search for more usable fuels rather than using it to expedite that search. But really, I over rate the psychology industry with this comparison, as the usage of coal for fuel came about during the industrial revolution, and psychology is really just on its way out of the stone age. I suppose the time of little enlightenment (the dark ages) is where psychology currently stands, as those high in the industry are using their power and the government to stifle advancement and sell mostly useless and often harmful drugs. regarding your argument that AA and RR are about the same, I think you are missing quite a bit about AA. Nonetheless, we all know that some good comes from AA, and if RR is anything like I picture it, it would like this statement too: Think, Think, Think. In most cases (the 19.5% difference who are misdiagnosed), ADHD diagnosis happens because a social worker wants job security, a shrink wants another patient, and the drug industry wants to sell more drugs. > I don't mean to be repetitive, but RR is just as reductionist in its message > as AA. They are mirror images of each other. AA says we are powerless. RR > says each of us has all the power. RR has turned every issue into a black > and white knee jerk response with their own language, AVRT and their own > slogan, Just say NO. Jack had the utter audacity to tell me that women in > domestic violence situations are there by choice and should Just say No. He > did not feel public funding should be wasted on protecting women from their > own stupidity. I guess our best thinking got us here. In AA we are > powerless, in RR we are stupid. > For myself I prefer a humanistic approach. None of us is perfect. And by > the way, I cannot cure myself of flashbacks with positive thinking. I am > not particularly concerned about them, nor am I afraid of them. But I > cannot think them away. I will not use them as an excuse to use, either. I > kind of embrace them. But I still have them. Pop psychology is not based > on scientific knowledge. As I like to say, if self help books helped, why > would they need to keep writing new ones? > Not to bash psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatry is not based on sound > science either. We really don't know all that much about the brain yet. We > psychiatrists are pretty much stumbling around in the dark, throwing > medication darts at people until one works. Think about this. In the US > 20% of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 are diagnosed with ADHD, but in > England only 0.5% are. And this is biological? I'm thinking bad parenting, > laziness, and social acceptance of rotten kids is way more to blame. Kind > of like the disease model of addiction vs the cognitive behavioral model vs > chemically enhanced stupidity. I guess the great thing about America is > that we always have a choice. > Liz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 Change coal to oil and you have yourself a winner ! >From: cool_guy@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Curing addictions---Liz >Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:00:11 -0000 > >hehehe You entertain me. > > You become indignant when a person makes a crack (no pun >intended) about psychologists, then a few days later admit how >little psychologists know. Not only do you entertain me, but so >does you entire industry. Here is how I compare the step solution >to disorders to home heating. In the 1930s or so, people used coal >to heat their homes. What if the coal ompanies had somehow >convinced everyone in America that if you could not heat your home >with coal, then you couldn't heat your home... there is no other >way. And if that industry convinced the government of same, and >used the government to impair the search for more usable fuels >rather than using it to expedite that search. But really, I over >rate the psychology industry with this comparison, as the usage of >coal for fuel came about during the industrial revolution, and >psychology is really just on its way out of the stone age. I >suppose the time of little enlightenment (the dark ages) is where >psychology currently stands, as those high in the industry are using >their power and the government to stifle advancement and sell mostly >useless and often harmful drugs. > > regarding your argument that AA and RR are about the same, I >think you are missing quite a bit about AA. Nonetheless, we all >know that some good comes from AA, and if RR is anything like I >picture it, it would like this statement too: Think, Think, Think. > > In most cases (the 19.5% difference who are misdiagnosed), ADHD >diagnosis happens because a social worker wants job security, a >shrink wants another patient, and the drug industry wants to sell >more drugs. > > > > I don't mean to be repetitive, but RR is just as reductionist in >its message > > as AA. They are mirror images of each other. AA says we are >powerless. RR > > says each of us has all the power. RR has turned every issue >into a black > > and white knee jerk response with their own language, AVRT and >their own > > slogan, Just say NO. Jack had the utter audacity to tell me that >women in > > domestic violence situations are there by choice and should Just >say No. He > > did not feel public funding should be wasted on protecting women >from their > > own stupidity. I guess our best thinking got us here. In AA we are > > powerless, in RR we are stupid. > > For myself I prefer a humanistic approach. None of us is >perfect. And by > > the way, I cannot cure myself of flashbacks with positive >thinking. I am > > not particularly concerned about them, nor am I afraid of them. >But I > > cannot think them away. I will not use them as an excuse to use, >either. I > > kind of embrace them. But I still have them. Pop psychology is >not based > > on scientific knowledge. As I like to say, if self help books >helped, why > > would they need to keep writing new ones? > > Not to bash psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatry is not based on >sound > > science either. We really don't know all that much about the >brain yet. We > > psychiatrists are pretty much stumbling around in the dark, >throwing > > medication darts at people until one works. Think about this. In >the US > > 20% of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 are diagnosed with ADHD, >but in > > England only 0.5% are. And this is biological? I'm thinking bad >parenting, > > laziness, and social acceptance of rotten kids is way more to >blame. Kind > > of like the disease model of addiction vs the cognitive behavioral >model vs > > chemically enhanced stupidity. I guess the great thing about >America is > > that we always have a choice. > > Liz > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 Cool Guy, IMO, you cannot use the terms Psychiatrist and Psychologists interchangeably. Psychologists are trained in many " schools of psychology " and are not pill pushers. Having been to both, I think there is a BIG difference. J --- cool_guy@... wrote: > hehehe You entertain me. > > You become indignant when a person makes a crack > (no pun > intended) about psychologists, then a few days later > admit how > little psychologists know. Not only do you > entertain me, but so > does you entire industry. Here is how I compare the > step solution > to disorders to home heating. In the 1930s or so, > people used coal > to heat their homes. What if the coal ompanies had > somehow > convinced everyone in America that if you could not > heat your home > with coal, then you couldn't heat your home... there > is no other > way. And if that industry convinced the government > of same, and > used the government to impair the search for more > usable fuels > rather than using it to expedite that search. But > really, I over > rate the psychology industry with this comparison, > as the usage of > coal for fuel came about during the industrial > revolution, and > psychology is really just on its way out of the > stone age. I > suppose the time of little enlightenment (the dark > ages) is where > psychology currently stands, as those high in the > industry are using > their power and the government to stifle advancement > and sell mostly > useless and often harmful drugs. > > regarding your argument that AA and RR are about > the same, I > think you are missing quite a bit about AA. > Nonetheless, we all > know that some good comes from AA, and if RR is > anything like I > picture it, it would like this statement too: Think, > Think, Think. > > In most cases (the 19.5% difference who are > misdiagnosed), ADHD > diagnosis happens because a social worker wants job > security, a > shrink wants another patient, and the drug industry > wants to sell > more drugs. > > > > I don't mean to be repetitive, but RR is just as > reductionist in > its message > > as AA. They are mirror images of each other. AA > says we are > powerless. RR > > says each of us has all the power. RR has turned > every issue > into a black > > and white knee jerk response with their own > language, AVRT and > their own > > slogan, Just say NO. Jack had the utter audacity > to tell me that > women in > > domestic violence situations are there by choice > and should Just > say No. He > > did not feel public funding should be wasted on > protecting women > from their > > own stupidity. I guess our best thinking got us > here. In AA we are > > powerless, in RR we are stupid. > > For myself I prefer a humanistic approach. None > of us is > perfect. And by > > the way, I cannot cure myself of flashbacks with > positive > thinking. I am > > not particularly concerned about them, nor am I > afraid of them. > But I > > cannot think them away. I will not use them as an > excuse to use, > either. I > > kind of embrace them. But I still have them. Pop > psychology is > not based > > on scientific knowledge. As I like to say, if > self help books > helped, why > > would they need to keep writing new ones? > > Not to bash psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatry is > not based on > sound > > science either. We really don't know all that > much about the > brain yet. We > > psychiatrists are pretty much stumbling around in > the dark, > throwing > > medication darts at people until one works. Think > about this. In > the US > > 20% of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 are > diagnosed with ADHD, > but in > > England only 0.5% are. And this is biological? > I'm thinking bad > parenting, > > laziness, and social acceptance of rotten kids is > way more to > blame. Kind > > of like the disease model of addiction vs the > cognitive behavioral > model vs > > chemically enhanced stupidity. I guess the great > thing about > America is > > that we always have a choice. > > Liz > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 This is why I have been very happy with LSR. Nobody is powerless and nobody is stupid. Everyone is encouraged to be an individual and to do it their way. They welcome healthy skepticism and rational thinking and make no pretense to have all of or the only answer to either the causes or treatment of addiction. It is simply a safe and supportive environment, where all life issues and opinions can be freely and openly discussed. J > I don't mean to be repetitive, but RR is just as reductionist in its message > as AA. They are mirror images of each other. AA says we are powerless. RR > says each of us has all the power. RR has turned every issue into a black > and white knee jerk response with their own language, AVRT and their own > slogan, Just say NO. Jack had the utter audacity to tell me that women in > domestic violence situations are there by choice and should Just say No. He > did not feel public funding should be wasted on protecting women from their > own stupidity. I guess our best thinking got us here. In AA we are > powerless, in RR we are stupid. > For myself I prefer a humanistic approach. None of us is perfect. And by > the way, I cannot cure myself of flashbacks with positive thinking. I am > not particularly concerned about them, nor am I afraid of them. But I > cannot think them away. I will not use them as an excuse to use, either. I > kind of embrace them. But I still have them. Pop psychology is not based > on scientific knowledge. As I like to say, if self help books helped, why > would they need to keep writing new ones? > Not to bash psychiatry, but a lot of psychiatry is not based on sound > science either. We really don't know all that much about the brain yet. We > psychiatrists are pretty much stumbling around in the dark, throwing > medication darts at people until one works. Think about this. In the US > 20% of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 are diagnosed with ADHD, but in > England only 0.5% are. And this is biological? I'm thinking bad parenting, > laziness, and social acceptance of rotten kids is way more to blame. Kind > of like the disease model of addiction vs the cognitive behavioral model vs > chemically enhanced stupidity. I guess the great thing about America is > that we always have a choice. > Liz om/info/terms/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 hehe true true true, very good. > Change coal to oil and you have yourself a winner ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Re: Curing addictions---Liz > First off there is nothing stopping one from leaving a violent relationship. > One may feel intimidated to, but there is no spell that keeps them in that > situation. > As for public funding, there is nowhere in the constitution that states we > should have these programs funded by tax dollars. The founding fathers > realized that such organizations do better and go alot farther when the are > PRIVATELY funded. Mercy Ministries is one example. They help girls in their > teens and 20's get off the streets and on with their lives. The founder said > for 8 years they tried relying on the government and it got them nowhere. Yeah yeah yeah... the same founding fathers who made laws that disallowed beating your wife with a stick thicker than your thumb. There were a lot of charities back then that helped abused women , and you are correct, they weren't funded by the government. You almost sound pro-Taleban with your views on women. Still, I think it is safe to say that women who remain in abusive relationships are under a type of spell, even though you don't think so. Just like people who stay in AA... its not a magical spell, but it is a process of mind-conditioning that keeps people in abusive relations. There are no easy answers but then there is really very little reason to bring up the founding fathers... they are dead, as are many of their principles (read the 9th ammendment, then tell me when and how it was forsaken, trampled and never spoken of aloud again, or even written about). Maybe, in an ideal world, we should move back to their principles... but get real. Also, there is nowhere in the US Constitution that says a state or local government can not fund any type of charity (again read the 9th ammendment). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.