 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: Okay, let's approach this another way. by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 05/11/2014, 2:51am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
pinback wrote: So, if that was the case, then they should be able to point to an objective validation of their opinion, such as specific sections of the DSM-IV that provide something other than "because I say so" as their reason for their claims. Having a different opinion is not insanity. Being long winded is not insanity, otherwise William F. Buckley would have been in a nuthouse decades ago. The point I am making is, if I suffer from some actual mental problem, and they believe it to be the case, then it should be trivial for them to provide evidence of this. pinback wrote: Oh please. I'm also referring to where I said something as a new subject - not a response to a conversation - where people, knowing I wrote something as a brand-new discussion, chose to read it, then proceeded to claim, on the basis of a subject where I started the conversation, to declare me as having asperger's, or autism, or some other mental disease or defect. But not one of them can give an objective explanation as to why they claim this. for example, it is considered reasonable for people to talk to God even though there is no evidence of Her existence. But, claiming God responds to your conversation or talks back to you is an indicator of something wrong. The DSM-IV gives Asperger's Syndrome code 299.80. The following page gives specific examples of what constitutes evidence that someone has the problem: dsm4-aspergers.html. All someone has to do is go to that page, look at the required symptoms to have Asperger's, and they would realize that I lack all of them. pinback wrote: I do understand humor. Perhaps it just happens your sense of humor disagrees with mine. Have you ever read my blog? Consider a few entries I posted, including this one on the death of Francisco Sanchez a man I did not know, which I thought was hilarious. Or this one from 2009 about how a supporter of suicide bombings against Israel was killed by an Israeli military strike. Or this line from a posting in April, 2013: "So the fact remains that the Middle East consists of the garbage Muslims and the garbage Jews engaging in trash removal against each other, so the rest of the world just plain doesn't care as long as we don't have to clean up the mess." pinback wrote: There are people who do like my sense of humor and do like my jokes. Perhaps you have a different sense of humor than I do. That does not make me wrong, it simply means you and I don't find the same things funny. pinback wrote: You spelled "your" worng. (Yes, that was intentional.) Exactly when in the last twenty years did I discuss before on the subject of merchant account processing? Exactly when did I talk before about the reason why The Hobbit is in 3 pieces? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. pinback wrote:Okay, let's look at this for a moment. If it really is insane, it should be provable based on an objective criteria, to which someone can show examples of why. It ain't science if you can't prove what you claim, and those who make this sort of a claim where they have nothing to prove what they say, are simply untrained laymen who are expressing subjective opinions not backed by facts, where they do not know what they are talking about. As a person who is a licensed operator of a motor vehicle, I can express an opinion that it is dangerous to operate one while intoxicated. But even a person who can't drive can point to the fact that using alcohol decreases response time and that operating a motor vehicle is a dangerous practice, because they can show, on the basis of objective evidence, of the tens of thousands of deaths every year from improper or negligent operation of motor vehicles. They can provide objective evidence to sustain their opinion. Professionals who have knowledge of a particular occupation or practice are allowed, based upon their knowledge and experience, to express an opinion on a subject. Otherwise if you're making a claim of something where you are not a trained professional, you're supposed to have objective evidence to prove your opinion. An opinion by someone not trained in that particular occupation, expressed with nothing to back it up except 'because I say so' is the classic definition of "blowing smoke out of your ass." |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
