-->
@Theweakeredge
Huh, well that was a bad thing - does it happen regularly?
YES.
IT USUALLY DOESN'T GET REPORTED TO THE POLICE.
BUT MANY PEOPLE TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO BE SELF-APPOINTED VIGILANTES.
Gender Dysphoria and Mental Illness
Posts
Total:
132
-->
@3RU7AL
The stereotype is that orphans aren’t treated well by the state. I don’t know how accurate this stereotype is. I have met several foster kids and ex foster kids and one is very nice. The other 2 are normal. If the foster system treated them poorly, I think they would be much worse people.
I think the benefits of someone identifying as a 6 year old to get free stuff from the state outweigh the costs.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think the benefits of someone identifying as a 6 year old to get free stuff from the state outweigh the costs.
just like a homeless person who has been declared mentally incompetent.
they seem to get along great.
-->
@3RU7AL
Personally I wish the law in Oregon allowed certain drug addicts in a state of mentally incompetence to be declared mentally incompetent.
I don't think I'd support them being declared mentally incompetent, when they're 'sane but still addicted, though.
-->
@Lemming
I don't think I'd support them being declared mentally incompetent, when they're 'sane but still addicted, though.
isn't addiction proof-positive of mental incompetence?
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say yes, but it seems a bit gray area at a glance, to me.
Less gray is an individual staring at you like he doesn't recognize you, threatening to burn the house down, thinking that you're hiding millions of dollars from him, picking up random items in the house and saying that the item was calling to him and that it's his even though it isn't, closing all the blinds in the house and insisting that someone's there, saying that the towns changed and that they think they might need to kill you to fix it, so on and so on.
'That's crazy.
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't addiction proof-positive of mental incompetence?
I wouldn't say so - at least not to a degree that is significantly different than the rest of the population. It would be like calling lying proof of mental incompetence, I mean, yeah-sure, but not in any way that's helpful for classifying people.
-->
@Theweakeredge
isn't addiction proof-positive of mental incompetence?I wouldn't say so -
where would you personally "draw the line"?
-->
@3RU7AL
In what regard? Mental imcompotence is a relative term - though being "addicted" to something is not something unique to indiviudals -mental "incomptence" speaks more of a failure of reasoning, becoming addicted to something is rarely an error in reasoning.
-->
@Theweakeredge
becoming addicted to something is rarely an error in reasoning
what kind of error is addiction?
-->
@3RU7AL
Brain chemistry - its a flaw in "design" - typically addictions work by ingesting, injecting, etc, taking a substance which increases dopamine in the brain, to the point where the brain starts to develop a reliance on the dopamine and therefore the substance, the amount of dopamine being released lowering all the while, meaning that the user has to use more to match what their brain is relying on. So - its a brain error.
-->
@Theweakeredge
its a brain error.
just a note, "gambling addiction" has been added to the DSM5 under "substance addiction" (i agree it doesn't seem to fit, but apparently the dopamine spikes are indistinguishable from cocaine).
also, if your brain is malfunctioning, how is that not "mental incompetence" ?
an addicted brain is short-circuited.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say there's too 'many lesser malfunctions, for us to feel comfortable, arbitrarily saying 'this malfunction is reason enough to deprive you of your political choice.
Maybe drug addiction is more of a value problem, than an understanding problem.
-->
@Lemming
Maybe drug addiction is more of a value problem, than an understanding problem.
is sugar addiction functionally indistinguishable from "drug" addiction?
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, the 'results are different.
Sure you can get diabetes, but most people can control themselves well enough, to 'not.
People don't generally get 'fired for a sugar addiction.
People don't generally crave sugar enough, to steal from family. Or let it warp their morals.
-->
@3RU7AL
because it is not a fault of reasoning - because mentality - our mind - is an emergent property of your brain - it is not quite the same thing as your brain. There is a distinction
-->
@Theweakeredge
because it is not a fault of reasoning - because mentality - our mind - is an emergent property of your brain - it is not quite the same thing as your brain. There is a distinction
What is that distinction? Please elaborate. And how is this distinction identifiable in contrast to the physiological/neurological framework of the brain?
-->
@Athias
The specific distinction? It is the result of physiological and chemical reactions that cause properties one would assign to the "mind", furthermore, it is not even the result itself, but properties that come as a result of the result. Like fire, a result of chemical reactions, causes human perception to warp thanks to specific gaseous results.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The specific distinction? It is the result of physiological and chemical reactions that cause properties one would assign to the "mind", furthermore, it is not even the result itself, but properties that come as a result of the result. Like fire, a result of chemical reactions, causes human perception to warp thanks to specific gaseous results.
You state that the mind =/= brain. I'm attempting to grasp your meaning. If the mind is the fire, and the brain is the fire starter, what is it about the mind that makes it distinct from the physiological and chemical reactions which inform its cause?
-->
@Lemming
People don't generally get 'fired for a sugar addiction.People don't generally crave sugar enough, to steal from family. Or let it warp their morals.
ONLY BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, certain drugs also 'impair more than sugar, leading to behaviors that cause an individual to fail at their job.
-->
@Theweakeredge
because it is not a fault of reasoning
are you able to provide an example of something you believe would qualify as "a fault of reasoning" ?
-->
@Lemming
Well, certain drugs also 'impair more than sugar, leading to behaviors that cause an individual to fail at their job.
SUGAR IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF HEART DISEASE.
HEART DISEASE IS THE #1 LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH.
AMPHETAMINES MARKEDLY INCREASE PERFORMANCE OF MOST JOBS, THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN GIVING THEM TO FIGHTER-PILOTS SINCE WW2.
-->
@3RU7AL
Showing up to work with some glazed doughnut sugar stinking off one's breath,
'Just doesn't seem the same as showing up to work with booze, stinking off one's breath.
I'll have to bow out, on account of lack of knowledge,
Though my own experiences (anecdotal fallacy) with drug addicts,
Have left me doubtful that their drug use has enhanced their ability.
'Maybe short term, but end result of the number of them I've seen, has been poor.
But maybe I just saw the bad result fellows.
-->
@Athias
Um... what's makes the fire starter different from the fire? The properties which it exhibits, in this case, consiousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc - fairly basic things.
-->
@3RU7AL
P1: Atoms are non-living
P2: Cats are made of atoms
CON: Therefore Cats are non-living
The composition fallacy, inferring what is true of one part of a thing is true of the thing itself.
-->
@Theweakeredge
P1: Atoms are non-livingP2: Cats are made of atomsCON: Therefore Cats are non-livingThe composition fallacy, inferring what is true of one part of a thing is true of the thing itself.
you're engaging in "motivated reasoning" also known as "post-hoc rationalization"
in other words,
you forgot to define "living"
-->
@Theweakeredge
P1: Atoms are non-livingP2: Cats are made of atomsCON: Therefore Cats are non-livingThe composition fallacy, inferring what is true of one part of a thing is true of the thing itself.
also, if you consider "faulty logic" to be "mental incompetence" then you need to start placing every newscaster and politician on earth in some sort of gigantic mental hospital.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... what's makes the fire starter different from the fire? The properties which it exhibits, in this case, consiousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc - fairly basic things.
So then, I harken back to my previous question: "how is this distinction [i.e. consciousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc.] identifiable in contrast to the physiological/neurological framework of the brain? I suppose I'm asking: do these chemical/physiological processes in the Brain happen absent of reason?
-->
@Athias
Um... what's makes the fire starter different from the fire? The properties which it exhibits, in this case, consiousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc - fairly basic things.So then, I harken back to my previous question: "how is this distinction [i.e. consciousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc.] identifiable in contrast to the physiological/neurological framework of the brain? I suppose I'm asking: do these chemical/physiological processes in the Brain happen absent of reason?
the time and place of the "fire starter" determines the scope and longevity of the consequent fire