Do you support the separation of psychiatry and state?

Incorrect. Many of the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW2 were not brave and were not raving lunatics, most were perfectly sane and most INVOLUNTARILY went to their deaths kicking and screaming. They were bolted into their seats and told that they would be denied permission to land on the carriers. They were told to die whether they liked it or not. They were told if they did not kill themselves their families back home in Japan would be slaughtered.

Some did actually volunteer, but we now know from surviving Kamikaze pilots that those that volunteered were mentally deranged (one Japanese pilot said they were all completely "nuts")

Now we know Bull's TRUE colors. He is "nuts".

 

OK Corwin, you think I am twit and I KNOW you are a twit. You talk a lot of uneducated proletariat crap and ejaculate in sheer ecstasy at every opportunity of poking fun at JB, but we obviously love each other.

 

I don't know what history books you research that from but you have a wrong information about kamikaze pilots. They were brave volunteers ready to die for the Emperor of Japan.

 

A friendly reminder that in the front of this specific sub-forum, it states, "This is for anything related to world politics and religion. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it (you will be banned)."

 

History channel did a bit on it, and they spoke to a few Kamikaze pilots that never got to kill themselves because Japan surrendered. At first they took young pilots impressionable and indoctrinated them into killing themselves. Later as Japan was losing the war and there were no more crazies, the Japanese Navy, out of ammunition and low on bombs got desperate and started pulling pilots out and forced them to "volunteer". The bastards told them their families would be killed if they didn't kill themselves.

http://www.history.com/search?search-field=Kamikaze&x=0&y=0

"Brave volunteers"? What shit are you smoking???

 

Are we getting a bit off topic here? Perhaps this can be split into another thread.

The original question is if you support the separation of psychiatry and state. Psychiatry being the secular state's religion.

 

Psychiatry is not a "secular state's religion." For the average person, the field of psychiatry is not that much of a concern. The man in your video is probably upset over a recent experience in which he was detained for being a threat to himself or others.

 

It could be said to be the secular state's religion because the secular state, in The USA, implicitly enforces certain beliefs about the afterlife. For example, it is implicitly conveyed through civil commitment that a human will be better off if they do not commit suicide. This seems to border on theological.

 

Disagree. I believe many atheists, as well as the religious, understand the preciousness of life.

 

I agree that life is precious, but I think that your reply only seems to provide evidence to my point.

 

At least we can agree on one thing. Life is precious, for atheists and the religious alike. However, that doesn't indicate "psychiatry is the secular state's religion."

 

I disagree. A society's core responsibility is the preservation of the lives of it's citizens. For a government that is considered a core civic duty. Therefore it is against the law to take a life, whether it is the life of another or your own. Hence lawsuits against cigarette companies, global warming mania, etc.

You will find it in "vision statements" like the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

I respectfully state that you seem to indicate that the government has a duty and obligation to treat adults like children.

 

If someone is saying that they're planning to kill themselves, we will try to prevent that and help them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Here's an interesting article not directly related to the conversation, but to mental illness itself.

​

 

If schizophrenia or other psychological disorders are real brain disorders, then individuals should be able to reject treatment. If it is not an actual brain disease, they should still be able to reject treatment.

Forced psychiatric treatment is not help, it is coercion, force and abuse.

Mental illness does not and cannot literally exist. The mind cannot be ill. Brain illness can exist. Neurosyphilis is one such example. Schizophrenia has not been proven to be a brain disorder.

What does your emoticon signify?

 

Don't you think adults can be sick this way?

 

Anyone can reject psychiatric treatment, as long as they're not an imminent threat to themselves or others. The emoticon is a shrug.

 

Excuse me. You are sort of correct.
They can reject "treatment". However, in most locations they cannot reject being locked up in a psychiatric facility if they are caught being "a danger" to their own self.

 

"I'm not commenting on minors in this thread. If an adult was doing that they would be breaking the law and they should not be treated in the psychiatric system, they should be dealt with in the criminal system. That is my opinion."

Sick in what way? Wanting to harm others? Wanting to harm others is not a disease or sickness. Cancer is a disease, so is HIV. If psychiatry has its way then just about everything can be a so called disease. That does not seem useful, trying to use definitions in this way.

 

I'm sort of correct? Please point out any statement I've made indicating that someone that is an imminent threat to themselves or others would not be held? I haven't. It's the point that we've disagreed upon in this thread. Look, I'll tell you a personal story. It happened several months ago at a different forum I frequent. This man started a thread about wanting to die. He actually had it planned out. He made something like a schedule. On the fourth day it was suicide. I tried talking to him. He talked back, but still said he was intent on his plan. A few other nice people there. Several assholes making fun of him and encouraging him to kill himself. At that point, the choice was to hit the back button or go farther trying to help. So, I called the Admin. At first they were resistant. But when I had them go over the thread with me, they agreed to call the police. The police came. According to my conversation with this man later, they acted like jerks. He ended up being held against his will for 2 days. From his description, it was probably as bad as you think it was. YET, it stopped his plan. He said while he was sitting there, he realized his life is not completely meaningless, we're all going to die, no rush. I think he was at a temporary low. We all have peaks and valleys in life, suicide is so final. It's not all neat and tidy, but better than the alternative. If someone were planning to kill themselves, why do you think they would announce it? Especially in public, and even on a forum? It's because deep down they want someone to stop them. Threatening suicide may just be the way they have of expressing the depth of sorrow and hopelessness they feel at that point. So, no, I don't agree with you that society should just allow despondent people to kill themselves.