Carrie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 "Crazy" seems like a harsh word. How about using "mental disabilities?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Carrie' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:11 AM']"Crazy" seems like a harsh word. How about using "mental disabilities?" [right][snapback]617879[/snapback][/right] [/quote] How about we call a duck a duck and not a Feathered avian which normally inhabits wetlands, has a broad, flat bill, and webbed feet. It distinguished from the Goose by the shape of bill, the goose's being more pointed and shorter. A crazy person is crazy, mental disabilities is an atrocious term, most people have mental disabilities of one form or another but most people are not crazy. If you kill youself culpability is relaxed for those who are CRAZY not for the guy who scores 15 points lower in math than his IQ would indicate he should ( which is the requirment for learning disabilities-- which I will remind you is a mental disability). I don't know whatthe problem is with people who can't seem to use the wonderful words given usby our anglosaxon linguistic ancestors. The word is crazy because it describes crazy people not all the people with "mental disabilites" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:25 PM']How about we call a duck a duck and not a Feathered avian which normally inhabits wetlands, has a broad, flat bill, and webbed feet. It distinguished from the Goose by the shape of bill, the goose's being more pointed and shorter. A crazy person is crazy, mental disabilities is an atrocious term, most people have mental disabilities of one form or another but most people are not crazy. If you kill youself culpability is relaxed for those who are CRAZY not for the guy who scores 15 points lower in math than his IQ would indicate he should ( which is the requirment for learning disabilities-- which I will remind you is a mental disability). I don't know whatthe problem is with people who can't seem to use the wonderful words given usby our anglosaxon linguistic ancestors. The word is crazy because it describes crazy people not all the people with "mental disabilites" [right][snapback]617888[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm sure any suicidal client I have would love to be labeled as crazy. Many people who committ suicide have Major Depressive Disorder, which is called a mental disability, not crazy. Maybe we should revamp the DSM-IV to simply things and label people as crazy, huh?. And thanks, but I know what a learning disability is. Many people assume that Schizophrenics are crazy, but that's not true either. Using such a label, even if given to us by our anglosaxon linguistic ancestors, is offensive and outdated. Language and labels have changed over time, as we progress and learn more about the human mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Carrie' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:34 AM']I'm sure any suicidal client I have would love to be labeled as crazy. Many people who committ suicide have Major Depressive Disorder, which is called a mental disability, not crazy. Maybe we should revamp the DSM-IV to simply things and label people as crazy, huh?. And thanks, but I know what a learning disability is. Many people assume that Schizophrenics are crazy, but that's not true either. Using such a label, even if given to us by our anglosaxon linguistic ancestors, is offensive and outdated. Language and labels have changed over time, as we progress and learn more about the human mind. [right][snapback]617980[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote]I'm sure any suicidal client I have would love to be labeled as crazy. [/quote] I don't care whether they love to be "labled" as crazy or not, anymore than I care is a duck would prefer to be refered to as above. Crazy is crazy. [quote]Many people who committ suicide have Major Depressive Disorder, which is called a mental disability, not crazy. Maybe we should revamp the DSM-IV to simply things and label people as crazy, huh?. And thanks, but I know what a learning disability is. [/quote] Crazy means to be effected with madness or insane, insane means to have a presistant mental derangment. That is what it is, I could care less about what the DSM-IV says, I think the american phsycological assosiation is atrocious as well. The whole damnable thing should be dismantaled. So throwing that around means little to me. [quote]Many people assume that Schizophrenics are crazy, but that's not true either. Using such a label, even if given to us by our anglosaxon linguistic ancestors, is offensive and outdated. Language and labels have changed over time, as we progress and learn more about the human mind.[/quote] Schizophrenics are crazy, or if you would prefer insane( oh I'm sorry thats not in scientific use anymore either but not because it is wrong more because phsycologist are involved in a totally rediculous philosophical system) we can use that also. The microcatogorizing of things does not render the general catagory of what they are incorrect, someone beiong offended by being called crazy is like someone being offended by being called a mammal--- ridiculous. As for being offensive I find you offensive, I find the push to make everything that is said politically correct offensive, I find the APA's push to catorgorize everything about the human mind into smaller and smaller catagories that have less and less actual meaning offensive. It isn't progress it is digression, we understand more about the human Brain but the Brain is not the Mind, and the phycological insistance on that materialist propoganda is at the root of many of our social problems. Edited June 21, 2005 by Don John of Austria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Suicide Solution Wine is fine but whiskey's quicker Suicide is slow with liquor Take a bottle and drown your sorrows Then it floods away tomorrows Evil thoughts and evil doings Cold, alone you hang in ruins Thought that you'd escape the reaper You can't escape the Master Keeper 'Cause you feel like you're living a lie Such a shame who's to blame and you're wondering why Then you ask from your cask us there life after birth What you sow can mean Hell on this earth Now you live inside a bottle The reaper's traveling at full throttle It's catching you but you don't see The reaper is you and the reaper is me Breaking laws, knocking doors But there's no one at home Made your bed, rest your head But you lie there and moan Where to hide, Suicide is the only way out Don't you know what it's really about Repeat 1st verse by OZZY OZBORNE - great in his own twisted little way... :pitchfork : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:58 PM']I don't care whether they love to be "labled" as crazy or not, anymore than I care is a duck would prefer to be refered to as above. Crazy is crazy. Crazy means to be effected with madness or insane, insane means to have a presistant mental derangment. That is what it is, I could care less about what the DSM-IV says, I think the american phsycological assosiation is atrocious as well. The whole damnable thing should be dismantaled. So throwing that around means little to me. Schizophrenics are crazy, or if you would prefer insane( oh I'm sorry thats not in scientific use anymore either but not because it is wrong more because phsycologist are involved in a totally rediculous philosophical system) we can use that also. The microcatogorizing of things does not render the general catagory of what they are incorrect, someone beiong offended by being called crazy is like someone being offended by being called a mammal--- ridiculous. As for being offensive I find you offensive, I find the push to make everything that is said politically correct offensive, I find the APA's push to catorgorize everything about the human mind into smaller and smaller catagories that have less and less actual meaning offensive. It isn't progress it is digression, we understand more aboutthe human Brain butthe Brain is not the Mind, and the phycological insistance on that materialist propoganda is at the root of many of our social problems. [right][snapback]618011[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As for your opinion that we are just continuing to make meaningless categories about the mind...it is simply that, your opinion. I'm sure that the many mentally disabled people who have been successfully treated for their disorders would not agree that the work we psychologists do is meaningless. Whether or not it means little to you has no meaning to me. I know that we do good work in helping many mentally disabled people to live healthy, normal lives. Being rude about what you label them is the ridiculous thing. In that case, why not just call learning disabled people slow? That's equally as offensive but you used that term. It's probably because you're a teacher and "learning disability" is the widely used and accepted term in your field. Mentally disabled, not crazy is the proper term in my field. Stick to talking about what you know, rather than what you don't. If its any consolation to you, I find you offensive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Carrie-you're a psychologist? Yeay: I need help. Seriously, though, LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Carrie' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:16 PM']As for your opinion that we are just continuing to make meaningless categories about the mind...it is simply that, your opinion. I'm sure that the many mentally disabled people who have been successfully treated for their disorders would not agree that the work we psychologists do is meaningless. Whether or not it means little to you has no meaning to me. I know that we do good work in helping many mentally disabled people to live healthy, normal lives. Being rude about what you label them is the ridiculous thing. In that case, why not just call learning disabled people slow? That's equally as offensive but you used that term. It's probably because you're a teacher and "learning disability" is the widely used and accepted term in your field. Mentally disabled, not crazy is the proper term in my field. Stick to talking about what you know, rather than what you don't. If its any consolation to you, I find you offensive as well. [right][snapback]618038[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote]In that case, why not just call learning disabled people slow? That's equally as offensive but you used that term. It's probably because you're a teacher and "learning disability" is the widely used and accepted term in your field.[/quote] No not slow is not offensive and I have no problem using it, but it unlike insane was never a term in use, dull on the other hand was/is and refers to the IQ and I use that term all the time. The term learning disability is istructional because it refers to the single thing which that person is disabled in, back when I taught speacial ed I had a student with a 135 IQ who's reading preformance was only like that of person 115, that is learning disabled but not slow, he was still reading better than the average person. Crazy or insane refers to someone who is no longer capable of metting a basic set of minimum standards for culpability in action. This is more analgous to the term retarded than to slow and yes I use the term retarded as well. The terms Moron and Imbecile and Idiot are good terms as well they are more specific but do not try and artifically construct a lair of BS around the thing which they are discribing. The Newer terms Mild, Moderate, Severe and Profound do have hard and fast crteria but are still words with reletivistic aspects and are therefore less precise in general usage, they are therefore inferior. [quote]Mentally disabled, not crazy is the proper term in my field. Stick to talking about what you know, rather than what you don't.[/quote] I know exactly what I am talking about As I said I don't think your field is worth very much I have seen wonderous things done with phsycology I have also seen tremendous destruction and more and more that destruction is wrought because of the increasing arrogance and insistance on the Materialist position of psychology. But since yo brought it up we where not even discussing your feild but Theology, which when refering to the culpability for sin has more relations to Law than to psychology. Law still uses the Term insane and uses it in the exact manner in which we where discussing a degree of mental defectiveness sufficient to remove culpability/responsability from the commision of an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) We were not even discussing your field but Theology, which when refering to the culpability for sin has more relations to Law than to psychology -Don John Perhaps Theology has "more relations to the Law" than to psychology (why do you say more?) But the point- there IS relation between them. These two fields are seperate sciences, but that in no way means they are NOT related. In Social Teachings of the Church the changing sciences of the day are used to implement the unchanging eternal principles. My point is psychology affects our understanding of Theology (which is I believe what led to the development of the teaching on suicides) and Theology should affect psychology. In fact, I believe it is very unwise to seperate Theology completely from other sciences as you have suggested we do-hence you have other sciences dicatating "theologies" (or at least God-less ideologies). Edited June 21, 2005 by Semperviva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 hmmm... I need to agree somewhat with Don on this one... Terms are not offensive... the intention behind them are. I knew a woman who freely used the term 'nice black man' all her life... I think she might have met a black person twice in her lifetime... it was not from her an offensive term, since she simply knew no other term (pratcially no eductaion) and had no diminutive or insulting intent when she used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 So, does anyone know if suicide actually does go against Natural Law? Just from observation, suicide does seem very esteemed among many cultures...and many see it as an automatic entrance into paradise, Elysium, etc, etc... hhhhmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:01 PM']We were not even discussing your field but Theology, which when refering to the culpability for sin has more relations to Law than to psychology -Don John Perhaps Theology has "more relations to the Law" than to psychology (why do you say more?) But the point- there IS relation between them. These two fields are seperate sciences, but that in no way means they are NOT related. In Social Teachings of the Church the changing sciences of the day are used to implement the unchanging eternal principles. My point is psychology affects our understanding of Theology (which is I believe what led to the development of the teaching on suicides) and Theology should affect psychology. In fact, I believe it is very unwise to seperate Theology completely from other sciences as you have suggested we do-hence you have other sciences dicatating "theologies" (or at least God-less ideologies). [right][snapback]618134[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Calling phycology a Science is quite a stretch... but it truely has no place anywhere near Theology, modern psycology has certian phliosophical givens which are inimical to Christianity, it imbraces Materialism and disputes the faculties of the soul. About the only redemning qualtiy of scientology is that they completly reject phycology it is the one thing we could all learn from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:16 PM']So, does anyone know if suicide actually does go against Natural Law? Just from observation, suicide does seem very esteemed among many cultures...and many see it as an automatic entrance into paradise, Elysium, etc, etc... hhhhmmm... [right][snapback]618177[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It definantly goes agiant the Natural Law, the "esteem" some cultures have for it is precisly because it goes agiant the Natural Law, and even in those cultures that was understood. The Samuri killed himself if he failed his lord, that showed that his loyalty was greater than his life, it was not that his life was not valuable to him but that it was valuable to him that showed his loyalty, a Roman womean might kill herself rather than be raped, ut it was to show that her purity was more valuable than her life agian it wa that her life was valuable that her sacrifice mattered. I don't know of any culture which concidered it a free trip to Paradise, Elysium ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Don John...there are truths that men have come across even in modern Psychology...I can't think of them off the top of my head, lol, (then again I haven't studied modern psychology) but I don't think we can reject its discoveries. Say a doctor who rejects God makes a great discovery that can help people...does that mean what he unearths is not true? Of course not. Yes, his opinion of how to use that knowledge would be filtered through his atheism, but the point is the actual objective discovery made is useful to everyone AND WE SHOULD REDEEM THAT DISCOVERY, take the discovery, and put it in perspective of truth!!!! (This kindof reminds me of the debate about the Nazis and their testing and whether or not we can use the data they collected-BUT was what they were doing actually a true scientific discovery or just plain demonic, that would make a difference too) ok sorry for goin' off...but yeah point being even modern pychology is a science, just maybe not the truest or most able it could be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 21 2005, 02:44 PM']Carrie-you're a psychologist? Yeay: I need help. Seriously, though, LOL... [right][snapback]618103[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I am indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now