To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFVsKTD40i0

 

Fight Stigma: Become A StigmaBuster!

http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=fight_stigma

http://www.nami.org/stigma/

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

  I am on a website called YouTube and make videos there. Recently a
group called Rational Response Squad posted a video to theists
implying that theism is a mind disorder. I am not contacting you on a
religious issue but a stigma issue. The Rational Response Squad
website is located here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/
Their slogan is Fighting to Free Humanity from the Mind Disorder Known
as Theism.

RRS made a video called Togetherforpeace, GoldenGun85 and other RRS
Christian haters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ_VQdPa5sc

I made a response called:
Theism is not inherently a mind disorder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMhP5EzXZQE

I will not link to you a video I had titled with cusswords. I am sorry
I did that and it does not show well on someone trying to combat
stigma.

Today I made a video comparing RRS calling theists delusional and
mentally ill to the Barry Goldwater/FACT magazine case that spurred on
the Goldwater rule by the APA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_D0N4d2mk

I realize you deal with subjects in conventional media such as radio,
television, and newspapers. I have been a subscriber to your
newsletter on stigmabusting for a few years now. I have previously
contacted regarding my local Halloween store selling a costume called
"Mental Patient" that featured a striaght jacket. At that time you
told me to contact my local NAMI chapter.

I appreciate your time and thank you for reading this letter.

--
Melinda Smith =^..^=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I don't care if

Personally, I don't care if Brian or anyone else thinks Theism is a 'mind disorder'.  Their opinion in no way affects my life, and him constantly calling it that does not make it so.

 

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Good luck to you

Good luck to you Melsbasketcase.  Stay strong. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Melsbasketcase is trying to

Melsbasketcase is trying to censor us for our fair use of her material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMjVDJpsXkg

 

 This is what we wrote to her on youtube, feel free to make a video explaining any of this to her...

RationalResponse (1 hour ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

 
Mels, no ill will was meant in using your video. Our usage of your video fits within fair use. We think it's unfair and results to censorship if you are in fact serious about taking it down. We of course are within the law by leaving it up, and don't want you to be upset. We used your video merely to show the part of the definition that was pertinent to the video we were making. Melba, you have no basis for your "demanding" we take the video down. If you do in fact file a DMCA on us we have the best copyright lawyer in the country willing to fight our cases for free. I'm sorry you took it so hardly, however we never twisted your words as you claimed, the clip we show of you is one clip, unedited. You're smarter than this, please retract your statement. There is no reason this should get this ugly for either of us.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Good luck to

Sapient wrote:
Good luck to you Melsbasketcase. Stay strong.

 

I apologize for the above statement and retract it. I can not in good conscience wish someone luck who would try to censor me within my fair use of copyright law. Such action is despicable. I may soon be saying "See you in court" instead of "Good luck" if she does in fact go through with filing a fraudulent DMCA request.

Why do these Christians keep making us sue them to get the point? Why does it seem like they enjoy bashing their faces into a brick wall refusing to learn the lessons of others? I hate court battles, but thought it would be important to set a precedent stating that you can't fuck with us. Instead it's only made Melsbasketcase decide to fuck with us, and she'll end up watching us vindicated later. I'd be surprised if she could even find and afford a lawyer who would defend her against such asinine claims. Do they even know the old joke about the definition of stupidity? They keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting different results.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
The only thing I can think

The only thing I can think of thats good about this is more traffic to the site from people at NAMI checking it out, so more people is good.

 

Melsbasketcase, and its obvious you read the replies to this (at least up to the ones Sapient wrote), I have to question your issues with us and this Stigma thing. Personally, I think theres not much difference between us calling theism a mind disorder (which it is), and your username of melsbasketcase (as from my understanding, basket case is a term to refer to people who are crazy.)

Now, something that I think more people need to understand about the RRS and its members (especially the vocal ones). We don't generally wish ill will against people. We try to be rational and wish people well, in whatever they want to do. However, which is something Sapient has been trying to push home recently, we aren't going to sit down and shut up. We are sick and tired of being pushed around and backing down. Its bullshit. People talk to theists and others with strong convictions (minus atheism) and most people go "Good for them. I may not agree with it but they really are passionate about what they are talking about." However it seems that when we stand up, people call us extremists (even within the atheist community) and that we should stop being passionate about our ideas and let things slide. Being passionate about something does not equal irrationality (though it can in concept, but not inherently).  

Personally I hope anytime someone likes or does not like us, they send links to the site everywhere.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-MeacekeE is the video she did responding to this thread im guessing.


maxwellj
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why do these

Quote:
Why do these Christians keep making us sue them to get the point? Why does it seem like they enjoy bashing their faces into a brick wall refusing to learn the lessons of others?

 

Probably because the basis of the christian religion is that it's good to suffer and be a martyr ;>


maxwellj
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-09-22
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: To

melsbasketcase wrote:

To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

 

Gee, Mel, what do you really expect NAMI is going to do about this? In the unlikely event they do decide to do anything at all about this, what would it be? If I remember right, all they really do is engage in a letter writing campaign. Big deal. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Ugh, her videos are

Ugh, her videos are unwatchable. I couldn't take it, and I made the mistake of clicking on the "fakesagan" video in the related links to get outta there. He has some kind of beef with Brian Sapient, but I still don't know what it is cos he just maxes out the ten minutes with yack yack yack.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
More on this issue

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
maxwellj

maxwellj wrote:
melsbasketcase wrote:

To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

 

Gee, Mel, what do you really expect NAMI is going to do about this? In the unlikely event they do decide to do anything at all about this, what would it be? If I remember right, all they really do is engage in a letter writing campaign. Big deal.

 

I suggest everyone write to NAMI just as I did, so you can alert them to this travesty in the field of psychology. NAMI should support and get behind the notion that most theists in the world have Grandiose delusional disorder, and all others at the bare minimum are delusional about the issue of god.

As a side note, about 13-14 million people are diagnosed with clinical depression every year. Many of these cases we think spawn from religious belief. We think people are being improperly diagnosed in many cases. Also, the extremely high levels of people being diagnosed with depression doesn't invalidate their depression in the same way that about 80% of the world holding a delusional outlook on the existece of God doesn't diminish their disorder.

We urge NAMI to fight for this and fight fervently, it is about time NAMI recognize that theistic beliefs are delusional.

I urge everyone to write to NAMI today! Here is how you do it: smarch@nami.org Urge them to support the notion that god belief is delusional and should be diagnosed as such!

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


maxwellj
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-09-22
User is offlineOffline
The problem with theism is a mind disorder idea

Sapient, the problem with all of this theism is a mind disorder stuff is that you are appealing to a *religion* to invalidate religion. That's really what makes it seem so ridiculous, not that you're right under their *invented* definition of delusion. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: maxwellj

Sapient wrote:
maxwellj wrote:
melsbasketcase wrote:

To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

 

Gee, Mel, what do you really expect NAMI is going to do about this? In the unlikely event they do decide to do anything at all about this, what would it be? If I remember right, all they really do is engage in a letter writing campaign. Big deal.

 

I suggest everyone write to NAMI just as I did, so you can alert them to this travesty in the field of psychology. NAMI should support and get behind the notion that most theists in the world have Grandiose delusional disorder, and all others at the bare minimum are delusional about the issue of god.

As a side note, about 13-14 million people are diagnosed with clinical depression every year. Many of these cases we think spawn from religious belief. We think people are being improperly diagnosed in many cases. Also, the extremely high levels of people being diagnosed with depression doesn't invalidate their depression in the same way that about 80% of the world holding a delusional outlook on the existece of God doesn't diminish their disorder.

We urge NAMI to fight for this and fight fervently, it is about time NAMI recognize that theistic beliefs are delusional.

I urge everyone to write to NAMI today! Here is how you do it: smarch@nami.org Urge them to support the notion that god belief is delusional and should be diagnosed as such!

 

I get NAMI's newsletter, but must confess that I rarely read it. Smiling  I just haven't been into newsletters and magazines lately. 

My best friend is a psychologist, so I know probably more than I should about mental health policies and what goes on behind the scenes in this very fundamentalist county.  I agree with you that religion is extremely harmful and can lead to severe depression.  I've been trying to get my psychologist friend to see this for years.  The evidence is right under his nose, but he's one of those people who believes in belief.  Once when we were discussing the topic, he got an emergency call.  A priest had been molesting kids in Stockton.  Woah, big surprise!  He looked at me and said maybe this was god's way of telling him I was right.   He isn't a Christian, but he does have a few irrational beliefs.  The good news is he's very open-minded; he isn't married to those beliefs.  He is, however, married to an increasingly fundamentalist Christian woman.  I have a feeling she is the main reason my friend and I have grown apart.  It's understandable.  I'm completely willing to stand aside under the circumstances.

One of the worst travesties is the fact that a fundamentalist Christian is in charge of the in-patient psych ward.  I've heard from three different sources that she can't leave her religion at home.  How's that for irony?  A crazy woman is in charge of the psych ward.

The main thing that separates Christianity (and other religions) from real mental illness is that more people suffer from the delusion.  Peer pressure and indoctrination come into play.  If belief in religion ever did end up in the DSM, I think it would need its own section.

Obviously, you aren't going to get anywhere with this person.  Those who are sickest are the ones who don't realize it, the ones who won't seek help.  Without finding out any more about this woman, I'm going to guess that she tried to fix mental health issues with religion.  Some people try to fix mental health issues with alcohol and drugs.  It's the same thing.  You're just trading one problem for another.  I suppose if you have to do it, choose the problem that causes the least amount of pain to yourself and others...somehow, I don't think religion qualifies.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
With regard to the

With regard to the censorship issue, this has been a tactic of organized religion for many centuries.  In fact, before the third estate finnaly asserted its right to self-governance, the censorship occurred with extreme prejudice. 

Case in point, Galileo Galilei proved the heliocentric universe.  Unfortunately, the Pope hated geometry and called in the Office of the Inquisition to look at the matter.  Poor Galileo ended up an old man, face down in front of a bank of cardinals shouting "I recant."

Well, we are protected by our written constitution now.  So, instead of threatening you and your family with the flame, organized religion must now write strongly worded letters.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: So, instead

Nero wrote:

So, instead of threatening you and your family with the flame, organized religion must now write strongly worded letters.

We still have moronic dumb shits like Bill Donahue from the Catholic League who consistently gets my vote for dumbest religious leader in the world.

5:00 minute mark this man of Christ offers to take Hitchens outside.  And this is mild in the world of cumstains like Donahue.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
An Englishman has to shut

An Englishman has to shut up when an Irishman talks?  wtf?

Take it outside?  This guy is crazy.  In so many ways.  Again, if I was in that situation I would have been mightily pissed (though I do have Irish in my family so I wonder what two Irish have to do with talking, which one shuts up.  Personally I think the one with the nuttiness should shut up).  

Anyways, there have been several things Donahue has done thats like Wha?  Comparing Kathy Griffin to Don Imus and Michael Richards to be one aspect. 

 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Okay, zealots will always

Okay, zealots will always be zealots.  I can't account for batshit crazy.  I should hope most of the theists would prefer to follow the advice of their man-god and avoid conflict.  Of course, he did go nuts in the temple.

Well, that's why we have screen names I suppose.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I checked on the latest

I checked on the latest filing for the Catholic League.  For being a bunch of a-holes who don't do anything other than whine they pull in $2.5 million a year.  Donahue makes a salary of a little over $300,000.  It just proves that because you are rich or earn a large paycheck it's not because you are intelligent.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: An Englishman

Gizmo wrote:

An Englishman has to shut up when an Irishman talks? wtf?

Take it outside? This guy is crazy. In so many ways. Again, if I was in that situation I would have been mightily pissed (though I do have Irish in my family so I wonder what two Irish have to do with talking, which one shuts up. Personally I think the one with the nuttiness should shut up).

Anyways, there have been several things Donahue has done thats like Wha? Comparing Kathy Griffin to Don Imus and Michael Richards to be one aspect. 

Donahue at one point managed to threatened the network of a massive catholic boycott that was airing Penn Jilletes game show "Identity."  So much so that Penn had to ask for us to take his Blasphemy Challenge video down or risk losing his job as the star of the show.

 Christians like to point to atheists as those without respect, yet you have dipshits like Donahue running whole divisions of Catholicism!!   You see scumbags like Ray Comfort saying things like "you only need eyes that can see and a brain that works to know there is a god."  This is his way of saying 15% of the human population is completely brainless, an illogical, dishonest, and major league insult covered in a vat of sugar.

Christians buy this shit.  They actually think that Christians are the good guys.  To them I say "Do I need to take you outside."  Now, see how nice of me that was?

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
I checked on the latest filing for the Catholic League. For being a bunch of a-holes who don't do anything other than whine they pull in $2.5 million a year. Donahue makes a salary of a little over $300,000. It just proves that because you are rich or earn a large paycheck it's not because you are intelligent.

 

You can use me as a reverse example of that.

158 IQ, $8,000 net income last year.

 

 Sidenote: My earning potential in the corporate sales world was 60,000-$100,000 when I abandoned it all for a life of activism.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: 158 IQ,

Sapient wrote:

158 IQ, $8,000 net income last year.

 

 Sidenote: My earning potential in the corporate sales world was 60,000-$100,000 when I abandoned it all for a life of activism.

I would advise you to start preaching the doctrine of atheistic remuneration.  This doctrine would state that by ending the insanity of religion the atheist would increase in wealth tenfold.  In order for the atheists to reach such a world, the back of religion must be broken. 

Enter Sapient.  The atheists must support you initially to break religion.

*digs into his billfold*

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I apologize

Sapient wrote:

I apologize for the above statement and retract it. I can not in good conscience wish someone luck who would try to censor me within my fair use of copyright law. Such action is despicable. I may soon be saying "See you in court" instead of "Good luck" if she does in fact go through with filing a fraudulent DMCA request.

Why do these Christians keep making us sue them to get the point? Why does it seem like they enjoy bashing their faces into a brick wall refusing to learn the lessons of others? I hate court battles, but thought it would be important to set a precedent stating that you can't fuck with us. Instead it's only made Melsbasketcase decide to fuck with us, and she'll end up watching us vindicated later. I'd be surprised if she could even find and afford a lawyer who would defend her against such asinine claims. Do they even know the old joke about the definition of stupidity? They keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting different results.

I would agree use of the DMCA is pretty low, but IIRC you too threatened to DMCA MELSbasketcase. But what is despicable is your and Kelly's use of a person who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic in the past as an example of something with of what you two diagnosed as a delusional disorder (GT). More over, you were overly critical of MELS use of wikipedia to define Delusion, yet Brian quotes later on wiki’s entry for “Delusional disorder”, and truncates some important “Features”. Even worse, you presume “Christian” when there is NO reference I can see to the specific theology yet Brian is willing to call her delusional. Using someone who is mentally ill as a social experiment is deplorable.


I’m also critical of Kelly I this case as well. “Belief in God is a false belief based on incorrect information that has been fed to you through your society, because you don't know enough about science or whatever" – Kelly Some evidence to show theism is a mental disorder.


I do take exception to the aspect of not knowing enough about science.

Gregor Mendel - father of modern genetics and Catholic Abbot

Georges Lemaitre - hypothesis of the primeval atom, precursor to Big Bang theory and Jesuit priest

Nicolaus Copernicus - heliocentric model of the universe – Catholic Priest


I’m also critical of the statement in the disputed video “it represents someone who is angry at us for presenting the truth”. I don’t see that, I see it as being someone being angry at someone creating or promoting a stigma of the mentally ill. Given your social experiment was targeted at someone who is mentally ill… being critical is rational™.


And most critical of all is how Grandiose Type of (Delusional) disorder “delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person. To which Kelly made the statement “Hello, religion? Anybody, anybody”. I can see where someone can easily be confused special relationship. I read it like for example if someone claims to know Stephen Spielberg, advises him on films, but without any evidence to back it up. I could be wrong but I think this means if a deity talks to you, gives you a special mission, then it’s GT.


But the part that Brian Sapient doesn’t seem to understand is misrepresenting MEL’s quote, and used that to call someone else delusional. It has nothing to do with Christianity, but rather with a choice to assert someone was delusional based on a faulty interpretation of the DSM-IV. I’ll take the time to add some quotes later when RRS falls to argumentum ad hominem and ad hominem tu quoque.

 

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Can someone who actually had

Can someone who actually had the stomach for this YouTube feud shit break this down for the "rest of us?" I mean me, the plural sounds better. If Brian and Kelly are really using someone suffering a mental illness to make a point, that ain't cool. If, however, they respond to the argument of someone who happens to have a mental illness, it's a touchy subject but different from the former. Better to clear this shit up now.
In my view, it is strange that a person can be diagnosed and medicated for being convinced aliens are stealing his memories through magnets in his teeth, but a person claiming to converse with an invisible omnipotent force can run an industrialized nation. That many religious adherents avoid such a label confesses our jadedness to religion, but is ultimately a case of special pleading.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
  Enclosed are quotes by

 

Enclosed are quotes by the new RRSresponds account.

it's to support my belief that Brian resorted condescending argumentum ad hominem because actions taken by the RRS were in poor taste without any rational justification. A video segment from someone who's diagnosed with schizophrenia to prove your point that she, according to you, is also delusional (GT) like other "christians" without any evidence the person in question was a Christian.

---


How much you want to bet? And can we will the bet to our descendants if it doesn't happen in our lifetime?

I guarantee an expansion of delusional disorders to include more religious people by DSM-7, I think there's a shot for 6 as well.

The above statement is another chance for anyone who lied and stated that JSresponds "pwned" us to now admit you were wrong. Go ahead... dishonest shitbags.

What I had seen of her before I had always enjoyed her views, I see her spiraling into a bad hole here and feel bad.

You think she made it private so that nobody would see her husbands repetitve hypocrisy? Or do you think it's because her husband made 30 comments on it criticizing her fair use and whining that she never asked permission?

Wow. Just wow. You should put it back up.

They are doing more harm to her than good. Mels friends aren't very good friends, they try, they're just not good at it. C for effort guys.

This reminds me, I need to go ask the post office if it is ok to put a stamp on a letter. I know it's legal, but I should double check just in case.

We didn't mean to insult her in any way more than we would insult any theist.  In fact I had a lot of respect for her research attempts (even though it was wiki). A real prick could've have been a total ass about how she acts on cam. I took the high road, and because the delusions run so deep in the deid-mels household they tricked themselves into a false reality.

Had mels told me before a few comments and no vid responses were posted I would have in fact gladly taken it down. Mels delusions prevented her from seeing that she would be stifling conversation, and was more concerned with herself and how she appeared. Yet her appearance was no different, in fact it made her look better than all of her other material.

It's enough already.

Learn logic. Mean spirits and self righteousness do absolutely nothing to the validity of the argument. If you think so, then you've been exposed as a poor thinker (atheist or theist).


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Can someone

magilum wrote:
Can someone who actually had the stomach for this YouTube feud shit break this down for the "rest of us?" I mean me, the plural sounds better. If Brian and Kelly are really using someone suffering a mental illness to make a point, that ain't cool. If, however, they respond to the argument of someone who happens to have a mental illness, it's a touchy subject but different from the former. Better to clear this shit up now.
In my view, it is strange that a person can be diagnosed and medicated for being convinced aliens are stealing his memories through magnets in his teeth, but a person claiming to converse with an invisible omnipotent force can run an industrialized nation. That many religious adherents avoid such a label confesses our jadedness to religion, but is ultimately a case of special pleading.

 

You can find it strange that a person who has a special relationship with aliens is slightly different than someone who talks to a mythical sky daddy. But talking to a sky daddy presently isn't a disorder. It's a commonly held myth. When the sky daddy talks back, that's sugests a special relationship.

Kelly, IIRC, said flat out to MELS that she couldn't see their logic because of her "delusions" even though MELS didn't actually communicate her personal theological beliefs, let alone claim to be Christian. Both Kelly and Brian are harassing a mental patient. Period. And now are crying CENSORSHIP.

I gotta agree DMCA is a form of censorship where fair use is involved. But the blatent harassment of a mental patient... this is a violation of journalistic integrity and the rights of a protected class.

Ashetheraven does a much better job than my self explaining the present situation. Material was used out of context, unfairly and without permission. A respectable journalist would post a retraction.

 This is why stimabusters was called in, because Brian and Kelly are promoting a false understanding of the mentaly ill.  

 

Keep up the good fight, and stay rational(tm).

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Don't substitute words: I

Don't substitute words: I said "converse." Our president claims to shoot the shit with a magical being. Not calling it a disorder isn't for any distinction from things recognized as such. If you're saying it's not likely to be recognized because it's too popular or too mainstream, then that's arguable, but it's not for a lack of delusion and irrationality. There are, of course, other factors to consider -- the culture itself, indoctrination -- which push otherwise sound minds into adopting incoherent beliefs. I don't get what he means in saying that all society would have to be lumped in with religion, had it been classified a mental illness.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Can someone

magilum wrote:
Can someone who actually had the stomach for this YouTube feud shit break this down for the "rest of us?"

To be clear, I don't know Mel from Adam. Yes, she's a little hard to listen to but she is brilliant. I find no reference to her even being a Christian, yet was declared delusional by Kelly and Brian for disagreeing about theology being in it self a mental disorder. Brian wikied segments of

 Paranoia and Related Illnesses  

Delusional Disorder: Paranoia and Related Illnesses by Alistair Munro without the proper citation and without the appropriate Features of delusional disorder like "it's a primary disorder" and "has never met any other criteria for schizophrenia and does not have any marked hallucinations" I.e. it's a form of harassment to tell someone diagnosed with schizophrenia they can't see someone else's logic because they are also delusional.

 

"But I will not say I don't think you are not intelligent enough to get it. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you are showing a lack of critical self-reflection which would allow you to see you used someone with a real diagnosis as a guinea pig for your social experiment. At best, IMHO, it wasn't rational but acting on impulse to further your political agenda." Me to Brian

 

"ichbinkeinberliner (1 day ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

+7 Poor comment Good comment (Reply) (Spam) You didn't show her in a flattering light. You should just not pick on Mel. It isn't nice. You should also not lump Mel in with a bunch of right wing christians, because mel is not like those people. She didn't even do anything, she was just mad. RRSresponds (19 hours ago) Show Hide Marked as spam (Reply) (Spam) Jesus Christ, there is no way to show mel in a flattering light. Any twitch or odd expression she gives shows up every few seconds. It is you who is making fun of her by saying she was painted in a negative light. We simply used the part of importance, there are odd twitches every few seconds. Damn you assholes for making me debunk you as you force me to speak the truth which is: Mel looks bad all by herself, she doesn't need my help."

 

 

Hell, neither Kelly no Brian understood "Tardive Dyskinesia" a counter indication of some antipsychotic medication.  Further they made the choice to use a mental patient to further their political agenda in spite of her views often being compatible with the RRS.

 

A retration is in order! 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
They should try to clear the

They should try to clear the air with Mels if they want to continue exploring the topic, cos this is just turning into personalities and politics. Regardless of who lobbed the first volley, the issue of insensitivity has to be addressed now, IMO.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Don't

magilum wrote:
Don't substitute words: I said "converse." Our president claims to shoot the shit with a magical being. Not calling it a disorder isn't for any distinction from things recognized as such. If you're saying it's not likely to be recognized because it's too popular or too mainstream, then that's arguable, but it's not for a lack of delusion and irrationality. There are, of course, other factors to consider -- the culture itself, indoctrination -- which push otherwise sound minds into adopting incoherent beliefs. I don't get what he means in saying that all society would have to be lumped in with religion, had it been classified a mental illness.

To be clear... if Bush talks to "sky daddy" and "sky daddy talks back", that would likely meet the requirement of a disorder as defined in the DSM-IV 297.1 E (GT) for .  Sorry to be clear on the subject between "prayer" and "special relationship".

The concordance of ICD-10 acute and transient psychosis and DSM-IV ...

 

Belief it self in a theology of any type doesn't meet with DSM-IV 297.1 as Kelly and Brian suggest.  

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious how religion

I'm curious how religion ought to be classified under the current definition. That is: a confidence that there's an invisible being concerned with your every thought and action. It's not rational, but why isn't it considered a disorder? Because of the way it comes about through cultural conditioning?


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: They should

magilum wrote:
They should try to clear the air with Mels if they want to continue exploring the topic, cos this is just turning into personalities and politics. Regardless of who lobbed the first volley, the issue of insensitivity has to be addressed now, IMO.

 

 They fucking should try to clear the air, regardless of whether they want to explore the topic, however Brian is firm in his belief that MELS fucked with the RRS and because they have powerful people and lawyers on their side they are allowed to make unqualified diagnosis of people as fact, not opinion, based exclusively on Kelly’s 4.0 GPA for a BA in psychology. 

 
This is not a free speech or copyright issue as Brian claims I this thread.  It’s about the rights of an individual and group. 


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
I'm curious how religion ought to be classified under the current definition. That is: a confidence that there's an invisible being concerned with your every thought and action. It's not rational, but why isn't it considered a disorder? Because of the way it comes about through cultural conditioning?

It's not rational. I won't pretend it is.

 

This gent explains it better than my self, but basically belief in a sky daddy is a societal norm. Evidence is a subjective thing, one could consider life it self as evidence of a sky daddy. It’s presented as fact at a young age, and is affixed to our minds. It may be the belief that a sky daddy is concerned with our daily lives, or just some mythical figure who jumpstarted the universe and sparked abiogenesis. For others a theology could represent spirituality where one develops a heart and mind connection, or Dualism as is the case of René Descartes believing the sum of the parts is greater (…the soul, though which, I am what I am).
Abstract thought, or belief in things of a metaphysical nature, in them selves is not considered to be delusional.   

Fundamentalism on the other hand, is far closer to what one might consider a disorder like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, where belief is so firm that all other opinions are ignored.  This can be seen in Theism as well as atheism. 

 

Truth is subjective. Fact is absolute.

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
So... basically the DSM is

So... basically the DSM is defined by societal norms, and not the other way around. If functional adults can live happily with an irrational belief, it doesn't medically qualify them as mentally ill. And we're arguing this point technically only because the technical reference had a role in this campaign. Is this accurate?


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
So... basically the DSM is defined by societal norms, and not the other way around. If functional adults can live happily with an irrational belief, it doesn't medically qualify them as mentally ill. And we're arguing this point technically only because the technical reference had a role in this campaign. Is this accurate?

The implications of defining theism as a mental disorder are stagering, I didn't get it at first

"Violent true believers are characterized by stereotype thinking, belief in the superiority of their belief system, indifferent attitude to people with other belief systems, arrogance and disdain, fanatism, hostility, justification of their violent behavior and lack of critical self-reflection and rigidity." Hoffner 1951

The DSM had the role in Brian and Kelly's campain. Chaotheist as nice enough to point out that after being debunked Brian also flat out lied, or googled to pull a fact out of his arse, about Albert Ellis [rational emotive behavior theripy (REBT)]to support the theist is a mental disorder. "{Brian}You deflect this how people were criticizing you because it was insulting to theists to say theism is a mental disorder when you {Brian} completely ignore all the people who said you were insulting THE MENTALY ILL" "And you {Brian} have to trivialize what they are going though by tying it to your fucking petty crusade" --Chaotheist

The issue wasn't theology. The issue was melsbasketcase's objection to "insulting THE MENTALY ILL". I'll have to dig up her citations. I'll have to dig up my own as well but in the field of mental health, theological belief is often used as a foundation to resolve larger mental issues. But needless to say the issue wasn't theology, but rather Brian and Kelly's choice to use someone who is a mental patient as a guinea pig for their social experiment on how people react to the idea of theism as a mental disorder, and the accusation that someone who disagreed with the idea, regardless of specific theology being known, was accuced of being delusional.

"A real prick could've have been a total ass about how she acts on cam." "Jesus Christ, there is no way to show mel in a flattering light. Any twitch or odd expression she gives shows up every few seconds. It is you who is making fun of her by saying she was painted in a negative light. We simply used the part of importance, there are odd twitches every few seconds. Damn you assholes for making me debunk you as you force me to speak the truth which is: Mel looks bad all by herself, she doesn't need my help." -- RRSresponds

 

But if that wasn't bad enough, Brian trivialized her early complaints about footage used from her vid which did totally misrepresent her position, and attempted to show how she defined delusional disorder grandiose type applied to a guy trying to use Pascal’s wager to defend his faith. Which again, a mental patient was objecting to use of her material to liable someone else, and threating to sue her for this objection.

This is not an issue about religion, or censorship. It's the direct violation of a person's rights who just so happens to be in a protected class.


It presents a very dangerious a precedent. The moment the minority classes the majority as sub-human, we have a form of apartheid. This is not rational(tm).

 

Hope this helps... stay rational Eye-wink

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: But the

CSEmisery wrote:


But the part that Brian Sapient doesn’t seem to understand is misrepresenting MEL’s quote

This aint youtube.  I pay for your posts here.  Do me a favor and stop reiterating that lie with no basis on my site, save that shit for youtube.

Mods... watch this guy.   He's a full o shit machine.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: The DSM

CSEmisery wrote:

The DSM had the role in Brian and Kelly's campain. Chaotheist as nice enough to point out that after being debunked Brian also flat out lied, or googled to pull a fact out of his arse, about Albert Ellis [rational emotive behavior theripy (REBT)]to support the theist is a mental disorder.

I'll reiterate.  Keep lying about me here, and we wont pay for you to post your bullshit on our site.

 For the record, the Chaotheist lied about me lying.  You in turn as a very poor thinker, took a poor thinkers word on it. 

 I made a video responding to Chaotheist yesterday, hopefully I'll be able to edit and upload this week before he continues to make people ignorant, as he did in your case.  

Was it his smile that got you?  It didn't fool me, I recognized it for what it was: a security blankie.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: The

CSEmisery wrote:

The issue was melsbasketcase's objection to "insulting THE MENTALY ILL".

  

I sort of agree with mels and feel bad that I equated people with diagnosable mental disorders to theists.  I apologize to the mentally ill people I offended who want nothing to do with being equated with theists who are more often than not simply dishonest and ignorant.  Some schizophrenics aren't as dishonest and delusional as theists, and to any mentally ill person, please understand I am very sorry for insulting you by comparing you to them.

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote:  They

CSEmisery wrote:

 They fucking should try to clear the air, regardless of whether they want to explore the topic, however Brian is firm in his belief that MELS fucked with the RRS and because they have powerful people and lawyers on their side they are allowed to make unqualified diagnosis of people as fact, not opinion, based exclusively on Kelly’s 4.0 GPA for a BA in psychology. 


This is not a free speech or copyright issue as Brian claims I this thread.  It’s about the rights of an individual and group. 

I am always drawn to conversations where laymen discuss legal matters.  You have stated that the issue is the rights of an individual.  You have also stated that this is not a First Amendment issue.  Can you define what "individual rights" this is about then?

As for the First Amendment issue, Brian is correct.  These interactions via the internet are strongly tied to that issue.  The members of the RRS have every right to attempt to figure out rantings when they are directed at the site.  You dislike the conclusions drawn based on the information provided.  I would advise you counter the conclusions and avoid attempting to impinge on the First Amendment rights of others.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: All mentally

 

Quote:

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds.

 

 

The meds for delusions are antipsychotics. They are serious meds that can cause movement disorders. The new atypicals can cause severe weight gain and diabetes. I was on a med called Risperdal and it elevates prolactin. That caused interruptions in my menstrual cycle and lactation. There have been links between elevated prolactin and cancer.

 

I take my meds to avoid a relapse of auditory hallucinations. The first year of my diagnosis I went off meds thinking it was a one time deal. I relapsed. Then I went off them again and relapsed again.

 

People can change their religious beliefs with frequency. I think most religious do not hallucinate or have command hallucinations.

 

The Mennonites have built psychiatric facilities for their Amish kin. The facilities allow the Amish to feel at ease with their religious beliefs yet they can be treated for conditions such as bipolar or schizophrenia.

 

Mennonite MH System: Practicing What They Preach

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/10/18

{FIXED QUOTES} 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
People can change their

Quote:
People can change their religious beliefs with frequency.

Are you suggesting that stable individuals can frequently change their core beliefs??

{FIXED QUOTE} 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote:

Nero wrote:

Quote:
People can change their religious beliefs with frequency.

Are you suggesting that stable individuals can frequently change their core beliefs??

how closely held are those beliefs? i was raised by a family that is Christian. As a teen I read over books on witches and wicca. As an adult I read material on Buddhism, Catholicism, and Unitarian Universalism.

Many people are like this. I have not become a buddhist, I stopped attending the UU church, and I am not Catholic.

 

People, after hearing that the story of Jesus, may have stemmed from other religious myths...people will still hold the story of Jesus as the one they can understand. yet, they realize other people believe in very different things.

 

I do not think that counts as a firmly held delusion. A firmly held delusion would be one of someone with his paranoid schizophrenia viewing the world as being full of persecutors.

{FIXED} 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote:

melsbasketcase wrote:
Nero wrote:

Quote:
People can change their religious beliefs with frequency.

Are you suggesting that stable individuals can frequently change their core beliefs??

how closely held are those beliefs? i was raised by a family that is Christian. As a teen I read over books on witches and wicca. As an adult I read material on Buddhism, Catholicism, and Unitarian Universalism.

Many people are like this. I have not become a buddhist, I stopped attending the UU church, and I am not Catholic.

People, after hearing that the story of Jesus, may have stemmed from other religious myths...people will still hold the story of Jesus as the one they can understand. yet, they realize other people believe in very different things.

I do not think that counts as a firmly held delusion. A firmly held delusion would be one of someone with his paranoid schizophrenia viewing the world as being full of persecutors.

Yes, but many people believe there is a man in the sky who changes reality and does not follow the law of physics. These people believe that he is always there watching them and that he will hurt them if they do not do as he says.

That sounds like what you have just described as a schizophrenic, but when you call the man, "God," it is suddenly socially acceptable.

{FIXED} 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
quote=Nero]Yes, but many

 

Why don't you look at how they function in society? You can hold the belief in a higher power and be a happy, healthy productive person. yet, a person with schizophrenia may have negative symptoms that curtail them from being productive. The positive symptoms like hallucinations may cause them fear all day.

Sapient suggested medications, I suppose for his theistic delusional disorder. Perhaps Sapient needs to get himself well-versed on such things as involuntary commitment laws and assisted outpatient treatment orders. Both of those things can force a person to take medication when they are judged by a court to be incompetent.

There is already a problem with compliance with the current diagnoses. I would expect even more problems with compliance with a DSM with theism in it.

What we are talking of here is labeling someone with a diagnosis that can sometimes do things like prohibit them from voting. RRS should read about the case of Steven Prye. It is located on the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law website.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
A psychiatrist has the

A psychiatrist has the ability to involuntarily commit someone for 72 hours without a probate magistrate's intervention.  The magistrate has ten days without further review to commit the person.  After that ten days, an appointed or elected probate judge must revisit the issue on a biweekly basis.  I am well versed in the realm of probate courts.

As for people behaving in society, if all schizophrenics were placed on the same island without their medications, I suspect that they would find a societal norm in which they could function.  If everyone hears scary voices, then they will agree that those voices are real.  Now, drop a sane person amongst them.  That person says the voices are not real.  Are the schizophrenics still in the right?

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase

melsbasketcase wrote:

 

People can change their religious beliefs with frequency. I think most religious do not hallucinate or have command hallucinations.

 

really? If I had a nickel for everytime I heard a theist say they believe because 'god gave them a sign'...


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: A psychiatrist

Nero wrote:

A psychiatrist has the ability to involuntarily commit someone for 72 hours without a probate magistrate's intervention.  The magistrate has ten days without further review to commit the person.  After that ten days, an appointed or elected probate judge must revisit the issue on a biweekly basis.  I am well versed in the realm of probate courts.

As for people behaving in society, if all schizophrenics were placed on the same island without their medications, I suspect that they would find a societal norm in which they could function.  If everyone hears scary voices, then they will agree that those voices are real.  Now, drop a sane person amongst them.  That person says the voices are not real.  Are the schizophrenics still in the right?

 

HA HA! The first time I was on a psych ward a lady thought I was Elian Gonzalez. The lady who muttered prayers under her breath in group thought the Elian Gonzales lady was crazy. All of us were hearing voices and we did not agree on their origins.

 

It is like Jim Jones and Scientology. Both movements started by ill people. I find that once the ill have followers in their delusion they are somewhat at fault.

 

I find the people who are solitary in their delusion to be more honest. Not a single soul from my family or friends would agree with me that the voices were real. I am glad for that. It can be harrowing to hear voices and be paranoid all the time.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: Nero

melsbasketcase wrote:
Nero wrote:

As for people behaving in society, if all schizophrenics were placed on the same island without their medications, I suspect that they would find a societal norm in which they could function. If everyone hears scary voices, then they will agree that those voices are real. Now, drop a sane person amongst them. That person says the voices are not real. Are the schizophrenics still in the right?

  All of us were hearing voices and we did not agree on their origins.

 Mel, Just because the consensus is that the voices are real it does not follow that they would all have the same origin.  Look at how many people follow various systems of belief but still share the consensus that god is real.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote:

Nero wrote:
CSEmisery wrote:

I am always drawn to conversations where laymen discuss legal matters. You have stated that the issue is the rights of an individual. You have also stated that this is not a First Amendment issue. Can you define what "individual rights" this is about then?

As for the First Amendment issue, Brian is correct. These interactions via the internet are strongly tied to that issue. The members of the RRS have every right to attempt to figure out rantings when they are directed at the site. You dislike the conclusions drawn based on the information provided. I would advise you counter the conclusions and avoid attempting to impinge on the First Amendment rights of others.

I am not impinging on the First Ammendment rights of others. I respect the fact that Brian Sapient is a journalist. He pays for a website, has a radio show. I am for the right to make a total ass out of one's self. Harrassing anyone with a mental disability is something I take exception to. Unless you believe intimidation or abusive behavior toward someone with a disability is approperate and a first amendment right. Thinking someone is delusional is different than saying someone "IS" delusional. Asserting that someone who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia is also delusional, backing up this up by claiming the RRS has the resources to make this judgement, because their views on mental illness are different is the objection.

I hope that in helping others to understand this issue will go far to promoting understanding, rather than reinforcing an existing stigma.

{Mod edit: fixed quotes}


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: I

melsbasketcase wrote:


I find the people who are solitary in their delusion to be more honest. Not a single soul from my family or friends would agree with me that the voices were real. I am glad for that. It can be harrowing to hear voices and be paranoid all the time.

 

This reminds me of going to school.  Someone in my class had a dilemma.  Voices in her head were helping her on a test and wondered if it ethical to listen to them.  After some thought, and given the person’s GPA was 3.5-3.8, I offered this advice… these are your voices.  Either you have a team of invisible people working for you, or your mind is creating them. Either way, you are using your resources, resources no one else has, to pass tests. 

 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I am not impressed with the

I am not impressed with the film.  If Ashetheraven wishes, he may come and argue his point.  An individual has every right to make assertions about a group in the US.  People are only protected from speech in the following instances: the speech is directed at ONE individual and is intended to harm that person; the speech will cause immediate harm to a group (crying "fire" in a theater); or if the speech is likely to cause immediate, widespread persecution of a group due to the government tie of the speaker.

I have not seen Brian speak with any ONE person in mind.  He is referring to a group of individuals and has every right to do so.

Brian has not cried fire in a crowded theater.  There is no risk of immediate harm to the group due to the speech.  It will not cause immediate public harm.

Finally, Brian is not a governmental actor.  Therefore, his speech does not fall under current US common law with regard to speech against any group.

So, he has broken no First Amendment exception, but you want an apology.  The answer should be "No."  If your instistance on an apology were agreed to, you would be constraining his First Amendement rights.  You may not like his speech, but that gives you zero right to constrain it.

In conclusion, I think you're going to have to man up to the fact that conversations in the real world aren't governed the way a preschool nursery is.  People get to express their opinion.  This is particularly true when the individual is the member of a minority group.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery

CSEmisery wrote:
melsbasketcase wrote:


I find the people who are solitary in their delusion to be more honest. Not a single soul from my family or friends would agree with me that the voices were real. I am glad for that. It can be harrowing to hear voices and be paranoid all the time.

 

This reminds me of going to school.  Someone in my class had a dilemma.  Voices in her head were helping her on a test and wondered if it ethical to listen to them.  After some thought, and given the person’s GPA was 3.5-3.8, I offered this advice… these are your voices.  Either you have a team of invisible people working for you, or your mind is creating them. Either way, you are using your resources, resources no one else has, to pass tests. 

Okay.  That is just re-goddamned-diculous.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer