Posted by Elizabeth on May 13, 2000, at 14:46:51
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by boBB on May 12, 2000, at 20:13:27
> The curling iron/ample bun comment was clearly out of line in civil conversation,
Oh, that wasn't the only one...
> and the claim to be able to diagnose an individual in a crowd, on site alone, is poor practice of a diagnostic method that is widely questioned anyway.
What, the "look and feel" method? It's quite common in all branches of medicine.
In any case, it's obvious enough that this was not intended to be a diagnosis at all, but a personal insult (which is offensive to those who truly suffer from severe personality disorders, as well as to the individual who is being insulted).
The argument that Dr. Bob is an agent of the state is a specious one. He has a tenuous link to the government; that does not make this a government forum. Even if he were acting exclusively as an agent of the University of Chicago, it is a private university and as such is allowed quite a bit of latitude in making appropriate rules, including codes governing behavior. (Heck, even public schools can do this.) To my knowledge, there is no legal doctrine (and no interpretation of "common sense")
t under which Dr. Bob might be required to allow unrestricted speech on this forum.> I advocate for clear rules of dialogue, which bar threats or implications of personal injury, and which bar malicious, demeaning and derogatory comments.
I agree. Fred's behavior clearly falls into the "malicious, demeaning, and derogatory" category. It is not his unpopular opinions that are the problem; it is the way he chooses to express them.
> But it seems problematic to allow relatively anonymous individuals to offer diagnoses while at other times an offer of a diagnosis is considered to be derogatory.
Again, a question of intent and context.
> Psychiatry has a long and rich history of abuse, torture and self-service.
Medicine in general does. (Ever read _The House of God_? It's not as exaggerated as one would like to think.)
> The father of modern pshyc was a reputed cocaine addict.
And your point is...?
> In a legal system that claims to allow free speech, and that allows some licensed companies to push psychotropic drugs through persuasive, motivational advertising, while other non-licensed individuals are locked up for life or even threatened with lawful execution for selling very similar drugs, we should be very cautious about who we exclude from public discourse about psychotropic meds and other treatments.
I believe that, if he were capable of practicing some restraint in making personal attacks on other posters, Fred would be welcome to express his controversial opinions and even his bitterness and rage. In any case, it's wholly inappropriate of you to consider this forum as part of the "legal system." It is easy to cry "censorship" whenever someone tries to set appropriate limits.
> My point is that, regardless the letter of the law, or the nuance of administrative rule, this site and this discussion is a public franchise.
No, it really isn't. Your argument is, at best, far-fetched.
> Well, I aim to prove Fred wrong on one point.
Only one? Not very ambitious. :)
> This board has not yet systematically excluded me, and I definitely do not echo the majority. I don’t want to see Fred’s perspective cut out simply because he has not had the same opportunity as I have to make his controversial arguments in an articulate voice.
His perspective is not cut out. Any person who shares his opinions is free to express them as long as that person is able to behave appropriately. Being undereducated is not an excuse for being abusive.
> Okay, back to the discussion of depression...
> Any recent regular reader knows I think most depression is situational. I think our culture, with the loss of community, destruction of species and long term ruin of the climate is something worth being depressed about.The glaring flaw here is that (most) depressed people are not depressed "about" those things. I think it's nice that you care so much about important issues, and obviously many other people here do too, but these issues simply do not have a personal, direct impact on most depressed people. If depression can be said to be "situational," it is most likely personal stress, and not political angst, that is responsible.
> I think anyone who is not affected by sorrow for the resources we wantonly consume is both sick and morally weak.
Affected: normal. Driven to depression: doesn't happen. Unless perhaps you're defining "depression" in some unorthodox way.
> But out of deference to the medical model, and out of sincere admiration for the practice of science, I wonder what research is being done into depression and the role of amino acids that are precursors of the neurotransmitters associated with depression, specifically, (I think I recall) tryptophan and lysine.
L-tryptophan is an effective antidepressant, if that's what you mean, but there is still some controversy over how it might be manufactured safely.
> I know that, at a time when a situation was driving my routinely dark mood to an untenable depth, my use of a protein supplement rich in these amino acids correlated to an improvement in my outlook.
(Correlation doesn't equal causation.)
Some people believe that amino acid supplements such as l-tyrosine and d,l-phenylalanine have improved their moods, FWIW.
poster:Elizabeth
thread:32651
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000508/msgs/33377.html