3 ms·

>> capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior t

>> capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior to that of those you're labelling. This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them; and no, having a friend or family member who is "affected" is not "direct". You cannot claim to understand racism simply because you are a white person who happens to have a black friend. >> let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C That whole discussion is one-sided. You're assuming that a majority consensus from B and C completely nullifies the possibility that A's perspective is valid and normal. The very fact that the word "normal" is used to indicate a majority consensus against the behaviour of a minority stinks of exclusivity and is outrageously abhorrent. 1,000 people saying that "situation A is normal" does not mean that 3 people saying "situation B is normal for me" is somehow abnormal. They are both normal scenarios, each having a different section of the pie chart. Who the fuck is so high and mighty as to decide that Slice B of the pie is not normal because Slice A is larger? When the sophistication of the statistical analysis you are using to generate your world view requires a grade 5 level of mathematical comprehension, you're using the most selfish of non-analytical thinking to justify your personal bias. >> Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people Exactly. Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". Seeing oneself as "normal" while comparing oneself against others who "must clearly not be normal because I say so" is the entire problem. You have no frame of reference, because you can't put yourself in their shoes - end of discussion.

E6300 10y ago
> This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them > Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". This is what I call an argument from experience. "You've never experienced it yourself, so you have no business discussing it." This is equivalent to saying that someone who's never ridden a plane can't be an aeronautical engineer. How about something a bit more compelling? Look, you're the only one since tempestn's comment (inclusive) that's used the words "normal" and "abnormal". If you want to argue that the pattern of emotions experienced by a depressive is normal, or that a delusion is normal, then that's fine. I don't agree but I don't particularly care either way. But are you at least capable of seeing that a depressive who neglects their responsibilities, or even kills themselves, has an illness? That if someone has a delusion that causes them to murder someone, then that delusion is an illness? Or are you going to argue that murder and suicide are good things?

E6300 10y ago

> This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them > Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". This is what I call an argument from experience. "You've never experienced it yourself, so you have no business discussing it." This is equivalent to saying that someone who's never ridden a plane can't be an aeronautical engineer. How about something a bit more compelling? Look, you're the only one since tempestn's comment (inclusive) that's used the words "normal" and "abnormal". If you want to argue that the pattern of emotions experienced by a depressive is normal, or that a delusion is normal, then that's fine. I don't agree but I don't particularly care either way. But are you at least capable of seeing that a depressive who neglects their responsibilities, or even kills themselves, has an illness? That if someone has a delusion that causes them to murder someone, then that delusion is an illness? Or are you going to argue that murder and suicide are good things?