> 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 th

> 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?