ADHD.... Real disorder, or clever way to get us all on pills for life?
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:03
VIEWED: 8797
PAGE 6 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
There is no possible way to win an arguement with you because you have the mighty infallible Science backing you.
Sure there is, give me proof, don't just make a statement that is incorrect or makes no sense and expect me to take your opinion as gospel. For instance you said that science was the cause of holocausts, show me one example of a holocaust caused by science, you say that most scientific research is controlled by people who want to use it for unscrupulous purposes, prove it, don't just say it.
Quote:
There is absolutely nothing that I can do to disrupt your love affair with Science and you will defend her to your death.
If you bring up the medical experiments done by the Nazi's in WW2 I won't defend them, if you want me to condemn the forced use of untested drugs on unwilling subjects then I will agree. If you want me to say that science is the cause of all the worlds ills then you don't stand a chance, if you want me to say that nothing should ever stand in the way of scientific progress then you are going to have a tough time. The problem is that you are making sweeping generalizations based on rare instances and expecting me to jump to your side without evidence, without logic, and without question.
Quote:
I see no reason to take this conversation any further.
Doesn't bother me any. But just so you know that won't stop me from responding to your posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Sure there is, give me proof, don't just make a statement that is incorrect or makes no sense and expect me to take your opinion as gospel. For instance you said that science was the cause of holocausts, show me one example of a holocaust caused by science.....
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't said anything that is incorrect. You have either misinterpreted what I said, or because of your unwavering devotion to the 100% validiity of all things science, you will never agree with anything that I have to say.
Ask the Japanese about a holocaust that could not have happened without science. But of course you're going to argue that this was politics or human nature, so I know I already lost this arguement.
Quote:
...you say that most scientific research is controlled by people who want to use it for unscrupulous purposes, prove it, don't just say it.
This entire post about the overuse and overprescription of behavioral modifying medication and how it is just an infantile form of the PAX on Serenity I think is a very good start, but for the same reasons as above, you're going to argue me on this one too.... so what's the point?
Quote:
If you bring up the medical experiments done by the Nazi's in WW2 I won't defend them, if you want me to condemn the forced use of untested drugs on unwilling subjects then I will agree. If you want me to say that science is the cause of all the worlds ills then you don't stand a chance, if you want me to say that nothing should ever stand in the way of scientific progress then you are going to have a tough time. The problem is that you are making sweeping generalizations based on rare instances and expecting me to jump to your side without evidence, without logic, and without question.
Well of course you won't defend that. Even science won't defend what the Nazi's did. I'm just suprised that you brought this up at all, let alone that you didn't just blame the Nazi's. I myself wouldn't have brought this up first, because bringing up Nazi's in any argument to make a point, as it's been pointed out to me in here before, is simply a way of losing another arguement. Now that you mention it though....
I never once said that Science was the root of all of man's ills, not once. I've also conceded that inherently science isn't bad, it is the men behind it that are. I've even said that there is a lot of good that has come from science. I'm a big fan of antiseptics, for example. I'm not even saying that anything should stand in the way of science, such as the proposals from Bush against Stem Cell research. I do, however, expect the people behind scientific discoveries to be sane and use these things for the good of mankind, and not the enslavement of mankind. I just want some accountability, which is in short supply it seems.
I have no problem with you responding to my posts, if you cease from twisting my words around to make a point. Like I've said before, I do believe that generally we agree on a lot, but because there are a few things about science that I mention that you don't like, you bastardize everything I say to prove your point.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't said anything that is incorrect.
This seems to be the root of the problem, you make a statement of questionable validity (such as the majority of science being funded by people who intend to use it for unscrupulous purposes) and then you refuse to provide evidence and expect me to accept it because you said it.
Quote:
You have either misinterpreted what I said
Point out what I misinterpreted and correct me then, clearly articulate your point and I will respond to it correctly.
Quote:
or because of your unwavering devotion to the 100% validiity of all things science, you will never agree with anything that I have to say.
I have a devotion to factual arguement instead of opinion stated as fact, you consistantly state your opinion without any supporting evidence and then get pissed when I call you on it.
Quote:
Ask the Japanese about a holocaust that could not have happened without science.
You kind of have a point here, but you are forgetting something, if we hadn't used the bomb we would have had to invade mainland Japan, that would have resulted in much more casualties (on both sides) than the bombs did. The atomic bombings were certainly horrific, but they were actually not much more effective (speaking from a population and material loss standpoint) than the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo before. The major difference is that the atomic bomb was psychologically more effective because at the time it was incredible to think that one bomb could level a city. The psychological effect allowed us to avoid an incredibly costly invasion.
I will concede that the bombs were products of science and were used in a horrific fashion, but I will not concede that it was worse than the alternative.
Quote:
But of course you're going to argue that this was politics or human nature, so I know I already lost this arguement.
Since you brought them up, Truman decided to use the bombs because the cost of an invasion would have been even more horrific, and World War 2 as a whole was a product of politics. Human nature played its part, Truman wanted to protect Americans and was willing to sacrifice the Japanese to do it.
Quote:
This entire post about the overuse and overprescription of behavioral modifying medication and how it is just an infantile form of the PAX on Serenity I think is a very good start, but for the same reasons as above, you're going to argue me on this one too.... so what's the point?
The issue is this "we keep letting science dictate our lives", just like you say that I have a love affair with science you seem intent on blaming it for everything that comes up. The PAX in Serenity was put on that planet because the POLITICIANS decided to engage in social engineering. Science can be used for good or evil, but in itself it is neither. You seem intent on painting science as the motivating force behind every issue you bring up instead of blaming the power-hungry PEOPLE at fault.
If you are saying that overmedication is a problem then I won't argue the point, but you want to blame science when the real fault lays with the social problems. Like I said before, if people didn't want the drugs they wouldn't be made and people want the drugs because our society can only sustain its industrial base by making people unhappy with their lives and telling them that if they buy more stuff they will be happy, but when they buy the stuff they still aren't happy so they decide to turn to medication.
Quote:
Well of course you won't defend that. Even science won't defend what the Nazi's did.
But it was done in the name of science and according to you I will never fail to defend science.
Quote:
because bringing up Nazi's in any argument to make a point, as it's been pointed out to me in here before, is simply a way of losing another arguement.
I was trying to find points that supported your assertion that science was driven by unscrupulous people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well sorry if it seems the way you thought it does, but it isn't. Like I said, I think we agree on this a lot more than you think. Perhaps it is businesses and politicians that should be entirely to blame for the evil things men do with science. Trust me, when I'm not in a debate with science people about science, those are usually the very people that I'm bashing all day long. It IS because of our corrupt government and economic system that I believe that science will be the device used to destroy mankind, or at least, everything that is good about mankind. It's all the same wheather we're wiped out in a global nuclear holocaust or if we're all successfully subdued and subjugated by a PAX-esque virus one day.
I'm not saying that all scientists are evil, and I don't have some false assumtions of "mad scientism" like I'm sure many people in the world have because the scientist is usually portrayed as crazy and power hungry, (Dr. Evil, Dr. Claw, Dr. No, the scientist that Newman played on Jurassic Park) the list goes on and on) or they are like those guys in the Aliens movies that wouldn't allow Ripley and crew to destroy the alien menace because of all of the scientific discoveries and applications that would be lost if they were to become extinct. Of course they usually were killed in the end and people rejoyced.
So, what is your answer then. I'm saying that science has run amok, and though we may disagree on the way that I word this, I think we agree that there is a serious misuse and abuse of science in certain and important cases that needs to be addressed and prevented in the future. I'm saying that there needs to be accountability.
I loved science when I was a kid, and even up until a few years ago. I think I really started to fear it when I realized that even the jocks and cheerleaders were using computers now, more than I was, for the internet. It was a wake up call. It was like WTF? This is something that computer nerds like me were into and got ridiculed for (well... I was pretty much a closet computer nerd myself. I did a lot of sports and partied quite a bit too). I dont' think the shrinking of the world due to the internet is a good thing. I suppose if you're pro science you embrace change. I don't like change. I like comfort zones. I like things to be the way they were. My problem, I realize. As the world speeds up, I'm likely to become a dinosaur before I'm 35 years old.
Can we at least agree that there needs to be some action taken to prevent science from being used in the future against mankind and the will of the individual? I'm talking about a psychological holocaust as well as a physical one. Maybe you're a fan of everybody thinking like-minded, and I'm thinking you're not because you like Firefly, (unless, that is, you rooted for the Alliance the whole time) but I'm terrified about that. I'm not suggesting we go back to the horse and buggy, but I'd like for things to slow down a bit and for responsible decisions to be made where something a bit more practical and morale than the almighty dollar was the primary motivating factor. I can't think of anything science has provided us with in the last 5 years which has benifited mankind.... something that we actually needed, yet we have a ton of technological stuff, made in China, in the last 5 years that we just can't live without now. Not one thing has improved our happiness, other than the artificial happiness that these evil little pills bring us. We're more miserable and at each other's throats than ever. You can argue high-speed internet and 50" plasma TV's are a boon if you like, but if anything, they only serve to alienate us even more from the people we're supposed to care about. I go to my dad's house now and they've got 5 TVs, 3 computers, 4 video game systems, and aside from the time my brothers, my dad, my step-mom and myself sit down for dinner, almost everybody goes back to their own room to veg out alone on whatever crap sparks their interests.... which is rarely the same thing.
Now, I'll blame thi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Perhaps it is businesses and politicians that should be entirely to blame for the evil things men do with science.
YES!
Quote:
I believe that science will be the device used to destroy mankind, or at least, everything that is good about mankind. It's all the same wheather we're wiped out in a global nuclear holocaust or if we're all successfully subdued and subjugated by a PAX-esque virus one day.
Of course it will, you can't subjugate the world with medieval technology, but it isn't the fault of science that people want to do so in the first place. The only way to prevent something like that is to either cease all scientific research or find some way to change human nature (PAX anyone?
)Quote:
So, what is your answer then. I'm saying that science has run amok
I'd like you to provide some examples, I can't think of any.
Quote:
and though we may disagree on the way that I word this, I think we agree that there is a serious misuse and abuse of science in certain and important cases that needs to be addressed and prevented in the future.
The instances that come up are exceedingly rare and the only way to prevent them is to change human nature or cease researching. You could argue that we lock away the dangerous stuff, but who chooses who has access? I wouldn't trust you to allow enough people and you wouldn't trust me not to allow to many, who decides?
Quote:
I'm saying that there needs to be accountability
More than just here, but that is a social issue, accountability is on the decline because we as a society don't want to take responsibility for our actions. I would love to see a world where politicians and CEO's are held accountable but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote:
I dont' think the shrinking of the world due to the internet is a good thing.
Why not?
Quote:
I suppose if you're pro science you embrace change. I don't like change. I like comfort zones. I like things to be the way they were. My problem, I realize
It's understandable, but the problem is that lack of research would put us at a severe disadvantage when we get an airborne Ebola virus, or run out of oil, or can't produce enough food for our population, etc.
Quote:
As the world speeds up, I'm likely to become a dinosaur before I'm 35 years old.
At least you aren't a Trilobite
Quote:
Can we at least agree that there needs to be some action taken to prevent science from being used in the future against mankind and the will of the individual?
Sure, but I'm pretty sure that we will disagree on how.
The problem is how do you balance the protection of the individual versus the need for research? For instance you don't want anything that threatens the will of the individual, but what about the positive uses for mood-altering drugs like Prozac? Do we not allow research into mood-altering drugs because they MIGHT be used for evil purposes?
Quote:
I'm talking about a psychological holocaust as well as a physical one. Maybe you're a fan of everybody thinking like-minded, and I'm thinking you're not because you like Firefly, (unless, that is, you rooted for the Alliance the whole time) but I'm terrified about that.
Wait...we weren't supposed to be rooting for the Alliance?
Quote:
I'm not suggesting we go back to the horse and buggy, but I'd like for things to slow down a bit and for responsible decisions to be made where something a bit more practical and morale than the almighty dollar was the primary motivating factor
You can choose one of the following, a capitalist society or a society where money isn't the final concern. You can't have both (or at least not for long).
Quote:
I can't think of anything science has provided us with in the last 5 years which has benifited mankind....
Cervical cancer vaccine? dozens of drugs for the containment of previously uncontainable diseases? more efficient solar cells that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I certainly do have an issue with society. I think only very naieve individuals today don't. This is, however beside the point.
Everything you say about the internet being needed before it was made is completely wrong. Nobody needed it, EVER. Not then, not now. We only THINK we need it now. We only need it because now that everyone else has it, you're at a disadvantage without it. The Government made it and brought it into our homes and now it's used to keeps tabs on us. There is no denying that this is happening and even President Bush doesn't deny that it is being done, though he lies to us and says that it's okay because it's only the "bad guys", save your tinfoil hat comments.
Have no illusions that somebody monitors this forum, especially because people who share my opinion come around. Every post I've ever written in here I would imagine is being read by somebody in a suit somewhere. I just don't talk about it all the time or freak out about it because there isn't a damn thing I could do about it anyhow. At the very least, any possibility of a political career in my future is completley shot.
(To the suit that's reading this: Here's a big 
You. Have a nice day!)
The fact of the matter is that we are more honest with our computers than we are with anybody we know, which in turn means that the suits know more about me than I probably know about myself. Inhibitions are down online because nobody is face to face and nobody is trying to talk over each other at the same time so we say what we like. People pour their souls out in here, and on digg, and on MySpace, when they wouldn't even dream of going to the local mall and chatting complete strangers up about the same things.
I think it's really funny when people actually believe that when they mark that MySpace blog as private that they are really the only ones who can read them. As if the only way into our profiles is via our passwords. That's cute.
We can go from one board to another and based on different interests, we act completely different around another group of people, or at the very least we don't mention a lot of things to them that we would mention to people on the other board. We all do this in real life as well, as we converse with this clique or that clique, family or friends, ect... but the only one who knows how differently we act around seperate groups of people in real-life situations is ourselves, whereas on the internet, you leave an IP address footprint everytime you post a message, so even if nobody is watching you, there is always the ability to go back and see everything you've ever posted. Even deleted sites are archived. There's never been a sentence written and submitted on the internet by anyone that cannot be accessed. You might not be able to find it and get a "401" web-error, but you're foolish if you think that this hasn't been backed up and archived. The potential payback for archiving this information is priceless. Today it couldn't be used as admissable evidence in court in most cases, but just think about the arrests that could be made when this information is deemed all that is necessary for somebody to be guilty. We're talking, drug dealers, sexual perverts, child molesters, etc... all going down in flames for things they posted online 10 or 20 years ago. Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately the Government action won't stop there. When they ran out of REAL criminals, they'd start going after the morale crime of the week, such as illegal downloading of torrents or fines for posting clips of Firefly on YouTube. They wouldn't have done this 5 years ago because A) They were too busy going after real criminals and B)it would scare people away while they were still trying to get everyone using and eventually addicted to the internet. Now that most of us realize that we can't live without it and our children don't even believe us when we tell them that when we were in school we didn't have the internet, they are going to start coming after us. Sure, some of us might be strong e
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm curious as to what 7%'s take is on this, since as a teacher he must come in contact with both real and imagined cases of ADHD and ADD on a regular basis.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And on a related note... You have GOT to see this!!
Feb. 15 - A mock advertisement campaign for a fake disorder and its accompanying drug is mistaken by many to be real. The campaign on display in a New York City art gallery and on a website has far exceeded organizers expectations as thousands of people have contacted them seeking prescription information.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=8818&src=cms
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I want it all, too!
That's unbelievable. "This Perfect Day" is right around the corner.
Signy, we are lost as a species.
I give up; let's all just praise Bush and take drugs.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm reminded of a book I read called the self destruction syndrome. In it there was a subculture of people who rejected main stream society, called negatives. One of the more bizzare things was that they didn't take drugs of any kind, so in a way it was like the opposite of modern day drug culture, a reversal we seem to be moving ever closer towards.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME