RE: Not about marrying meaties

[Guest guest]

I certainly never said that mental illness was the same as psychosis, so please don't misinterpret me like that! I am well aware that there are different mental illnesses.

I never even implied anything against all mentally ill people, nor did I say that psychosis was the same as serial killers! Not all people with psychosis could possibly be serial killers although a few are.

You only get offended so easily because you are reading into my messages some prejudice against ALL mentally ill people that is obviously not the case.

 

Lesley

 

 

Mavreela [nec.lists]13 July 2002 09:52 Subject: Re: Marrying meatiesMorning!>Why should Lesley admit she was wrong just because you think she was?!Still on this are we.Lesley said "mental illness" is the same as psychoses, which is the same as not knowing right from wrong, which is the same as several well known serial killers. Do you think she is wrong? Certainly the APA and the BPS, the medical profession don't...>It was plain for everyone to see>that Lesley was making a casual comment...Being casual is justificati0n for prejudicial comments now? Gottcha.>Back>off and stop taking everything so personally.Only if you back off the meat eaters.Sigh, maybe it's just manners. Where I come from when you accidentally offend someone you think about what you did wrong, and try to avoid it happening again. Maybe it's just a north/south divide thing where people down south people have a go at you for daring to be offended by them?I'm not going to say anything else on this subject. I've made my point - learn from it, ignore it, slag it off, your call, enjoy.MichaelTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Lesley,

I wonder if these terms-mental illness, psychosis, schzoid etc. really describe the true state of peoples' minds so neatly

or accurately that you need to worry so about the terms themselves. There is a certain politics involved in such descriptions.

Brad

 

-

Lesley Dove

Sunday, July 14, 2002 5:30 AM

RE: Not about marrying meaties

 

 

I certainly never said that mental illness was the same as psychosis, so please don't misinterpret me like that! I am well aware that there are different mental illnesses.

I never even implied anything against all mentally ill people, nor did I say that psychosis was the same as serial killers! Not all people with psychosis could possibly be serial killers although a few are.

You only get offended so easily because you are reading into my messages some prejudice against ALL mentally ill people that is obviously not the case.

 

Lesley

 

 

Mavreela [nec.lists]13 July 2002 09:52 Subject: Re: Marrying meatiesMorning!>Why should Lesley admit she was wrong just because you think she was?!Still on this are we.Lesley said "mental illness" is the same as psychoses, which is the same as not knowing right from wrong, which is the same as several well known serial killers. Do you think she is wrong? Certainly the APA and the BPS, the medical profession don't...>It was plain for everyone to see>that Lesley was making a casual comment...Being casual is justificati0n for prejudicial comments now? Gottcha.>Back>off and stop taking everything so personally.Only if you back off the meat eaters.Sigh, maybe it's just manners. Where I come from when you accidentally offend someone you think about what you did wrong, and try to avoid it happening again. Maybe it's just a north/south divide thing where people down south people have a go at you for daring to be offended by them?I'm not going to say anything else on this subject. I've made my point - learn from it, ignore it, slag it off, your call, enjoy.MichaelTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

>I certainly never said that mental illness was the same as psychosis

 

Erm, it is though.

 

>nor did I say that psychosis was the same as serial killers!

 

Me: " Also psychoses do not necessarily involve a lack of awareness of

right and wrong. "

 

You: " Oh sorry, of course the Yorkshire Ripper had a great understanding of

what was right and wrong, and so did Myra Hindley! How stupid of me not to

realise that!|

 

>You only get offended so easily because you are reading into my messages

>some prejudice against ALL mentally ill people that is obviously not the case.

 

I know you are not prejudiced against all mentally ill people. In fact

until the above quoted comment about the " Yorkshire Ripper " I didn't think

you were prejudiced at all.

 

The Spastics society changed name because the term 'spastic' had become

maligned, it was a stock insult used by people who didn't even know what

the term actually referred to. The lack of actual prejudice does not stop

it from being offensive. Feminists argue against oppressive ideologies

where something has become so ingrained in culture that people are not

aware of it having such an effect, attitudes towards mental illness

certainly fall under this category. If you want to go into it in detail

then Foucault studied and wrote on the connection between societal

attitudes towards mental illness and how they are used as a form of oppression.

 

Still I do admit I got slightly off tracked slipping from 'psychopath'

(which is an outdated term and you should use 'sociopath' now, for reasons

which are about to become clearer) to 'psychoses'. Not that this changes

the key point of a lack of understanding in using 'psychopath' in a casual

sense, nor does it make it any better to use it as a description of

something that is clearly not the result of an 'illness' (hate calling it

that, but there's nothing better). The term sociopath is used to describe

someone who suffers from 'antisocial personality disorder', diagnosis of

which is subject to a lot more than simply not knowing right from wrong,

and which according to the APA DSM criteria has to have occurred

pervasively since an age of 15.

 

I do apologize though for taking things off on an unnecessary

tangent. Sufficed to say I will try and write an essay on the subject of

societal attitudes so in future I can refer people to that without the need

for lengthy, and personal, discussions.

 

And this is my last word on the subject.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Oh well, I certainly never equated all mentally ill people with having psychosis, and I certainly never said anything like all mentally ill people were psychopaths. Some mentally ill people are obviously completely out of touch with reality, others are very much in touch with reality, so much that they are sensitive and caring individuals like yourself, IMO that should not be classed as you being mentally ill, that helps to make you a good person, but if it makes you see something against all mentally ill people in something I said, where it is not intended, I cannot do anything to convince you otherwise.

 

Yes I would say I am prejudiced against people who are serial killers, do you seriously expect me not to be? That also goes to some extent for people who are serial killers by proxy, ie animal eaters. I don't apologise for that. It's not a prejudice against mentally ill people in general, just against violent people without a conscience, quite a different type of "mentally ill" person from someone who is suffering severe depression. I truly sympathise you over that, I can't feel for murderers though, especially if they are aware of right and wrong and just don't care! They must be just evil if they are aware and still do what they do.

 

Lesley

 

Mavreela [nec.lists]14 July 2002 13:24 Subject: RE: Not about marrying meaties

>I certainly never said that mental illness was the same as psychosisErm, it is though.>nor did I say that psychosis was the same as serial killers!Me: "Also psychoses do not necessarily involve a lack of awareness ofright and wrong."You: "Oh sorry, of course the Yorkshire Ripper had a great understanding of what was right and wrong, and so did Myra Hindley! How stupid of me not to realise that!|>You only get offended so easily because you are reading into my messages >some prejudice against ALL mentally ill people that is obviously not the case.I know you are not prejudiced against all mentally ill people. In fact until the above quoted comment about the "Yorkshire Ripper" I didn't think you were prejudiced at all.The Spastics society changed name because the term 'spastic' had become maligned, it was a stock insult used by people who didn't even know what the term actually referred to. The lack of actual prejudice does not stop it from being offensive. Feminists argue against oppressive ideologies where something has become so ingrained in culture that people are not aware of it having such an effect, attitudes towards mental illness certainly fall under this category. If you want to go into it in detail then Foucault studied and wrote on the connection between societal attitudes towards mental illness and how they are used as a form of oppression.Still I do admit I got slightly off tracked slipping from 'psychopath' (which is an outdated term and you should use 'sociopath' now, for reasons which are about to become clearer) to 'psychoses'. Not that this changes the key point of a lack of understanding in using 'psychopath' in a casual sense, nor does it make it any better to use it as a description of something that is clearly not the result of an 'illness' (hate calling it that, but there's nothing better). The term sociopath is used to describe someone who suffers from 'antisocial personality disorder', diagnosis of which is subject to a lot more than simply not knowing right from wrong, and which according to the APA DSM criteria has to have occurred pervasively since an age of 15.I do apologize though for taking things off on an unnecessary tangent. Sufficed to say I will try and write an essay on the subject of societal attitudes so in future I can refer people to that without the need for lengthy, and personal, discussions.And this is my last word on the subject.MichaelTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Okay, okay, I know I said I wasn't going to revisit this, but...

 

>Oh well, I certainly never equated all mentally ill people with having

>psychosis.

 

Misunderstanding, my fault, sorry. At the top of my last mail I meant that

all psychoses are mental illnesses, not that all mental illnesses are

psychoses.

 

>but if it makes you see something against all mentally ill people in

>something I said, where it is not intended, I cannot do anything to

>convince you otherwise.

 

Did you read what the bit where I said about the Foucault and

feminism? Everyone (even me, gasp) is affected by their social environment

and can be found guilty of unintentionally saying something wrong if you

know where to look. Everyone. Anything. The thing is to recognize when

it happens and try not to do it again rather than deny it just because you

didn't have any malicious intent, do that and people will think you are

prejudiced. If you said something mildly sexist a feminist would pick you

up. Something mildly homophobic and a gay activist would pick you

up. Something mildly racist and a civil liberties campaigner would pick it

up. Something mildly against animals (cf cats) then everyone on here would

pick you up. Something mildly against mental illnesses and I will pick you up.

 

You know this all reminds me of the Seinfeld episode " The Outing " . " Not

that there's anything wrong with that " . Hehe. Classic. You see a

reporter thought that Jerry and George were a gay couple, which they of

course were quick to deny, quickly followed by claim " Not that there's

anything wrong with that " . Very astute. If there's nothing wrong with

that, why so vehemently deny it?

 

But to spell things out, make them clear

 

I did not think you were prejudiced when I first commented so stop trying

to convince me of anything.

 

I was commenting to point out that it can be taken as offensive so you can

avoid causing offense.

 

I was making you aware of the resonance of something that you were unaware of.

 

Sorry to the list for posting again on this, I really didn't want to but I

had to apologize for my mistake, last time, and it seems I wasn't clear

enough. Last time though. Promise. I'll even let people continue talking

about me being naked. I've done as well as I can now. I've done the

simple bullet point statements and a Seinfeld analogy. Can I be any

clearer. If anyone wants to convince me of anything then you haven't

understood what I've been trying to say.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

I'll just try to be more sensitive to your feelings, I was being a bit sarcastic when I first mentioned those extreme examples of Hindley and the Yorkshire Ripper anyway, because I was a bit pissed off with you for seeming to think I had prejudices against mentally ill people in general just because of how I feel about the very few people who are violent people with no conscience.

 

In one post Edith accused me of at sometime saying something against gay people, but she never explained what she meant and I never worked out what she thought I had said, as I don't harbour any such prejudices, so I'm still puzzled about that one. I don't think I ever said anything remotely like the example in Seinfeld, I don't think it would occur to me to need to say anything like that, not that I've ever been mistaken for a lesbian, so I've never had anything like that happen to me. Not sure how I would react.

 

Lesley

 

 

Mavreela [nec.lists]14 July 2002 16:52 Subject: RE: Not about marrying meatiesOkay, okay, I know I said I wasn't going to revisit this, but...>Oh well, I certainly never equated all mentally ill people with having >psychosis.Misunderstanding, my fault, sorry. At the top of my last mail I meant that all psychoses are mental illnesses, not that all mental illnesses are psychoses.>but if it makes you see something against all mentally ill people in >something I said, where it is not intended, I cannot do anything to >convince you otherwise.Did you read what the bit where I said about the Foucault and feminism? Everyone (even me, gasp) is affected by their social environment and can be found guilty of unintentionally saying something wrong if you know where to look. Everyone. Anything. The thing is to recognize when it happens and try not to do it again rather than deny it just because you didn't have any malicious intent, do that and people will think you are prejudiced. If you said something mildly sexist a feminist would pick you up. Something mildly homophobic and a gay activist would pick you up. Something mildly racist and a civil liberties campaigner would pick it up. Something mildly against animals (cf cats) then everyone on here would pick you up. Something mildly against mental illnesses and I will pick you up.You know this all reminds me of the Seinfeld episode "The Outing". "Not that there's anything wrong with that". Hehe. Classic. You see a reporter thought that Jerry and George were a gay couple, which they of course were quick to deny, quickly followed by claim "Not that there's anything wrong with that". Very astute. If there's nothing wrong with that, why so vehemently deny it?But to spell things out, make them clearI did not think you were prejudiced when I first commented so stop trying to convince me of anything.I was commenting to point out that it can be taken as offensive so you can avoid causing offense.I was making you aware of the resonance of something that you were unaware of.Sorry to the list for posting again on this, I really didn't want to but I had to apologize for my mistake, last time, and it seems I wasn't clear enough. Last time though. Promise. I'll even let people continue talking about me being naked. I've done as well as I can now. I've done the simple bullet point statements and a Seinfeld analogy. Can I be any clearer. If anyone wants to convince me of anything then you haven't understood what I've been trying to say.MichaelTo send an email to -