Jani's at the mercy of her mind

[Nordic]

Given that the father has roundly dismissed "exorcism" as the terrain of fundamentalists (understandable given that one Christian suggested this tack while citing some biblical reference to Jesus casting out spirits as proof the concept is not so "far-fetched"), I feel a bit self-conscious writing about it, but fuck it. From the perspective of Qi Jong and other Asian energy healing, the phenomena of "bad" (for lack of a better word) energy which gets attached to organic systems is very real. I can give several examples from my own experience with Reiki. And I am utterly convinced that in 500 years we will recognize this entirely. That is, we are living in a time before the germ theory of medicine and someday will recognize the existence of electromagnetic germs, historically called stuff like "demons."

I agree with you wholeheartedly, having lived in two haunted houses, and watched what those things did to my head, and the heads of others around me. And living with someone mentally ill as well, and watching their faces literally change, seeing them look like completely different people, when they would go into different states. And when talking to them when they're in those different states, it's literally like talking to someone else. And often they can't remember much of what went on when they were in those states.

And, hell, just everything else I've picked up over the years.

Unfortunately, psychiatric medicine is on the level of those idiots who almost bled George Washington to death. It's appallingly primitive.

At the same time, I have in fact seen people respond quite positively to the right meds. Problem is, it's pure "guinea pig" time when you're trying to find the right ones, and the wrong ones can literally kill the person (and quite possibly others around them).

[justdrew]

And throwing insults at people trying to engage you on a rational level isn't really very helpful.

oh come on nordic, agit had already set that tone (and since altered). and I don't think either mac or agit were the FIRST to hurl accusations of mental illness at someone in this thread.

[MacCruiskeen]

Check the thread, Nordic. Your rational discourse includes the word "duh" (and much else besides), addressed, very arrogantly and cholerically, to someone who had not addressed you.

And I note that you simply fail to answer the challenge. You ignore it, studiously.

So I presume, until further notice, that you can in fact provide no evidence whatsoever of January's alleged uninduced "mental illness" (sic), i.e. "mental illness" preceding her mistreatment. Which is precisely why I asked you to provide it, if you had it.

If anyone has any such evidence, please post it. This is at least the third time I've asked. No one has had any to offer, so far at least.

Meanwhile, dozens of pages of unambiguous evidence of massive child abuse and over-medication are freely available at Michael Schofield's blog. So I'd suggest we start from there.

[Nordic]

Check the thread, Nordic. Your rational discourse includes the word "duh" (and much else besides), addressed, very arrogantly and cholerically, to someone who had not addressed you.

And I note that you simply fail to answer the challenge. You ignore it, studiously.

So I presume, until further notice, that you can in fact provide no evidence whatsoever of January's alleged uninduced "mental illness" (sic), i.e. "mental illness" preceding her mistreatment. Which is precisely why I asked you to provide it, if you had it.

If anyone has any such evidence, please post it. This is at least the third time I've asked. No one has had any to offer, so far at least.

Meanwhile, dozens of pages of unambiguous evidence of massive child abuse and over-medication are freely available at Michael Schofield's blog. So I'd suggest we start from there.

pot kettle black. You can't provide evidence that she didn't have the mental illness before her parents started acting the way they have.

Which always gets us back to the nature/nurture argument. Which doesn't have to be an either/or either. It seems that the fact that many mentally ill people have mentally ill children is a result of both genetic and environmental factors.

It certainly makes any genetic predisposition to mental illness far worse if the person was subjected to psychotic parents as a child.

And this man's blog pretty much backs that up. I mean, this guy, given a stress-free life, might be perfectly fine. People respond in different ways to stress. Some react with strength and patience and amazing levels of endurance, and others break down right away. This guy, it seems, broke down right away.

The guy is a mess, no doubt about that, and anyone who hits a child, especially when he admits he hit it as hard as he could, has no business being around the child.

But you are 1000% convinced that he CAUSED whatever mental illness the girl may have. That's a big jump. Especially considering you've never actually met either of these people. You admit you've never even had the great pleasure of living with a mentally ill person.

I understand your emotional response to this, we're all having an emotional response to it. But jumping to conclusions that someone is a complete monster and CAUSED his daughter's mental problems is a REAL stretch!

[justdrew]

what is being criticized is his response to the situation, not that he necessarily set it ALL in motion in the first place, but he's now part of a worsening feedback loop. It's highly likely there were biological issues from day one, but the response has been inappropriate and harmful - for a variety of well intended reasons. I don't doubt he thinks he's doing the best he can, everyone involved surely does - but there are other avenues to try which have not been tried, and he doesn't seem interested in pursuing them for whatever reasons.

[agitprop]

Check the thread, Nordic. Your rational discourse includes the word "duh" (and much else besides), addressed, very arrogantly and cholerically, to someone who had not addressed you.

And I note that you simply fail to answer the challenge. You ignore it, studiously.

So I presume, until further notice, that you can in fact provide no evidence whatsoever of January's alleged uninduced "mental illness" (sic), i.e. "mental illness" preceding her mistreatment. Which is precisely why I asked you to provide it, if you had it.

If anyone has any such evidence, please post it. This is at least the third time I've asked. No one has had any to offer, so far at least.

Meanwhile, dozens of pages of unambiguous evidence of massive child abuse and over-medication are freely available at Michael Schofield's blog. So I'd suggest we start from there.

You are framing this argument to suit your own purposes. You are accusing Nordic of sitting on the fence and then ordering him to provide proof that your position is NOT true. In fact, you can't provide definitive proof to back up your point of view, either. True, the child is being over medicated or poisoned, but you are ascribing malintent and ulterior motive on the part of the parents, when none can be proven. The onus is on YOU to provide proof that the parents have anything other than the best interests of the child, (within their human means), in mind, in their treatment regimen. And that is the key issue here--motivation. You are way out of line, in my opinion.

[agitprop]

what is being criticized is his response to the situation, not that he necessarily set it ALL in motion in the first place, but he's now part of a worsening feedback loop. It's highly likely there were biological issues from day one, but the response has been inappropriate and harmful - for a variety of well intended reasons. I don't doubt he thinks he's doing the best he can, everyone involved surely does - but there are other avenues to try which have not been tried, and he doesn't seem interested in pursuing them for whatever reasons.

Actually JD, Munchausen's by proxy was offered up as a diagnosis, by one of the posters, so the father's intentions and motivations, became a key feature of this thread. And hey....maybe he is that sick and twisted a nutcase. Who knows? But it's certainly ratcheting from one set of assumptions to another. I can see how anyone familiar with Munchausen's by proxy would be triggered by this case, as the Dad could be interpreted as fitting the profile. But there are a lot of people who meet the profile criteria for being serial killers, who aren't. (Gosh, 25% of the men I know anyway)

[lightningBugout]

Munchausen's by proxy was offered up as a diagnosis, by one of the posters, so the father's intentions and motivations, became a key feature of this thread.

Actually it was simply the introduction of the father's own words that brought his intentions and motivations onto the radar.

I was not convinced at first and thought the dad was being unduly attacked (and still think the suggestion he has financial motives, for example, is fucked up) but reading his blog is very damning.

[justdrew]

what is being criticized is his response to the situation, not that he necessarily set it ALL in motion in the first place, but he's now part of a worsening feedback loop. It's highly likely there were biological issues from day one, but the response has been inappropriate and harmful - for a variety of well intended reasons. I don't doubt he thinks he's doing the best he can, everyone involved surely does - but there are other avenues to try which have not been tried, and he doesn't seem interested in pursuing them for whatever reasons.

Actually JD, Munchausen's by proxy was offered up as a diagnosis, by one of the posters, so the father's intentions and motivations, became a key feature of this thread. And hey....maybe he is that sick and twisted a nutcase. Who knows? But it's certainly ratcheting from one set of assumptions to another. I can see how anyone familiar with Munchausen's by proxy would be triggered by this case, as the Dad could be interpreted as fitting the profile. But there are a lot of people who meet the profile criteria for being serial killers, who aren't. (Gosh, 25% of the men I know anyway)

I don't think it is exactly Munchausen's by proxy, but there does seem to be some similarities, enough to be one of many other factors that lead me to recommend living separately for a time at least. and yes, I do agree that profile checkoffs are far from sufficient to prove anything.

[monster]

01110011011000110110100001
10100101111010011011110111
00000110100001110010011001
01011011100110100101100001

thud

The main point was "binary" as in binary thinking, but that was an interesting link, thanks.

[MacCruiskeen]

Check the thread, Nordic. Your rational discourse includes the word "duh" (and much else besides), addressed, very arrogantly and cholerically, to someone who had not addressed you.

And I note that you simply fail to answer the challenge. You ignore it, studiously.

So I presume, until further notice, that you can in fact provide no evidence whatsoever of January's alleged uninduced "mental illness" (sic), i.e. "mental illness" preceding her mistreatment. Which is precisely why I asked you to provide it, if you had it.

If anyone has any such evidence, please post it. This is at least the third time I've asked. No one has had any to offer, so far at least.

Meanwhile, dozens of pages of unambiguous evidence of massive child abuse and over-medication are freely available at Michael Schofield's blog. So I'd suggest we start from there.

You are framing this argument to suit your own purposes. You are accusing Nordic of sitting on the fence and then ordering him to provide proof that your position is NOT true. In fact, you can't provide definitive proof to back up your point of view, either. True, the child is being over medicated or poisoned, but you are ascribing malintent and ulterior motive on the part of the parents, when none can be proven. The onus is on YOU to provide proof that the parents have anything other than the best interests of the child, (within their human means), in mind, in their treatment regimen. And that is the key issue here--motivation. You are way out of line, in my opinion.

This is complete and utter rubbish, but it's actually very slowly getting us somewhere, because it is so obviously rubbish and so instructively rubbish. It brings us to the heart of the matter. (I'll address Agitprop's rubbish and Nordic's rubbish together.)

The assertion to be proven -- very obviously, by all accepted conventions of rational discourse -- is the primary assertion, which is being made (with no supporting evidence whatsoever that I have seen so far) by the quacks and the parents:

1.That January Schofield "has schizophrenia" (sic).

2. That January Schofield "had schizophrenia" (sic) even before being abused, neglected, and heavily dosed on psychoactive drugs.

These are the assertions of the quacks and the parents. These are the primary assertions, the truth of which is widely accepted (like the government's account of 9/11), and on these assertions they are now basing their "treatment" (sic) of a helpless child. They are also assertions which clearly require some serious verifiable evidence to support them -- if science and reason count for anything at all.

(Sidenote: Remember that the parents had to spend a lot of time and effort talking the reluctant quacks into that diagnosis, and not for no reason.)

So here's the challenge, yet again:

Where is the evidence to support those claims? Post it if you have any, any at all, even the slightest little bit.

Because very obviously, the burden of proof is on them, and now on you too.

Thank you.

[orz]

hmmm... why YES this local newspaper human interest article SURELY contains all the data I, the professional Internet Poster, need to render an accurate medical diagnosis of all involved!

Ok the results turns out it's BIG PHARMA and the PSYCHS all along.

[orz]

[MacCruiskeen]

This rubbish separately :

The onus is on YOU to provide proof that the parents have anything other than the best interests of the child, (within their human means), in mind, in their treatment regimen. And that is the key issue here--motivation.

Criminologists, sit up and hear the news: the key issue is whether the criminal claimed to be well-motivated.

We'll have to rewrite history. Hitler said he had the best interests of the world at heart. Charles Manson just wanted to make the US a cleaner place, or so he said. George Bush said he was fighting the Axis of Evil -- so that was alright then, what he did with his bombs and his bullets. Hundreds of child-beaters have informed the lawcourts that they just wanted to calm the kid down.

It's the thought that counts - or so Agitprop would have us believe.

(The road to where is paved with good intentions?)

[MacCruiskeen]

Orz, with all due respect (and before you waste any more of anyone's time): Stop trolling, seek your entertainment elsewhere, and fuck off with your predictably witless funnies.

Back on-topic.

P.S. The child's not dead yet.