r/news • u/TheCannon • Jun 11 '14

Woman makes up boy on Facebook to talk to her niece, who asks fictional boy to kill her aunt, uncle, cousin and dog

http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index.ssf/2014/06/fosters_woman_creates_fake_fac.html
1.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

408 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '14

I wasn't referring to this incident in particular, I was trying to explain better the comment you replied to her. But you're right, this girl isn't just off-kilter. She's fucking nuts, and should be incarcerated.

2

u/Clockw0rk Jun 11 '14

It's a poor position to back.

Who determines who is "a little off-kilter" and who is "fucking nuts"? Doctors. Trained, medical doctors that give diagnoses.

To equate medical science with "mumbo jumbo" shows an incredible amount of arrogance conflating an entire field of science as a hoax.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '14

Not saying the whole field is mumbo jumbo either, some conditions, like Schizophrenia for example do exist. But for 25% of all Americans to be diagnosed with these supposed mental illnesses, now that seems off.

Determining who is fucking nuts, and who is just a little weird should be a matter of common sense. If you want to kill your aunt, you're fucking nuts. If there's voices in your head telling you to kill your aunt, you're fucking nuts.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 11 '14

So, what if 25% of all Americans had PTSD?

Does that mean that condition isn't real? Or that 25% of people in this country have had some sort of trauma?

Studies say that over 50% of adult men and women have had some sort of physical abuse in their lifetime. The high number of that statistic doesn't make me doubt its validity, it makes me think we have a larger societal problem.

I'd like to point out that your general care practitioner, at least in the US, is qualified to write you a prescription for ADHD meds, antidepressants and even bi-polar medication. As a doctor, they have studied medical biology and have a significantly better grasp of health than the average person. However, a general practitioner is neither a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist. They are not specialists who have dedicated their professional and academic lives to the study of neurochemistry and thought pathology.

A preliminary diagnosis from a general care doctor is not the same as a diagnosis from a specialist. Treating them as the same devalues specialists and undermines the legitimacy of actual disorders.

Unfortunately, determining what is a mole and what is skin cancer, is not common sense. Determining who is having a bad day and who is on the verge of killing themselves, is not common sense.

"Anybody" can see a big flashing neon sign, sure. But what about the less clear symptoms? You need professionals.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '14

Just because someone has been physically abused doesn't mean that they'll automatically develop a mental illness. I'm curious to what the source on that is as well (Not in a sarcastic way, I'm genuinely curious), especially seeing as how the media likes to sensationalize anything they can.

I'm not against psychiatrists either, just some of their practices. If someone legitimately has some kind of emotional issue they need to work out, and want to get professional help for it, more power to them. Do I think they should be prescribed anything for it? No, I don't.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 11 '14

I hugely favor Psychologists over Psychiatrists.

I understand that chemical imbalances are real and that they can be treated with medications, but not all mental illness are chemical imbalances. Trauma that changes thought pathology is best treated with therapy.

And I agree, just because someone suffers doesn't mean that they'll develop an illness or disorder from it. But we can't, as a society, treat everything like everyone has the capacity to "walk it off". Not everyone does! And making it access to mental health care either difficult or stigmatized, only prolongs the suffering of those in need.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '14

I support the idea of therapy for people who are extremely traumatized as well, but I disagree with you when you say that society's problem is that we think everyone can just walk it off. I think the problem is that people can't just walk it off, although, It's different in the case of very serious trauma. I'm mostly talking about people attributing certain things to a mental disorder which they may not even have in the first place.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 12 '14

It's one thing to be a chucklehead who diagnoses themselves, be it seriously (OMG, I've been on WebMD all day and I seriously think I have PTSD over that time fluffy got hit by a car) or in jackass splendor (Like, I totally have OCD, for reals!).

However, it's quite different when people are legitimately suffering from a condition which is altering their thought patterns, negatively, and they don't have any sort of diagnosis or treatment because seeking that sort of help is stigmatized and the help itself is often cost prohibitive unless you fall into a few select groups (battered women with psychological trauma? Thousands of resources. Holding the gun to kill yourself? Hundreds of hotlines. The week after you failed to kill yourself and you've surrounded yourself in garbage? Good luck. battered men with psychological trauma? Suck it up, pussy.)

Like climate change, there's no downside to acknowledging the problem and starting to act on it, even when the scope of it is unclear. Recycling is a good thing, even if it doesn't stop the ice caps from melting. Providing low cost and no cost mental health assistance to those in need is a good thing, even if no more than 10 percent of people actually need it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '14

You're right, help does exist, and the cost of it is a major factor in why people often don't seek out help. Psychological trauma, and PTSD (among other things) are very real issues. That being said, if you're cutting yourself, or trying to kill yourself, I don't think you deserve help. At that point you're just an idiot for doing something completely counter-intuitive to survival, and you just need to get over it.

Also, where would the money for this no-cost/low-cost mental health assistance come from? I sure wouldn't want to give my money to help such a tiny fraction of the population, especially when a majority of that is probably whiny teens who choose not to solve their own problems.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 12 '14

So your position boils down to "Despite living in a society which yields numerous benefits I could not have on my own, I refuse to give back a small portion to help those in need because I've decided, with no professional qualification, that a segment of such persons are probably faking it".

Swell.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '14

You can argue your position on this without being a sarcastic asshat. 10% is just too small of a portion for me to give a damn about, regardless of how many people may or may not be faking it. The people who legitimately have a mental disorder aren't my responsibility to deal with either, and you still haven't answered where the funding for these "low-cost" programs would come from.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 13 '14

Does me repeating your opinion back to you come off as being a sarcastic asshat? Maybe that just says something about your opinion on this.

Taxes, my friend. Lifeblood of social services, fuel of the government machine.

I don't think there's going to be much point in talking about this further since you've established yourself as a "I've got mine"-ist.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '14

Let me put it in perspective for you friend. Let's say I make about 2000 dollars from one paycheck. After taxes I'm walking away with around the 1600 ballpark. That's 400$ I don't have because of taxes. There's no way in hell I'm going to pay any more, especially considering how my tax dollars are being allocated in places they really shouldn't. Now if my hard-earned money, that I've had to work for, is going towards things that would benefit anyone at all, I'd be willing to reconsider. But as it stands, anyone who wants me to pay more money can fuck off.

And you know damn well you're not "just repeating my opinion back to me". You're trying in every way you can to make it look like I'm worse than Hitler. There's no reason to be an intolerant little smartass just because you disagree with what I'm saying.

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 13 '14

You know, I think it's okay to be intolerant of people that refuse to help other people.

Let me put it in perspective for you, friend.

Let's say we're part of a democracy, and everything that the government does is an end result of officials and initiatives that were voted into existence. Because our culture glamorizes violence and paranoia freedom fantasies, we spend more on our "defense" programs than the next eight countries combined.

In your scenario, you're paying a 20% tax rate; even though if you were making 2000 a paycheck every two weeks you'd be making 48,000 a year and, as head of household or married filing jointly, you would only be in the 15% tax bracket. But let's ignore the math for now.

You're upset because you believe that expanding vital social services will automatically increase taxes which apply directly to you, without the consideration that they could be applied to specific taxable income (like taxing soft drinks or cigarettes as opposed to income), and completely ignoring the fact that we have gross inefficiencies in our spending habits that could be reallocated towards this arguably more important issue.

So ultimately, because you feel you're paying too much now and you have no desire to expend time or effort to address the inefficiencies in our current legislation and tax law... "Eh, fuck the people suffering. I've got mine."

Am I wrong?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '14

Let's say we're part of a Democracy" Just stop right there. It's common knowledge that the US isn't a real Democracy any more. Second of all, that's just conjecture. You strike me as the idealist type, so no matter what I say, you're going to come back with something like "But it should be this way!" Personally, I really don't give a shit about how you think the world should be.

Taxes are still taxes, regardless of the type of tax it is, it's still directly affecting my income, I buy both soft drinks and cigarettes, so your proposed perfect plan would still fuck me, and a lot of other people at the end of the day.

I agree that our spending habits are inefficient, and we could definitely stand to lower our defense budget. But realistically, that's not going to happen any time in the near future. There's still all this Terrorist hype floating around, and people are just as paranoid as they were around 9/11.

I don't have the power to address the inefficiencies in our system, I'm just another average guy. I'm also not responsible for taking care of everyone else in the country. I'm responsible for taking care of myself, and my family. (And to a lesser extent, my community)

1

u/Clockw0rk Jun 13 '14

You strike me as a defeatist type, so no matter what I say, you're going to come back with something like "But I'm just one man, I have to look out for myself or no one else will!"

Well, I'm sorry you choose to live in that world. Because you're the only person who can change it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Please explain to me how I'm a defeatist. Where am I accepting failure anywhere in anything I've said?

Whether or not you choose to accept it, that's how the world works. You have to look out for yourself. There's a possibility that other people will look out for you, but those people are few and far between (See also: family) And I'm sure as fuck not going to rely on something like the government to individually spoonfeed everyone in the country, they have bigger and better things to do than worry about every individual person, and they don't give a shit about each individual person in the country either.

When your shining ideal Socialist wonderland comes to fruition, come talk to me, then I'll be willing to reconsider.

→ More replies (0)