.Susan
>>Other than the fact that you hate psychiatry and science, I don't see what
>>your problem is here. Shall we not diagnose and treat people who are ill?
>>Should we just take schizophrenics off their meds and stuff them into
>>padded rooms?
Hi Susan,
I don't know the best treatment for mental illness. And because I don't
know, I would be reluctant to impose any treatment upon anyone. If some
mental patients say drugs do them more harm than good, I would be more
inclined to listen to them than to the drug companies. I have no objection to
those who find drugs helpful, taking them. I am a little horrified at drugs,
with no convincing long-term evidence of benefits, being given to children
because teachers find them difficult.
I don't know the explanation for the diversity of life. I find it impossible
to accept the Neo Darwinist explanation merely because I don't know any
better explanation. I have no objection to other people believing in neo
Darwinism. I object to having it imposed upon me (or school children) as
"scientific truth".
In an exchange with Steve, Steve said:
Steve:
>>Why I am opposed to evolution is because I don't think its *true*.
Susan:
>you *wish* it weren't true
and
>If I know the answers, I don't bother to ask the questions. I'm still
>curious why you sound so hopeful that there might not be a connection
>between HIV and AIDS. It really sounds like you don't *want* there to be a
>connection. I'm curious why.
Bertvan:
I doubt Steve *wishes* one way or the other about AIDS or evolution. It is
merely what he believes. (He says himself, he is still open minded on the
subject of AIDS.) You seem to believe anyone who disagrees with you has some
unterior motive, is stupid, or indulging in wishful thinking. There is no
room for legitimate disagreement, is there? Is it comforting to be so
certain of all the answers?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 17:59:43 EST