Brittany Spears's kids are screwed. What can we do?

[Superman]

For people who have taken even psych 101, the correlation of poverty and mental illness is 1 + 1. This correlation is so strongly established in the literature that the debate now is which came first, the poverty or the mental illness? Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up.

Psychiatry can be a wealthy profession, and they are being paid by somebody.

Clarify?

secondary

It has been a chicken-and-egg question for decades: Does the misery of poverty breed mental illness, or does the burden of mental illness cast people down into poverty? The two clearly tend to go together, but which causes which?

And this

An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October indicates that poverty causes mental illness and behavioral problems in children with removal from poverty improving their mental health.

Here too

People with low incomes and no insurance are nearly twice as likely as the general population to have psychiatric disorders, according to a study presented in the 2001 Journal of Family Practice.

For decades, researchers have known that poverty and mental illness are correlated; the lower a person's socioeconomic status, the greater his or her chances are of having some sort of mental disorder. Yet determining if one comes first - if being poor renders a person more susceptible to mental illness, or if mental illness pulls a person into poverty - is decidedly difficult and the relationship between poverty and mental health has long been assumed to be interactive.

How many more do you want? This one is too easy. There's an abundance of primary and secondary sources.

[General Brock]

You are concerned with breeding poor blood?.

I give up...

How about just shutting up until you have something to say? Native people and indians... Do you always have this much difficulty with staying on track?

As a matter of fact I do have trouble staying on a narrow-minded track.

Have you got anything useful to say other than hostile venting about trailer trash and how they shouldn't be allowed to breed and pop celebrities not even checked into your rehab facility?

[Superman]

As a matter of fact I do have trouble staying on a narrow-minded track.

If that is a genuine problem for you, then I will say sorry for being pushy about it. It's probably not your fault.

Have you got anything useful to say other than hostile venting about trailer trash and how they shouldn't be allowed to breed and pop celebrities not even checked into your rehab facility?

You can lump that pop celebrity into the 'trailer trash' category you speak of. I never said that they absolutely should not be allowed to breed.

Ah yes... We can't judge! Everyone is an individual and people are not predictable at all... How dare I? The fact that people who come in to treatment most all have chaotic and unstable families of origin... well that's a coincidence. It means nothing.

Look, when it comes to psychopathology (mental illness), it's really a matter of heredity and environment working together. A screwed up family system really allows the genetic predisposition a person may have to achieve its full potential. In mental illness, it's a particularly rough situation because people not only raise kids without proper nurturing instincts, but those kids grow up and continue the cycle.

And before you put words in my mouth, er letters on my screen, again... I never said any of these represent absolutes. There are always exceptions. It's a matter of the VAST majority.

[General Brock]

For people who have taken even psych 101, the correlation of poverty and mental illness is 1 + 1. This correlation is so strongly established that the debate now is which came first, the poverty or the mental illness? Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up.

Psychiatry can be a wealthy profession, and they are being paid by somebody.

Clarify?

Some psychiatrists charge a substantial hourlyrate. Well more than a trailer trasher could afford for results.

secondary

It has been a chicken-and-egg question for decades: Does the misery of poverty breed mental illness, or does the burden of mental illness cast people down into poverty? The two clearly tend to go together, but which causes which?

Well, it seems that rich people receive better quality treatment.

And this

An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October indicates that poverty causes mental illness and behavioral problems in children with removal from poverty improving their mental health.

Well, Britney's children are certainly removed from poverty. Mamma's job as tabloid fodder is a well paying, if undesirable job.

Here too

People with low incomes and no insurance are nearly twice as likely as the general population to have psychiatric disorders, according to a study presented in the 2001 Journal of Family Practice.

Again, mental illness hits poor people harder, and they can't get the timely treatment they need to recover.

How many more do you want? This one is too easy. There's an abundance of primary and secondary sources.

The one I want is the one that will tell me that the occurrence of psychopathy and sociopathy appears more often in poor people and includes in the sample the records of wealthy people which normally would be held in the strictest confidence by private psychiatrists paid to keep it so, as much as for their curative skills.

Thus confirming your implication that a trailer trash income level should preclude having children because such people are congenitally screwed unfit parents, not just because they can't afford them.

[Darth Wong]

Brock, you asked for sources, they have been provided. Now it's your turn to either explain what those sources did wrong or admit you're full of shit. No third option of mumbling vaguely about uncertainty and bias.

[Superman]

Brock, do you know what "psychopathy and sociopathy" actually mean?

[General Brock]

As a matter of fact I do have trouble staying on a narrow-minded track.

If that is a genuine problem for you, then I will say sorry for being pushy about it. It's probably not your fault.

Have you got anything useful to say other than hostile venting about trailer trash and how they shouldn't be allowed to breed and pop celebrities not even checked into your rehab facility?

You can lump that pop celebrity into the 'trailer trash' category you speak of. I never said that they absolutely should not be allowed to breed.

Ah yes... We can't judge! Everyone is an individual and people are not predictable at all... How dare I? The fact that people who come in to treatment most all have chaotic and unstable families of origin... well that's a coincidence. It means nothing.

Look, when it comes to psychopathology (mental illness), it's really a matter of heredity and environment working together. A screwed up family system really allows the genetic predisposition a person may have to achieve its full potential. In mental illness, it's a particularly rough situation because people not only raise kids without proper nurturing instincts, but those kids grow up and continue the cycle.

And before you put words in my mouth, er letters on my screen, again... I never said any of these represent absolutes. There are always exceptions. It's a matter of the VAST majority.

I was reading the screen, and your words. I then made an individual judgment of an individual case.

Superman wrote:

The real tragedy of the whole ridiculous situation is the fact that this white trash bitch has already had a couple of kids. I guess they're having custody battles for them now, right?

No matter which of those two idiots raises these kids, they're going to be screwed. So what should we do in a case like this?

I propose the following; we give these two kids to a motherless chimpanzee at the San Diego zoo. No matter how you look at it, they will be much better off than with either of the two retards who are trying to get them now. The chimpanzee mom will raise them as her own. They will never go hungry either, as zoo staff will always make sure they have food, and patrons will provide them with extra peanuts.

It's a win win situation.

Any other ideas?

You're right about one thing; I did use the term 'trailer trash' when you prefer the term 'white trash'. I seem to have a bug about race moreso than class and censored myself. Let me pause to flip a coin to decide which descriptor is worse.

People like you boggle the mind. Smart, knowledgeable yet without a clue.

Britney's parental family, as far as I can tell, isn't messed up. Britney's got problems, but she's not caring for her kids; they are in more stable hands than hers are just at the moment.

And you start a non-constructive thread dissing her, her kids, and white trash in general that seems crudely sympathetic to eugenics.

You can pass judgment however you want by whatever criteria you please. As will I.

[Superman]

All you are doing is showing your ignorance on this subject. You were ignorant of the fundamental fact that poverty and mental illness go hand in hand. You then say, "well this is why that is" (in a concession, I might add) despite the fact that it's a hot debate among doctoral researchers to this day. You then use "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" as if these terms are synonymous with psychopathology, only further showing your ignorance. It's sort of funny, because I think you managed to mention two disorders, maybe the only two, which are NOT strongly correlated with poorer people.

Shall I take your concession or do you have a larger hole to dig?

[General Brock]

Brock, you asked for sources, they have been provided. Now it's your turn to either explain what those sources did wrong or admit you're full of shit. No third option of mumbling vaguely about uncertainty and bias.

Source 1

Mental illness and poverty: Does one cause the other?

By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | March 8, 2005

It has been a chicken-and-egg question for decades: Does the misery of poverty breed mental illness, or does the burden of mental illness cast people down into poverty? The two clearly tend to go together, but which causes which?

This week, a Massachusetts researcher published possibly the broadest study yet on the question, examining tens of thousands of hospital records statewide to see whether patients who were hospitalized for mental illness then ''drifted down" to less affluent ZIP codes.

The study, which followed patients from 1994 through 2000, turned up surprisingly little such downward drift, said the researcher, Christopher G. Hudson, a professor at Salem State College and expert in mental health policy.

So, he said, ''the news here is that there is now increasingly strong evidence that socioeconomic status is indeed a very important dimension of mental illness, though obviously not the only dimension."

The study also highlighted the striking contrast between the state's richer and poorer communities when it comes to the rate of mental illness. It documented a rate of about 4 percent of the population with mental illness serious enough to lead to repeat hospitalizations in the richest communities, compared to about 12 percent or 13 percent in the poorest -- and those are very conservative figures, Hudson said.

Hudson acknowledged that the study, which focused on 34,000 patients who had been hospitalized at least twice, had some methodological issues. In particular, ZIP code is far from a foolproof way to determine a person's economic level. And he did not conduct diagnostic interviews with any patients.

David Duncan, a mental-health epidemiologist based in Kentucky, noted another possible flaw: When downward economic drift occurs among the mentally ill, it is believed to happen mainly before they are ever hospitalized. So, a study following them only after a first hospitalization might come too late to catch their drift, he said.

The study used powerful statistical tools to test five hypotheses about the link between mental illness and poverty, including the ''downward drift" idea. The theory that stressful economic conditions bring on mental illness was the only one that really fit the data, Hudson writes in the current issue of The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, published by the American Psychological Association.

That comes as no surprise to Deborah Belle, a psychology professor at Boston University who studies poverty-related stress.

''There are so many plausible causal links between poverty and mental illness, particularly depression, which I know best," she said.

Among them: Poor people are likelier to face threatening, humiliating and entrapping life events, she said. Poverty can undermine their self-image and social connections, and leave them feeling deprived of control over the most basic aspects of their lives.

Hudson said that his findings jibed with his own experience as a community organizer and social worker among the demoralized poor in Chicago and on two Indian reservations. Their circumstances, he said, were like ''straightjackets, especially suited to induce mental breakdown."

Ever since a seminal study was conducted in 1930s Chicago, researchers have documented the tendency for poverty and mental illness to go hand in hand.

But they continue to dispute which causes which, and the answer may vary depending on the mental illness. Schizophrenia, which is often highly debilitating, may be more likely than other diseases to cause downward drift, for example. Depression and anxiety disorders may be likelier than other diseases to be exacerbated by poverty.

Hudson's study found that, for all types of mental illness, the data best fit the model of poverty as a cause rather than a result, but he did see some downward drift for schizophrenics, he said.

Asked whether his study translated into policy advice, he said that it showed how important it was for states to allocate mental health funding to towns based not simply on population -- as happens in many places -- but on the level of illness. It also suggests the need for more mental-health outreach in poor communities, and for programs linking mental health services with help obtaining jobs, housing and education, he said.

Hudson does not deny that biology and heredity play a role in mental illness; even the richest towns have a baseline level of mental illness that likely reflects that biological factor, he said. Other environmental factors like troubled families and life trauma are also linked to mental illness.

''We know that economic circumstances, the lack of supports, and the stresses that people are subject to sometimes overtax their cognitive and emotional and mental abilities."

And broadly speaking, he said, his study suggests that ''poverty is at least as important as innate or biological factors."

Carey Goldberg can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

The study concludes that poverty exacerbates mental illness and is most likely a cause at least as important as innate biological factors, and that certain types of disorders can lead to a decline in economic status.

Methodological flaws include using ZIP codes to determine economic level and a lack of diagnostic interviews with patients.

I would also add that state hospitals are where people who can't afford private clinics and rehab go, meaning upper economic levels will not be represented at all.

Nothing here to indicate that the predisposition to mental illness itself is related to being white trash, only that being impoverished is one of many stressors that will bring out the predisposition. Nothing to link heredity to poverty. Strong indication that being wealthy can keep one from becoming a recorded mental stat.

Britney is rich and still messed up, despite coming from a middle class background that offered decent economic security.

Source 2

Poverty Causes Mental Illness and Behavioral Problems, North Carolina Study Shows

(November 27, 2003) An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October indicates that poverty causes mental illness and behavioral problems in children with removal from poverty improving their mental health.

Since 1993, Jane Costello of the Duke University Medical School and her co-workers studied the mental health of 1400 children in rural North Carolina. Halfway through the project, a gambling casino opened on the reservation where some of the children lived, and the casino began distributing its profits to members of the tribe. Before the casino payments began, children in poor families had many more behavioral problems than children in families that were out of poverty, including delinquency, violence, disobedience and truancy. The payments—approximately $6,000 per family—were enough to move some families out of poverty, and in those families children’s mental health problems declined to levels of never-poor families. A similar improvement was noted in non-Indian children whose families moved out of poverty during the period.

This study is evidence that poverty causes mental illness and behavioral problems. An alternative theory is that mental illness causes poverty. This latter, while true for some, can be used as a justification for inaction to reduce poverty. "Nothing we can do will help--they're crazy."

E. Jane Costello, Scott N. Compton, Gordon Keeler, and Adrian Angold. “Relationships Between Poverty and Psychopathology: A Natural Experiment.” JAMA. 2003; 290:2003-2029. Abstract

Again, poverty 'causes' mental illness by introducing stress. Nothing to indicate that precursors would not exist in a wealthier demographic. Nothing to link heredity to poverty. Strong indication that being wealthy can keep one from becoming a recorded mental stat, because it removes a source of stress. Doesn't touch on the stress of being papparnazi bait.

Source 3

Poverty Increases Risk for Mental Illness
From Cathleen Henning Fenton,

Risk doubled for low-income, uninsured populations
People with low incomes and no insurance are nearly twice as likely as the general population to have psychiatric disorders, according to a study presented in the 2001 Journal of Family Practice. Researchers in Colorado found that the quality of life could be improved if mental health care were provided in primary care settings.

The researchers conducted the study at the Marillac Clinic in Grand Junction, CO. The clinic serves people with no health insurance and with incomes less than 150% of the federal poverty level only. During April and May 1999, 500 patients participated in the study which consisted of completing questionnaires. These questionnaires were then compared with similar questionnaires from a sample of 3000 patients from general primary care settings.

The results of the study showed significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders for the participants at the Marillac Clinic (51% vs 28%).
Sponsored Links

Counsellor in CalgaryAssessment, depression, stress, anger, addiction, anxiety, coupleswww.psychologysbest.ca

Panic AttacksA new trick to stop panic attacks in seconds.PanicAway.com

Immediate Anxiety ReliefNatural remedy stops panic attacks and anxiety disorders in minutes.Seredyn.com
Additionally, these patients showed lower functional status, increased disability days and increased physician visits. The rates of psychiatric disorders were divided into the following categories:

Mood Disorders
Low-Income, Uninsured Population: 33% | General Population 16%

Anxiety Disorders
Low-Income, Uninsured Population: 36% | General Population 11%

Alcohol Abuse
Low-Income, Uninsured Population: 17% | General Population 7%

Eating Disorders
Low-Income, Uninsured Population: 10% | General Population 7%

As significant as these findings are, the researchers feel that they are, in fact, conservative numbers. The researchers did not test for all psychiatric disorders, including dysthymia, non-alcohol substance abuse, bipolar disorder, etc.

As part of the study, the researchers also asked participants how they would like to be treated for psychiatric disorders. Almost all of the participants (90%) wanted medical providers and mental health providers to work together regarding the patients' health care.

As a result of the study, the researchers have been given 4-year grants to change the way psychiatric disorders are treated at the Marillac Clinic. The clinic will hire counselors and case managers, and will use a model of family health care that emphasizes communication between medical and mental health providers.

The researchers point out that psychiatric disorders may lead to higher rates of disability which then lead to futher poverty. Medical illnesses may be complicated and even caused by psychiatric disorders. Self-care and well-being may decrease as a psychiatric disorder goes untreated. Low-income, uninsured patients want help. Primary care facilities can give them that help by assessing for psychiatric problems, helping patients find proper psychiatric treatment, and keeping communication open with mental health providers.

Reference: Mauksch LB, Tucker SM, Katon WJ, Russo J, Cameron J, Walker E, Spitzer R (2001), Mental illness, functional impairment, and patient preferences for collaborative care in an uninsured, primary care population. J Fam Pract 50(1).

Again, no indication that being in an upper economic demographic precludes having predisposition to mental illness, only that it will result it better care if identified where recorded, and that the absence of a source of stress will result in better mental health.

The studies don't deal with antisocial disorders. Only one may have touched on effects on parenting ability; aboriginal delinquency goes down as income and job opportunities go up.

Britney's kids will have plenty of money if they stay with their mother.

Poverty may exacerbate an existing problem and cause it to manifest, but is also one of many sources of stress that may do so.

Also, antisocial disorders don't preclude being able to function passably in society, so there is no reason short of committing criminal offenses for a sufferer to seek diagnosis and treatment.

The studies don't deal with the stress of being a wealthy celebrity, either.

They do not indicate that a predisposition to antisocial behavior isn't evenly distributed in the general population, or even that wealth and education mitigate their expression.

Only expressed cases from a handful of common disorders were sampled from what appear to be publicly funded facilities. If Britney went for treatment for any of them at a private facility out of her own pocket, she would not figure in any such study.

They do tell me that Britney's kids are better off with the parent with more money if they have a predisposition to the mental illnesses covered.

[General Brock]

All you are doing is showing your ignorance on this subject. You were ignorant of the fundamental fact that poverty and mental illness go hand in hand. You then say, "well this is why that is" (in a concession, I might add) despite the fact that it's a hot debate among doctoral researchers to this day. You then use "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" as if these terms are synonymous with psychopathology, only further showing your ignorance. It's sort of funny, because I think you managed to mention two disorders, maybe the only two, which are NOT strongly correlated with poorer people.

Shall I take your concession or do you have a larger hole to dig?

As far as I'm concerned the chicken and egg question is not resolved.

Poverty brings out a pre-existing condition because it introduces psychological stress. D'uh. Thats the basis for your contention that Britney is an unfit parent and her kids are better off with a lower primate in a zoo?

If poverty and mental illness go hand in hand, why is rich Britney a source of ire for you? Is it because she disproves the theory? As far as I can tell, the only illness she qualifies for is a post-natal mood disorder. Lots of women get that, and they don't have to be white trash.

I'm not conceding anything to your classist elitist attitude. Why are you even in the health care profession? You certainly don't have the heart for it.

[Superman]

Methodological flaws include using ZIP codes to determine economic level and a lack of diagnostic interviews with patients.

No, that's not how.

This week, a Massachusetts researcher published possibly the broadest study yet on the question, examining tens of thousands of hospital records statewide to see whether patients who were hospitalized for mental illness then ''drifted down" to less affluent ZIP codes.

They followed up to see where they went. You're implying that they used some type of random cluster sampling (which is a good method actually), but it's not what happened. Again, research 101...

I would also add that state hospitals are where people who can't afford private clinics and rehab go, meaning upper economic levels will not be represented at all.

Nothing here to indicate that the predisposition to mental illness itself is related to being white trash, only that being impoverished is one of many stressors that will bring out the predisposition. Nothing to link heredity to poverty. Strong indication that being wealthy can keep one from becoming a recorded mental stat.

Britney is rich and still messed up, despite coming from a middle class background that offered decent economic security.

Again, poverty 'causes' mental illness by introducing stress. Nothing to indicate that precursors would not exist in a wealthier demographic. Nothing to link heredity to poverty. Strong indication that being wealthy can keep one from becoming a recorded mental stat, because it removes a source of stress. Doesn't touch on the stress of being papparnazi bait.

Strawman. Red Herring. Being an idiot.

Wow, I'm starting to feel D Wong's frustration toward creationists... Let's move the goalposts a little further down, shall we?

Do you not understand WHAT I FUCKING SAID? I never said anything about causation, as the exact nature is still debated to this very day! You think you know the real answer here? Great. Go present your evidence to the very researchers who can't determine it. I'd bet they're a lot smarter than you... My point WASN'T EVEN ABOUT CAUSALITY. Go back to first year research class, ok?

Again, no indication that being in an upper economic demographic precludes having predisposition to mental illness, only that it will result it better care if identified where recorded, and that the absence of a source of stress will result in better mental health.

Who are you arguing against? Me?

The studies don't deal with antisocial disorders. Only one may have touched on effects on parenting ability; aboriginal delinquency goes down as income and job opportunities go up.

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, YOU FUCKING STRAWMANNING IDIOT.

Here, let's define it.

According the the DSM IV:

Diagnostic criteria

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

You are clearly confusing the specific diagnosis of psychopathy, sociopathy, and antisocial personality disorder with a broad category of mental illness. Either learn what you're talking about or, again, shut the fuck up. The mental illnesse associated with poverty typically has to do with addiction, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder... It isn't just APD.

ADP is typically a Scott Peterson type. He may be a bit more sophisticated that some, but he's it.

Britney's kids will have plenty of money if they stay with their mother.

Red Herring. We're talking about correlations between poverty and mental illness. You denied this, back peddled, and now you're manically blabbering.

Money does not fix anything for a child if the parent is a chaotic screwball. Brittany is a case of a screwball obtaining money, thus sort of 'speeding up' her demise from addiction and chaos. In the case of her kids, disease can be, in part, the result of parental abuse or neglect, and the damage has probably already been done.

Poverty may exacerbate an existing problem and cause it to manifest, but is also one of many sources of stress that may do so.

Also, antisocial disorders don't preclude being able to function passably in society, so there is no reason short of committing criminal offenses for a sufferer to seek diagnosis and treatment.

The studies don't deal with the stress of being a wealthy celebrity, either.

They do not indicate that a predisposition to antisocial behavior isn't evenly distributed in the general population, or even that wealth and education mitigate their expression.

Only expressed cases from a handful of common disorders were sampled from what appear to be publicly funded facilities. If Britney went for treatment for any of them at a private facility out of her own pocket, she would not figure in any such study.

They do tell me that Britney's kids are better off with the parent with more money if they have a predisposition to the mental illnesses covered.

How do you debate someone who hasn't learned the difference between a correlational study, and an experimental one, yet acts like he has a fucking clue? Can someone tell me?

[Superman]

As far as I'm concerned the chicken and egg question is not resolved.

Thank you for conceding my point, Captain Obvious. Next time, you might want to realize that saying what you're opponent has been saying for the last two pages isn't exactly the way to debate. At any rate, you're strawmanning again.

Poverty brings out a pre-existing condition because it introduces psychological stress. D'uh. Thats the basis for your contention that Britney is an unfit parent and her kids are better off with a lower primate in a zoo?

Oh, that's why? Because of the psychological stress? Ohhhhh... Why the fuck did I spend all that money on textbooks! Well fuck me! I should have talked to you!!!! The fucking little kid who makes shit up as he argues along, knowing nothing actually... Damn, why did I do that?

And a lower primate in a zoo would keep a close watch on her offspring. Brittany is a drug addicted screwball.

If poverty and mental illness go hand in hand, why is rich Britney a source of ire for you? Is it because she disproves the theory? As far as I can tell, the only illness she qualifies for is a post-natal mood disorder. Lots of women get that, and they don't have to be white trash.

Again, I never said that poor white trash are exclusively the people who breed like rabbits, screw them up, then have society clean up the mess. They're just 98% of the mess. And I take back the Captain Obvious part... You're clearly Captain Strawman. We've gone in this circle now, what... five times?

"Hey Superman, you said ONLY poor white trash people get mental illness!"

"Scroll up. Read what I wrote. Remember this? -->

And before you put words in my mouth, er letters on my screen, again... I never said any of these represent absolutes. There are always exceptions. It's a matter of the VAST majority.

And scroll back to where I clarified twice more."

"Nuh uh! Brittany's rich! You're disproved!"



By the way Brock, you ever considered becoming a fundie? You have the lack of logic part down pretty well...

I'm not conceding anything to your classist elitist attitude. Why are you even in the health care profession? You certainly don't have the heart for it.

You don't have to concede. You lost.

It takes more than heart, it also takes having a fucking brain. I feel sorry for the kids who are subjugated to these parents. I feel sorry for the parents who perpetuate their abusive backgrounds too, but that doesn't excuse them from reality. I feel sorry for people in prison as well; their acting out and criminal behavior probably has much to do with their crappy backgrounds, but they still have to pay for their actions.

Men who target young children for molestation typically do so because this was done to them as children. The drive center of their libido was 'tweaked,' and they suffer from a compulsion to have sex with kids. On one level, of course you feel sorry for them, on another, you realize it's probably too late and try to keep everyone else out of the way of the collateral damage.

[General Brock]

As far as I'm concerned the chicken and egg question is not resolved.

Thank you for conceding my point, Captain Obvious. Next time, you might want to realize that saying what you're opponent has been saying for the last two pages isn't exactly the way to debate. At any rate, you're strawmanning again.

Poverty brings out a pre-existing condition because it introduces psychological stress. D'uh. Thats the basis for your contention that Britney is an unfit parent and her kids are better off with a lower primate in a zoo?

How old are you, 12?

If poverty and mental illness go hand in hand, why is rich Britney a source of ire for you? Is it because she disproves the theory? As far as I can tell, the only illness she qualifies for is a post-natal mood disorder. Lots of women get that, and they don't have to be white trash.

Again, I never said that poor white trash are exclusively the people who breed like rabbits, screw them up, then have society clean up the mess. They're just 98% of the mess. And I take back the Captain Obvious part... You're clearly Captain Strawman.

I'm not conceding anything to your classist elitist attitude. Why are you even in the health care profession? You certainly don't have the heart for it.

You don't have to concede. You lost.

It takes more than heart, it also takes having a fucking brain. I feel sorry for the kids who are subjugated to these parents. I feel sorry for the parents who perpetuate their abusive backgrounds too, but that doesn't excuse them from reality. I feel sorry for people in prison as well; their acting out and criminal behavior probably has much to do with their crappy backgrounds, but they still have to pay for their actions.

Men who target young children for molestation typically do so because this was done to them as children. The drive center of their libido was 'tweaked,' and they suffer from a compulsion to have sex with kids. On one level, of course you feel sorry for them, on another, you realize it's probably too late and try to keep everyone else out of the way of the collateral damage.

You aren't much better than a civil engineering bureaucrat who won't approve upgrading a deadly road or crossing because the number of kills fall just under the X:$ deaths a year to justify the expense. Then demands a raise and praise for noble contributions to human well-being, while having the temerity to chastise critics for not having a degree in statistical analysis. While playing office politics to keep a more qualified replacement down.

You were contending that idiots like white trash shouldn't be allowed to breed, because they have a mental illness because they are poor, or because their poverty may exacerbate the predisposition to an illness. You can say you are as sorry as you want for that tragic vast majority, but in the context of you posts that's only the echo of a hollow heart and an empty head full of facts without meaning.

I said, essentially, you were condemning people without caring if they had the actual predisposition or not. Your definition of 'white trash' or 'idiots' is meaningless and based on class prejudice as much as personal disgust at the people you supposedly are to help day-to-day. Furthermore, you cloak this crude unworkable eugenics as a serious exercise in psychopathology.

You say that idiots are breeding out of control; who's an ethical eunuch like you to judge whose worthy and who's not? Because you keep up with the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria? Because you know the difference between a correlational study and an experimental study? You don't even care for the point of the medical science; diagnose, treat, understand so as to mitigate harm and possibly cure; not use it as the springboard for sick jokes and justify a personal prejudice.

A 12-year-old could discern the difference between gallows humour on a bad situation and deliberate indulgence of cruelty, even if they can't make a sophisticated response. I don't need to know what a rhetorical strawman is to decide you are one sick puppy in the traditional sense of the word 'sick'.

Scoring cheap, nonsensical technical debating points based on your 101 knowledge of psychiatry to justify an unprincipled position and attitude only makes it worse. A moral moron like you won't convince me that I'm not essentially correct, even if my ability to use the language of the social sciences is limited. You may as well be mocking an aboriginal eloquent in his native tongue for pidgin english.

You parade your bigotry, use mimicry of science to embrace an amoral position that you find personally gratifying and affirming, and expect some people not to notice something is extremely amiss? I don't understand phrenology as well as I do the older classifications of ASPDs, but I can tell an abuse of science and the scientific method when I see it.

[Superman]

Concession accepted.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, Brock thinks that if the article explains why poverty is linked to mental illness, then it's not really linked to mental illness. Apparently, if poverty is only a "stressor" which interacts with a "predisposition" toward mental illness, then that is not a connection at all. Never mind the fact that you could say the exact same thing about, say, PTSD. What an evasive little fuckwad.

Time for a Senate hearing.

[Superman]

It sort of reminds me of "Dr." Dino's 250,000 dollar prize. You have to prove his strawman version of evolution to get it.

[General Brock]

In other words, Brock thinks that if the article explains why poverty is linked to mental illness, then it's not really linked to mental illness. Apparently, if poverty is only a "stressor" which interacts with a "predisposition" toward mental illness, then that is not a connection at all. Never mind the fact that you could say the exact same thing about, say, PTSD. What an evasive little fuckwad.

Time for a Senate hearing.

It is a connection, but people not facing poverty face other stresses.

Nothing in Superman's examples dealt with the demographic distribution of personality disorders and the tendency to confuse one with the other.

It also clear I'm too angry to think straight.

For once I'm taking the easy way out. The Senate punishment should be a permanent ban for myself. I'm not done yet, but I sure should be.

[Darth Wong]

You're a fucking twat. So full of arrogance and pride that you'd rather be banned than admit a mistake.

[General Brock]

You're a fucking twat. So full of arrogance and pride that you'd rather be banned than admit a mistake.

I've made several mistakes; I sense them but can't see them. Even now, I refuse to admit wrong, because somewhere in there I think something was right. The moment my temper kicks in, the I.Q. drops like a stone. Seeing nothing but a red haze is all that matters. You can call it arrogance or pride, or whatever, but rage doesn't care. It simply is.

The meaness of this thread is offensive, repugnant in a way that got to me, unexpectedly. I'm not entirely sure why, because that requires a level of clear thought I am not presently capable of. Whatever Britney's problems are, she appears to have enough sense to stay away from her kids and not drag them along with her.

I can't learn. I'm not making the time to. This is a problem, my problem, not the board's, and banning is the only appropriate solution.

Even if I calm down enough to work it through, I won't remember the lessons in time prevent another meltdown if something sets me off. I've done this before. I will certainly do it again.

I'm sorry for failing my position and spirit of the name I hoped to live up to, and failing the standards of the board and its members. I have to apologize for that.

There is a line, however, where apologies fix nothing and mean nothing. I've crossed it. Banning will ensure it never happens again and serve as a reminder to others it should never happen in the first place.

[Lord Zentei]

I've made several mistakes; I sense them but can't see them. Even now, I refuse to admit wrong, because somewhere in there I think something was right.

Wait... you know that you have made mistakes, but refuse to admit that you are wrong? Sure, something may have been right in there, that doesn't eliminate the mistakes, though, does it?

Why are you taking this course of action? Seriously, what's the point of it?

[General Brock]

I've made several mistakes; I sense them but can't see them. Even now, I refuse to admit wrong, because somewhere in there I think something was right.

Wait... you know that you have made mistakes, but refuse to admit that you are wrong? Sure, something may have been right in there, that doesn't eliminate the mistakes, though, does it?

Why are you taking this course of action? Seriously, what's the point of it?

Limbic responses don't seem to work well in a debate. They only work physical situations, and even then only through trained techniques. I'm not trained in debate. Sometimes I can get away with a passioned response, because I remember just enough about a subject and my limits within it. I can say what I need to say, sometimes. Also, debate as I think I see it sometimes practiced; the winning and scoring of points rather than illuminating an issue, doesn't sit well. Its just not my sport. When a commentary sets off something beyond discussion, sometimes the notion of debate completely deserts me.

I don't follow the celebrity soap operas apart from surfing into headlines and critiques of the tabloid media. So, taking a real woman's kids and throwing them to zoo chimpanzees for gawkers to throw peanuts at, then sewing her vagina shut, isn't humour I'm even remotely preconditioned to laugh at. Being hectored down to on personality and mood disorders by the poster making a misogynistic joke and being expected to laugh along, add to that my perception of a racist eugenics subtext, add to that he actually works in health care and should understand something of the issues, was too much. Add to that a lot of other issues rattling in my head. I lost any perspective of distance and restraint.

My on-and-off amateur following of personality disorders in relation to society demanded some response. I vaguely realized the dominoes were tipping, and coherently focusing on a target was impossible. I still didn't back off. I lost my temper, lashed out heedless of reason, and couldn't do a thing about it, though I tried to impose some self-moderation. My opposition to a misanthropic treatment of difficult human situations was the right position to take, even though I turned out to be the absolutely wrong person to try and to hold it.

I concede nothing except my own ineptitude. It is an unacceptable shame to be a liability to a worthy position. I wasn't debating, I was a ranting idiot rabid to tear out the throat of another. A cooling off period is in order, and more than that. Sure, people make mistakes and aren't perfect. Still, there must be standards.

It is pride motivating me now. I don't want another meltdown to happen again, my posting history and a realistic self-assessment tells me it will. For the good of the board, half-ways consistent quality posters are important, and I can't deliver and won't take a hint when fired stupid. A permanent ban is inevitable at some point, and non-board life concerns press. As such, that ban may as well happen now as later.

[mr friendly guy]

Brock is employing a rather obvious fallacy, in which he believes that the existence of shitty upper-class brats somehow disproves the phenomenon of ignorant redneck trailer-trash. His logic looks like this:

"If any members of group A exhibit behaviour X, then you cannot associate behaviour X with group B".

Isn't this "denying the antecedent" fallacy.

[Superman]

I don't follow the celebrity soap operas apart from surfing into headlines and critiques of the tabloid media. So, taking a real woman's kids and throwing them to zoo chimpanzees for gawkers to throw peanuts at, then sewing her vagina shut, isn't humour I'm even remotely preconditioned to laugh at.

Then lighten the fuck up. I don't crack jokes to tip toe around your moronic standards.

Being hectored down to on personality and mood disorders by the poster making a misogynistic joke and being expected to laugh along, add to that my perception of a racist eugenics subtext, add to that he actually works in health care and should understand something of the issues, was too much. Add to that a lot of other issues rattling in my head. I lost any perspective of distance and restraint.

What I said was not some type of schematic. You're a little too stuck in your own head, and you're intellectualizing where none is required. If you have this much trouble controlling your feelings, go get on some mood stabilizers.

My on-and-off amateur following of personality disorders in relation to society demanded some response. I vaguely realized the dominoes were tipping, and coherently focusing on a target was impossible. I still didn't back off. I lost my temper, lashed out heedless of reason, and couldn't do a thing about it, though I tried to impose some self-moderation. My opposition to a misanthropic treatment of difficult human situations was the right position to take, even though I turned out to be the absolutely wrong person to try and to hold it.

Again, if you have this much trouble controlling your emotions, go get some help. I'm not saying this to degrade you; I'm saying this because you might find some relief.

It is pride motivating me now. I don't want another meltdown to happen again, my posting history and a realistic self-assessment tells me it will. For the good of the board, half-ways consistent quality posters are important, and I can't deliver and won't take a hint when fired stupid. A permanent ban is inevitable at some point, and non-board life concerns press. As such, that ban may as well happen now as later.

I'm going to assume you're being honest, and not just trying to impress people here. I say that because issues like this are not uncommon (then again, maybe I'm wrong and you are trying to impress the powers that be). If you're prone to these episodes elevated moods, and probably also depression, why not go get some help? You don't even have to seek out any type of specialist; your family physician can make an appropriate determination as to whether you might benefit from some type of treatment. This isn't a personal attack on you, or an attempt to 'label' you, it's just a valid question to think about.

Would you rather just continue these patterns of cyclical emotional outbursts that you speak of, or would you rather have some control and relief? Seems to me like this behavior might not be working too well for you. You've already come close to getting booted.

[Darth Wong]

Limbic responses don't seem to work well in a debate. They only work physical situations, and even then only through trained techniques. I'm not trained in debate. Sometimes I can get away with a passioned response, because I remember just enough about a subject and my limits within it. I can say what I need to say, sometimes. Also, debate as I think I see it sometimes practiced; the winning and scoring of points rather than illuminating an issue, doesn't sit well. Its just not my sport. When a commentary sets off something beyond discussion, sometimes the notion of debate completely deserts me.

I don't follow the celebrity soap operas apart from surfing into headlines and critiques of the tabloid media. So, taking a real woman's kids and throwing them to zoo chimpanzees for gawkers to throw peanuts at, then sewing her vagina shut, isn't humour I'm even remotely preconditioned to laugh at. Being hectored down to on personality and mood disorders by the poster making a misogynistic joke and being expected to laugh along, add to that my perception of a racist eugenics subtext, add to that he actually works in health care and should understand something of the issues, was too much. Add to that a lot of other issues rattling in my head. I lost any perspective of distance and restraint.

My on-and-off amateur following of personality disorders in relation to society demanded some response. I vaguely realized the dominoes were tipping, and coherently focusing on a target was impossible. I still didn't back off. I lost my temper, lashed out heedless of reason, and couldn't do a thing about it, though I tried to impose some self-moderation. My opposition to a misanthropic treatment of difficult human situations was the right position to take, even though I turned out to be the absolutely wrong person to try and to hold it.

I concede nothing except my own ineptitude. It is an unacceptable shame to be a liability to a worthy position. I wasn't debating, I was a ranting idiot rabid to tear out the throat of another. A cooling off period is in order, and more than that. Sure, people make mistakes and aren't perfect. Still, there must be standards.

It is pride motivating me now. I don't want another meltdown to happen again, my posting history and a realistic self-assessment tells me it will. For the good of the board, half-ways consistent quality posters are important, and I can't deliver and won't take a hint when fired stupid. A permanent ban is inevitable at some point, and non-board life concerns press. As such, that ban may as well happen now as later.

You still don't get it, do you? This is a simple matter of you saying something that was shown to be factually wrong, and then refusing to admit it. All of your supercilious soapbox bullshit, passive/aggressive attacks (which continue right up into your last post, asshole), and emotive bullshit have nothing to do with that.

[Superman]

Well, I said my piece...

That's like my calling card, you know. I reach out my hand, and try to appeal to the innate goodness in all people. Like Batman reaching to Mr Freeze, I try to find that one molecule of humanity that's left... I then smile, and slowly nod as the person rises up... But then I realize there's nothing there and say 'fuck it.'

*sits back to watch Darwin in action*