Quote:
Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.

How does he do this, exactly? This is like saying that because Christian Scientists say that quantum theory "proves" the existance of a supernatural deity, then scientists working on quantum theory help lend credibility to Christian Science. This is ad hominem nonsense.

He co-founded the Scientology anti-psychiatry and recruit organization "Citizens Commission on Human Rights", and still works with them. While his stated viewpoint is that psychiatry is misused or overused, Scientology and the CCHR both favor the obliteration of the entire science of psychiatry, in favor of Scientology dogma, which is patent nonsense.

Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.

This is a valid arguement. Can you give a specific example or two?


The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.

His reasoning behind that is the notion that the psychiatric community at large is engaged in drug pushing against the benefit and desire of its patients, which I believe to be absurd. While I'll admit that drug prescriptions for ADD probably outweigh the need for them, that's as much the fault of the parents as it is the doctors (though the doctors are certainly not without fault). In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish. They are not compelled by any legal force to continue taking them. One might make the argument that the psychiatrists are using their influence as authority figures to press their patients, but I don't believe that to be true in the vast majority of cases.

Then there's the implied notion that severely mentally ill people would be better off living their lives with rampant schizophrenia, for example. Even ignoring the fact that many (though not most) of those people constitute a potential danger to the public with unchecked schizophrenia, the notion that these people would want to live that way is completely absurd. I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.

Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.

I'm sure I could go on and on. I'm sure I could name a number of stances of his that I agree with, the legalization of drugs being a good example. My problem mostly lies in the fact that I find his reasoning consistently faulty on many levels, and, as such, trusting him as an authority is something that I won't do, and will encourage others not to do. If you want to read his arguments and then really think about what he's saying and draw your own conclusions, that's fine, but please don't take his word for it, as I think his word is worthless.

While I understand why you believed that my prior argument about him in relation to Scientology was ad hominem, and was probably stated in rather emotive language, it was not intended as such. It was simply evidence to support my claim that his credibility is suspect.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk