Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 769140

Shown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Short post about the injustice of my block!

Posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 10:06:39

Hi, I think my block was unjust for the following reaons:

I was given one warning about not making generalizations. *Note* I did not argue with this warning as the post may indeed have been a generalization.

The second post I made, I was blocked for.

Here is the comment I was blocked for:

---------------------

> I agree. There was no harm intended. I would >say that a very high proportion of patients who >have discontinued SSRI's feel that there sexual >function has been altered in some way.

---------------------

I don't think this is a generalization at all. Notice, I used the words "I would say" at the beginning of the phrase. I did this for the express purpose of making this a subjective opinion, and not a generalization.

In this post, I did not say "everbody who uses SSRI's will have permanant sexual side effects"

I also used the word "feel that". Ie, these SSRI's users "feel that" their sexual function has been altered. This is opposed to saying that SSRI users "have been" damaged.

I don't know why this was called a generalization at all.

Read the sentence for yourself. How can this not be taken as a statement of opinion?

Linkadge

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!

Posted by Sigismund on July 12, 2007, at 16:12:09

In reply to Short post about the injustice of my block!, posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 10:06:39

How come I can generalise on Politics, Social, and Writing?

Because there are no treatment (and also profit) issues that apply there.

I agree, Link.
As far as I could see you were blocked for an opinion (shared by many here).

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!

Posted by adelaide curtis on July 12, 2007, at 16:15:34

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!, posted by Sigismund on July 12, 2007, at 16:12:09

i think you should be compensated...
you should get to block any 1 poster for 1 week :)

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » adelaide curtis

Posted by Phillipa on July 12, 2007, at 22:59:53

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!, posted by adelaide curtis on July 12, 2007, at 16:15:34

Hey that's a great new idea. Love Phillipa

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!

Posted by mike lynch on July 12, 2007, at 23:14:37

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » adelaide curtis, posted by Phillipa on July 12, 2007, at 22:59:53

It is of my subjective opinion that the blocking system is something in which that I do not agree with very much.

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » Sigismund

Posted by confuzyq on July 13, 2007, at 6:10:10

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block!, posted by Sigismund on July 12, 2007, at 16:12:09

I would have thought that generalizing *is* one of the main reasons people have gotten blocked on politics. And on social... To say everyone loves or hates chocolate or football just doesn't stand to impact anyone's mental health or course of treatment the same way meds generalizations could... This isn't a comment about Linkadge's situation at all, just wanted to say that from what I have seen, I don't think generalizations about "substantive" matters are considered ok anywhere here.

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » confuzyq

Posted by Sigismund on July 13, 2007, at 19:33:58

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » Sigismund, posted by confuzyq on July 13, 2007, at 6:10:10

I dunno. People get blocked on Politics when they say things deemed to be insulting to (or attacks upon) our leaders. I can think of a few examples of that. Whereas on Admin, I said once that national character was the main divide on Babble, which is quite a generalisation, and didn't get blocked or PBCd or PBSd for it.

 

Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » Sigismund

Posted by confuzyq on July 14, 2007, at 8:54:10

In reply to Re: Short post about the injustice of my block! » confuzyq, posted by Sigismund on July 13, 2007, at 19:33:58

Yup true, there's a lot of variance. Which I guess brings us full circle back to why we end up talking about the stuff we do on Admin.

> I dunno. People get blocked on Politics when they say things deemed to be insulting to (or attacks upon) our leaders. I can think of a few examples of that. Whereas on Admin, I said once that national character was the main divide on Babble, which is quite a generalisation, and didn't get blocked or PBCd or PBSd for it.

 

Re: subjective opinions

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2007, at 18:44:12

In reply to Short post about the injustice of my block!, posted by linkadge on July 12, 2007, at 10:06:39

> > I would say that a very high proportion of patients who have discontinued SSRI's feel that there sexual function has been altered in some way.
>
> I don't think this is a generalization at all. Notice, I used the words "I would say" at the beginning of the phrase. I did this for the express purpose of making this a subjective opinion, and not a generalization.
>
> In this post, I did not say "everbody who uses SSRI's will have permanant sexual side effects"
>
> I also used the word "feel that". Ie, these SSRI's users "feel that" their sexual function has been altered. This is opposed to saying that SSRI users "have been" damaged.

Thanks for making it more subjective. But I think Racer thought "a very high proportion" was an exaggeration, and I support her judgment.

FYI, examples of even more clearly subjective opinions would include:

> I have discontinued SSRI's, and I feel that my sexual function has been altered in some way.

> I saw a report that x% of patients who have discontinued SSRI's feel that there sexual function has been altered in some way, and I think x is a very high proportion.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: subjective opinions » Dr. Bob

Posted by linkadge on July 16, 2007, at 20:05:35

In reply to Re: subjective opinions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2007, at 18:44:12

>Thanks for making it more subjective. But I >think Racer thought "a very high proportion" was >an exaggeration, and I support her judgment.

Although it is indeed only my own *personal hunch* that a very high proportion of ex SSRI users will suffer some degree of residual sexual functioning problems after SSRI discontinuation, I will, in the future, try to substatiate similar opinions with more contrete study data.


Linkadge

 

Re: subjective opinions

Posted by linkadge on July 16, 2007, at 20:11:21

In reply to Re: subjective opinions, posted by Dr. Bob on July 16, 2007, at 18:44:12

Accoding to the wikipedia article and the contained study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_SSRI_Sexual_Dysfunction

"One study in which patients with SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction were switched to the dopaminergic antidepressant amineptine, 55% still had at least some type of sexual dysfunction after six months compared to 4% in the control group treated with amineptine alone[4]."

Here is the reference study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10380144


Linkadge

 

Re: subjective opinions

Posted by Sigismund on July 17, 2007, at 15:10:50

In reply to Re: subjective opinions, posted by linkadge on July 16, 2007, at 20:11:21

>One study in which patients with SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction were switched to the dopaminergic antidepressant amineptine, 55% still had at least some type of sexual dysfunction after six months compared to 4% in the control group treated with amineptine alone[4]."

Clearly that is why amineptine is illegal.

 

Re: thanks (nm) » linkadge

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2007, at 21:02:01

In reply to Re: subjective opinions » Dr. Bob, posted by linkadge on July 16, 2007, at 20:05:35

 

Re: subjective opinions » Sigismund

Posted by linkadge on July 18, 2007, at 11:02:38

In reply to Re: subjective opinions, posted by Sigismund on July 17, 2007, at 15:10:50

Why, because it doesn't cause sexual dysfunction (??)

Linkadge

 

Re: subjective opinions » linkadge

Posted by Sigismund on July 18, 2007, at 14:58:23

In reply to Re: subjective opinions » Sigismund, posted by linkadge on July 18, 2007, at 11:02:38

Yes, well, maybe I'm being cynical, but you don't want to encourage drug abuse.

 

Re: subjective opinions » Sigismund

Posted by linkadge on July 18, 2007, at 21:01:59

In reply to Re: subjective opinions » linkadge, posted by Sigismund on July 18, 2007, at 14:58:23

I completely agree with you. There were/are probably hundreds of very promising potential antidepressant compounds that never make it past stage a, because some animal model detects a hint of possable abuse potential.

I think depression is a serious disease.

Why is it that severe risks can be taken with the treatment of many other serios illnesses but not depression?

Why is it "ok" for chemotherapy (for instance) to have potential side effects so disasterous and yet still be approved as a treatment?

It is because chemotherapy is lifesaving.

Yet when it comes to depression. One cannot risk a "side effect" of euphoria? No doubt the removal of amineptine prompted a lapse back into depression of those unresponsive to other agents.
There may have been many suicides as a result of its removal.

But yet the "side effect" of a possable mild euphoria is an "unnaceptable risk" even when considering the lethality of depression?

Why is it that a non-life threatening disease (ADHD) can be treated with drugs with a much more extensive history of abuse? And yet a life threatening disease (depression) will have nothing to do with drugs that posess mild abuse potential?

Its really messed up. And those in charge of such decisions should be ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps do a better job at detecting antidpressant abuse, should it occur, but for goodness sakes don't remove such lifesaving drugs from the market alltogether. Its unethical.


Linkadge


 

Great post (nm) » linkadge

Posted by Sigismund on July 19, 2007, at 3:18:51

In reply to Re: subjective opinions » Sigismund, posted by linkadge on July 18, 2007, at 21:01:59

 

Re: let's keep it administrative here, thanks (nm)

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2007, at 21:54:17

In reply to Great post (nm) » linkadge, posted by Sigismund on July 19, 2007, at 3:18:51

 

Re:whoops, sorry (nm)

Posted by linkadge on July 21, 2007, at 19:46:21

In reply to Re: let's keep it administrative here, thanks (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2007, at 21:54:17

 

Re: generalizations

Posted by greywolf on July 25, 2007, at 3:38:32

In reply to Re:whoops, sorry (nm), posted by linkadge on July 21, 2007, at 19:46:21

I'm asking this question in total seriousness and with complete sincerity: if an opinion is expressed as a generalization that in no way demeans any person or class of people, and does not mock, belittle, or impugn any person's beliefs, and is not offered in an unfairly provocative, baiting, or frivolous manner, doesn't an administrative sanction directed at that statement cause greater harm than the statement itself? Frankly, I must be missing something that is obvious to everyone else.

This is my first day back to Babble in quite awhile, so I may be somewhat out of touch with contemporary standards, but my general "life sense" has always been that generalization is a valid conversational technique that normally allows or even prompts the audience to request specificity, and is a traditionally accepted element of dialogue that does not breach etiquette unless it is intended to demean, annoy, embarrass, or unjustifiably provoke a person or persons, or accomplishes similar adverse effects in an unintentional but obviously reckless manner.

Please forgive me if this sounds overly critical, but I think that sometimes the laudable focus on maintaining a civil discourse may diminish appreciation of the fact that, I believe, most of us who post here are adults with relatively similar abilities to distinguish between an innocent, essentially harmless imprecision and a generalization recklessly or intentionally thrust upon others to cause pain or discord.

Accordingly, I wonder if some thought can be given to evaluating whether too close scrutiny of facially civil speech sometimes results in the imposition of sanctions that cause more harm than the good intended by the rule.

Greywolf

 

Re: generalizations

Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2007, at 2:11:08

In reply to Re: generalizations, posted by greywolf on July 25, 2007, at 3:38:32

> I wonder if some thought can be given to evaluating whether too close scrutiny of facially civil speech sometimes results in the imposition of sanctions that cause more harm than the good intended by the rule.

That's something the deputies and I do try to keep in mind and discuss with each other...

Bob

 

Re: generalizations » greywolf

Posted by jakeman on July 27, 2007, at 23:11:22

In reply to Re: generalizations, posted by greywolf on July 25, 2007, at 3:38:32

> I'm asking this question in total seriousness and with complete sincerity: if an opinion is expressed as a generalization that in no way demeans any person or class of people, and does not mock, belittle, or impugn any person's beliefs, and is not offered in an unfairly provocative, baiting, or frivolous manner, doesn't an administrative sanction directed at that statement cause greater harm than the statement itself? Frankly, I must be missing something that is obvious to everyone else.
>
> This is my first day back to Babble in quite awhile, so I may be somewhat out of touch with contemporary standards, but my general "life sense" has always been that generalization is a valid conversational technique that normally allows or even prompts the audience to request specificity, and is a traditionally accepted element of dialogue that does not breach etiquette unless it is intended to demean, annoy, embarrass, or unjustifiably provoke a person or persons, or accomplishes similar adverse effects in an unintentional but obviously reckless manner.
>
> Please forgive me if this sounds overly critical, but I think that sometimes the laudable focus on maintaining a civil discourse may diminish appreciation of the fact that, I believe, most of us who post here are adults with relatively similar abilities to distinguish between an innocent, essentially harmless imprecision and a generalization recklessly or intentionally thrust upon others to cause pain or discord.
>
> Accordingly, I wonder if some thought can be given to evaluating whether too close scrutiny of facially civil speech sometimes results in the imposition of sanctions that cause more harm than the good intended by the rule.
>
> Greywolf

Excellent point Greywolf- one that has been discussed ad finitum. Many knowledgeable contributors has left PB because of it. I miss them.

warm regards, Jake


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.