What do people mean by mental illness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's more Orwellian than "Gun Sense

I gotta tell you you're wasting your time. His intent isn't to prove a point. It's to get a flame started. BTW I learned grammar in jr. high school. I learned it from the sister of a world famous writer and educator. That sister was absolutely obsessed with grammar and why it was important. She made sure all her students learned it well. And I guess the fact the Supreme Court agreed with my conclusion doesn't seem to matter to some people. My grammar is far from being perfect all the time but that sentence is one I've spent a lot of time on.

Oh and for the record the Royal College Of Psychiatry says, "...people who stop SSRIs and SNRIs have withdrawal symptoms which can last between 2 weeks and 2 months."

We can split hairs about the definition of "addiction" but everyone should know that there is a big chance they will face horrible withdrawl symptoms if they try to discontinue the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The Mayo Clinic says they cause physical dependence which may not be exactly addiction but it's close enough that you certainly won't enjoy the ride. IMO our French friend may be damaging people by discrediting the fact they cause terrible withdrawl. No you aren't driven to take more and more of them like a true "addict" but I'm confident that most people understand the word "addiction" is used for many things that aren't true addiction. Like internet addiction or even conflict addiction. Do a search for those terms and you'll get a bunch of hits. Here, I'll do it for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Con...msedr...0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.282.Fdkp_i5T-Jk

Maybe you'll understand why this guy frequently follows me around nitpicking what I say. The term addiction may not properly apply but people use it that way all the time anyway. It certainly is a real condition. How many of my posts has this guy gone after just in the last few days? He wants to argue politics on a board that expressly prohibits it. Now he wants to nitpick the words I use when he has to know that they are commonly used in that manner. Yeah he cares a lot about people getting the proper care. If he care about people he would want them to know about the withdrawl they might face. I saw a report last week in one of the London newspapers that said about 70% of the people on SSRI's aren't really depressed at all. And if he thinks doctors won't deliberately get you addicted just to keep you coming back I can point him to some glaring examples of doctors who went to prison for that. One doctor local to my area had my friend's father taking narcotics for years and didn't bother telling him they were addictive. And the guy was falling into withdrawl often because he didn't understand he couldn't just quit taking his pills. So don't tell me that doctors won't deliberately get you addicted to stuff. I know they do.
 
Last edited:
^^^^ Good grief! Get a grip on yourself man. You have no justification for making claims implying persecution and reacting with paranoia. We just vigorously debate our disagreement on many things, but we also agree on a few things. Accept that fact and don't take it so personally!
 
Last edited:
BTW I learned grammar in jr. high school. I learned it from the sister of a world famous writer and educator. .

We're really grasping at straws and getting way off topic here now. BTW....I was married at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, where both Joan Collins and Michael Jordan were married. Don't make me a Movie Start or Pro Basketball Player tho..............

Just sayin'.

As for how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.......again, the interpretation that is important is the interpretation of our elected officials and those that they appoint. Preaching "shall not be infringed" to members of a gun forum is preaching to the choir. Of course most there are gonna stand up and cheer. Don't pat yourself on the back till you can go over to a soccer mom's forum and get them to do the same. The SCOTUS has already agreed that the NFA, the GCA, the LEOPA and other acts that restrict some gun rights are constitutional, while at the same time have found some not to be. Clearly they do not see the word "infringed" as all encompassing, nor are they ignoring the word completely. They are interpreting the word as they feel our founding fathers would have wanted it interpreted as it fits into our society today. Let's hope they interpret "mental illness" the same way.
 
The SC interpreted black people as not being whole people too. Their decisions are not set in stone and they're not infallible. They got it right mostly. I never said there couldn't be "any" restrictions anyway. I know who I'm talking to but apparently you missed the criticism of the people on our side on this board. Just getting those folks to go along with the obvious is tough enough. I'm not about to jump into a sewing circle and drop a bee's nest there and expect them to all like it. Gun rights are taking care of themselves without us trying to re-invent the wheel.

BTW it is not really your business if I go slightly off topic for half a sentence. It was said in furtherance of my view based on the grammar of the second. That is NOT off topic.

You and some others have been straining to get a flame going here and I'm not going to play. I offered you some good advice on dealing with someone and you can do with it as you please. But I'm not going to nitpick with you. I have better things to do. I don't enjoy it. The mods don't want it and there is nothing accomplished by it. These boards aren't here to argue over minutiae and I'm not going to do it. Just saying that was too much of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top