Prev: COW PROTECTION - WHAT THE BRITISH DESTROYED
Next: A LIST OF FAMOUS VEGETARIANS
From: Rupert on 25 Aug 2008 08:42
I am proud to take a militant stand against the stigma in our society
against people who have experienced mental illness. I believe that
people who have experienced mental illness have as much inherent value
and dignity as any other human being, and that they are just as
deserving of respect.

It is my position that if you gave a high Google star rating to any
post of Derek's in which he labelled me as a "psycho" or otherwise
tried to use my mental health history or quotations of my discussion
of it as a means of denigrating me, then you are a worthless piece of
filth unfit for assocation with decent and civilized human beings. I
challenge you to publicly come forth and say you did it so that we can
have a frank exchange of views about each other.

If no response is forthcoming, rest assured that you will all be
publicly labelled as pitiful craven cowards. You all know who you are.
From: Rupert on 27 Aug 2008 18:02
On Aug 27, 5:00 pm, Derek <usenet.em...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 27, 7:59 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 27, 4:53 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I'm someone who was psychotic six years ago,
>
> >> You're still psychotic. What was it you said a bit ago about what
> >> happened when you recently tried to reduce the chemical dependency?
> >> You got "wobbly", was that it?
>
> >Yeah, that is correct, Ball, I got wobbly when I cut down on the meds.
> >It lasted approximately one day. That was a few months back. So I got
> >back on them.
>
> But how are we to know you're not "wobbly" today, that
> you weren't "wobbly" yesterday, or that you won't be
> "wobbly" at some time in the future?
>

You don't know that, worthless piece of filth, but someone who is not
a mindless bigot like you will be able to see that I am discoursing
perfectly rationally, so that makes it pretty unlikely that I am
wobbly. When I am wobbly I usually have insight into the matter and
avoid talking with morons on the Internet, and if I were sufficiently
wobbly that I lacked enough insight to do that you would probably know
about it beyond reasonable doubt. If you can't see that I am
discoursing perfectly rationally, and you genuinely believe that I am
mentally unwell, then it is your moral obligation to tell me to stop
participating here and seek treatment. Or if you are not sure that I
am mentally unwell but you think there might be some chance, then it
is your moral obligation not to talk about it in public, but to
quietly drop me an email and say "Rupert, are you absolutely sure
you're well? I'm just a bit worried. Maybe you should speak with your
doctor." What you are doing is using my condition as a way of saying
"I am better than you". As if you were to encounter a person with
cerebral palsy, and say "Ha ha, I had the good fortune not to be born
with cerebral palsy, I'm better than you." Which marks you as a
worthless piece of filth unfit to be vomited on, like Ball.

> > I'm someone who has a vulnerability to psychosis
>
> We know that already, psycho, and because you can never
> guarantee a healthy state of mind at any moment like a sane
> person can, sane people like myself can never take your
> view of the world seriously.

That's called stigma. I am a sane person like you. You're saying,
because I have a mental health history and you have the good fortune
not to have a mental health history, you don't have to take my view of
the world seriously. That's pig-ignorance and pitiful bigotry. There's
no reason not to take someone's worldview seriously just because
they've got a mental health condition which they're managing with
medication.

You're too stupid to profit from discussing things with me anyway so
it doesn't matter. However, I'm an extremely intelligent person and
I'm just as worthy of being taken seriously as anyone else here, at
the very least. My examiners are not going to take the view that this
"doesn't need to be taken seriously" because I'm taking meds.

http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis8.pdf

My friend John Hadley is a professional moral philosopher and he takes
me seriously. The directory of laboratory services at the University
of Sydney takes me seriously enough to pay me to speak with his
students about animal ethics. You and Ball don't take me seriously,
but who values your opinion? Ball is a pitiful clown and you are a
disgusting bigot.

I am capable of doing original research in advanced mathematics and
philosophy and getting it published, you are not. I have a co-worker
with a mental health history; she is plenty more intelligent than you,
don't worry about that.

Your pig-ignorance and prejudice about mentally ill people is
disgusting.

> Given your current failure to
> acknowledge your circular reasoning while arguing who
> benefits from the "better outcome" from farming animals,
> and your failure to acknowledge your change in position
> from an animal rights one to an animal welfarist's one, it's
> reasonable to assume you're suffering a psychotic episode
> right now, and have been for quite a while.

No, it's not, you haven't got the first clue what psychosis is and you
don't know what you're talking about. Disagreeing with someone about
an intellectual issue is not a basis for making a psychiatric
diagnosis, and what's all this bullshit about failing to acknowledge
my change in position? I've acknowledged my change in position for
some years now, it's just that it did not happen recently.

I have not stated that the outcome is better if we farm animals than
if we don't. I maintain that some farmed animals have lives such that
an outcome in which they had that life would be better than an outcome
in which they did not exist and no animals replaced them. I do not
maintain that it is always obligatory or permissible to make the
outcome better in any case. You are too thick to actually understand
any of this, aren't you?

There has been no "circular reasoning" in our discussion about better
outcomes, it is just that you and Ball are too thick to get it. But
however that may be, an intellectual disagreement is not a basis for
making a psychiatric diagnosis. Even if we were to assume for the sake
of argument that I were displaying remarkable stupidity, you would
still have no basis for saying that my mental health condition was
having any bearing on the matter. That is just pig-ignorance and
prejudice. Obviously my condition does not intellectually impair me,
because I have been able almost to complete a Ph.D. in pure
mathematics. You are using my condition as a way of trying to score
points against me, which is morally disgusting.

You are a worthless morally disgusting toad.
From: Rupert on 28 Aug 2008 07:32
On Aug 27, 10:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am a sane person like you.
>
> No, you are not.

Yes, I am. I have been perfectly well for six years.

> I'm perfectly sound and have no history of
> psychotic behaviour. You, on the other hand, are prone to
> spiraling out of control and take anti psychotics to keep a lid
> on things.
>

You're disgusting.

> >> Given your current failure to
> >> acknowledge your circular reasoning while arguing who
> >> benefits from the "better outcome" from farming animals,
> >> and your failure to acknowledge your change in position
> >> from an animal rights one to an animal welfarist's one, it's
> >> reasonable to assume you're suffering a psychotic episode
> >> right now, and have been for quite a while.
>
> >No, it's not
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > you haven't got the first clue what psychosis is
>
> [Psychosis throws out all the rules. Under psychotic conditions,
> the anger can be repressed, converted to fear, glee, or any
> other emotion, exaggerated into an overarching hatred for the
> whole universe, or you name it. In psychosis, your anger melds
> with what the trigger person did to you to initiate disorganized
> thinking. Then that thinking may or may not compel you to kill.
>
> If you do kill, you may well kill someone other than the trigger
> person. You probably won't kill at all. Thousands of people
> have undergone psychotic episodes. Only a tiny percentage
> of these people have killed anyone, and the vast majority of
> these latter killed themselves.]
> http://willigocrazy.org/Ch06a2.htm
>

People with psychosis are no more likely to commit murder than the
rest of the population. On the two occasions when I was psychotic six
years ago, then main problems were delusions, and the main emotions
were fear and guilt, not anger. I did not contemplate violence and
retained my moral code.

As I say: you haven't got the first clue what psychosis is. You're not
going to become an expert on it just by reading a handful of sources
on the Internet. When you or a loved one have experienced it, then you
will have some idea about it.
From: marika on 30 Aug 2008 10:23
On Aug 28, 7:25 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> You said "You only just finished explaining that you aren't perfectly
> well".

Well I'm not surprised that there is a huge communication gap on this.

>This is indeed incorrect.

Again, use of the "perfectly" is absurdity. As you can see, we did
the best
we could and provided good suggestions. these minions need to be on
the carpet. And I like the minions.

mk5000

" You know, you could pay me now, and break the ice."-- Vivian: Pretty
Woman
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: COW PROTECTION - WHAT THE BRITISH DESTROYED
Next: A LIST OF FAMOUS VEGETARIANS