TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,516
I have just thought of another strong argument against our pro-therapy culture (which of course, is still prevalent in modern day today, in the year 2026 and will be prevalent in the future as well). In the past, even though I have written many arguments stating my position, including a megathread (linked here) as well other threads (#1, #2, and #3), I decided to solely focus on this particular argument in this thread.
So my argument is that there is in addition to such suggestions or claims being inane and often dismissive as well as the fact that such claims are "unfalsifiable", it not based on objective criteria, but rather subjective criteria, meaning that anything that deviates from society or something that someone "subjectively" finds wild, or irrational, doesn't agree with their values or so, they automatically slap the label or use that line there. Then there is the issue of paternalism, when the State, various institutions, and/or authority figures decide to take action, in the name of welfare/goodness, in other words, they acting like they know what is best for the individual(s), that is crossing into the realm of tyranny (but I'll hold off on that point for now..).
For example, when it comes to a bruise or cut, it is observable and demonstrable, such as there is actual real objective evidence to suggest that someone is injured in some manner (a wound is observable), whereas someone's belief or criteria is subjective (hence religion and such). However, when it comes to certain positions or thoughts that are either unpopular or not well received, the person presenting such thoughts are dismissed, downplayed, and even pushed to seek "help" (which in this case, means psychiatric help), rather than being reasoned with or acknowledge. It's as if their thoughts, opinions, or arguments aren't worth any weight or consideration, their credibility and position discredited and being declare unable to reason, which is a heavy indictment of their civil rights and competence.
If people are going to use "subjective" labels that the collective masses deem objective (even though it isn't), but rather a set of arbitrary rules and values dictated by people, not grounded in scientific, objective, facts, and then impose those onto others, then they should be okay with others also using what others' believe to be objective and right, then imposing that onto other people, which of course, if we ask anyone else, they are NOT okay with such impositions! Nor are they okay with the State (government) dictating how they would live their daily lives! Imagine the state telling them what they can eat, wear, or so, or even meddling into their personal health (e.g. a Bariatric unit, task force that polices people's calorie intake, their daily exercise routine, how much they spend exercising, etc., and more, then people would lose their minds and protests would line the streets!). Of course, when the day those things become commonplace or even accepted, only then, would it make logical sense to accept the "subjective" values of pro-psychotherapy rhetoric.
As a disclaimer, I want to say that no, I don't support the State in interfering with our daily lives, nor do I endorse others' from imposing their values onto any individual, nor I myself! This is just an educational, intellectual exercise where I express my argument and defend my position.
So my argument is that there is in addition to such suggestions or claims being inane and often dismissive as well as the fact that such claims are "unfalsifiable", it not based on objective criteria, but rather subjective criteria, meaning that anything that deviates from society or something that someone "subjectively" finds wild, or irrational, doesn't agree with their values or so, they automatically slap the label or use that line there. Then there is the issue of paternalism, when the State, various institutions, and/or authority figures decide to take action, in the name of welfare/goodness, in other words, they acting like they know what is best for the individual(s), that is crossing into the realm of tyranny (but I'll hold off on that point for now..).
For example, when it comes to a bruise or cut, it is observable and demonstrable, such as there is actual real objective evidence to suggest that someone is injured in some manner (a wound is observable), whereas someone's belief or criteria is subjective (hence religion and such). However, when it comes to certain positions or thoughts that are either unpopular or not well received, the person presenting such thoughts are dismissed, downplayed, and even pushed to seek "help" (which in this case, means psychiatric help), rather than being reasoned with or acknowledge. It's as if their thoughts, opinions, or arguments aren't worth any weight or consideration, their credibility and position discredited and being declare unable to reason, which is a heavy indictment of their civil rights and competence.
If people are going to use "subjective" labels that the collective masses deem objective (even though it isn't), but rather a set of arbitrary rules and values dictated by people, not grounded in scientific, objective, facts, and then impose those onto others, then they should be okay with others also using what others' believe to be objective and right, then imposing that onto other people, which of course, if we ask anyone else, they are NOT okay with such impositions! Nor are they okay with the State (government) dictating how they would live their daily lives! Imagine the state telling them what they can eat, wear, or so, or even meddling into their personal health (e.g. a Bariatric unit, task force that polices people's calorie intake, their daily exercise routine, how much they spend exercising, etc., and more, then people would lose their minds and protests would line the streets!). Of course, when the day those things become commonplace or even accepted, only then, would it make logical sense to accept the "subjective" values of pro-psychotherapy rhetoric.
As a disclaimer, I want to say that no, I don't support the State in interfering with our daily lives, nor do I endorse others' from imposing their values onto any individual, nor I myself! This is just an educational, intellectual exercise where I express my argument and defend my position.
