Duck07 Thread

Anything that wont fit in any of the other forums

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
User avatar
Tray Dub
All Pac-12
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Tray Dub »

Biggus Duckus wrote:Bush 43 and Obama administrations will go down as two of the worst of the last 100 years when all is said and done.
Maybe -- I think Obama's just bad, but not historically awful, but that's just my opinion -- but I'll bet money that we don't like the next one any more than these two. Or, if we do, it's because the economy picks up. That's pretty much the only reason we've liked a president going back decades. Basically we think they all suck, which, in my opinion, they do.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Elduderino wrote:
Duck07 wrote:Sooo I guess we can call of the hounds on Edward Snowden now, yeah? I mean that is one hell of an egg in the face for Obama having released the name of the top CIA official in Afghanistan to over 6,000 journalists. Comparing the two "security breaches," you've got give it to Snowden, at least he was revealing criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1
It's also interesting to note the fury that the Plame scandal drew in relation to the reaction the exact same action has drawn under this administration.
I wouldn't say its the exact same action unless its discovered that this was something more than an accident on the WH's part, but Snowden is going on TV this week and it completely underscores, in my mind at least, that what Edward Snowden did was not a crime and this attempt to bring him to justice is only a farce. Its not like We The People ever get to question the actions of the CIA, let alone the legitimacy of that group to operate the way it does.
Image
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Elduderino wrote:That is simply too logical. Knee jerk emotional reactions, man. That's what we need.
So you disagree that children are being medicated for issues they don't have or that SSRI drugs are not dangerous?
Image
User avatar
Tray Dub
All Pac-12
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Tray Dub »

Duck07 wrote:
Elduderino wrote:That is simply too logical. Knee jerk emotional reactions, man. That's what we need.
So you disagree that children are being medicated for issues they don't have or that SSRI drugs are not dangerous?
SSRI drugs are really complicated, but it's oversimplifying to call them dangerous in my opinion. There's no evidence they cause these type of incidents whatsoever. The fact that some (not all) of these shooters were on medication just points to underlying mental health problems. It's not at all surprising they'd be on medication. SSRIs do help a lot of people. That's a fact.

As for medicating children, yeah, there's some over-diagnosis, though I think it's not as big of a problem as some people do. But anyways, that goes on more with ADD than with depression. The medication I'm more worried about is Adderall, which of course isn't an SSRI.
User avatar
Elduderino
Senior
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: CA

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Elduderino »

Duck07 wrote:
Elduderino wrote:That is simply too logical. Knee jerk emotional reactions, man. That's what we need.
So you disagree that children are being medicated for issues they don't have or that SSRI drugs are not dangerous?
No I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think it's all or nothing either.
AKA: CAgrown
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Tray Dub wrote: SSRI drugs are really complicated, but it's oversimplifying to call them dangerous in my opinion. There's no evidence they cause these type of incidents whatsoever. The fact that some (not all) of these shooters were on medication just points to underlying mental health problems. It's not at all surprising they'd be on medication. SSRIs do help a lot of people. That's a fact.

As for medicating children, yeah, there's some over-diagnosis, though I think it's not as big of a problem as some people do. But anyways, that goes on more with ADD than with depression. The medication I'm more worried about is Adderall, which of course isn't an SSRI.
There is a load of empirical evidence from families, even judges which suggest otherwise and the "some (not all)" is more like a majority over the last 30 years. At what point is it no longer coincidence either? I can't seem to find any evidence that says that SSRI's DO NOT CAUSE violent behavior in the people who take them. If the side effect of a depressed kid is that they might end up violent, doesn't it seem like that we shouldn't prescribe that medication on the basis that the side-effect is worse than the symptom?
http://www.ssristories.org/
Provincial court judge Robert Heinrichs read my report and listened to my expert testimony in court. In his written opinion, Judge Heinrichs found "Dr. Breggin's explanation of the effect Prozac was having on C.J.P.'s behaviour both before that day and in committing an impulsive, inexplicable violent act that day corresponds with the evidence; as Dr. Breggin states in his report, there was no significant deliberation or organization by C.J.P. that afternoon."

Earlier in the year on September 16, 2011 Judge Hendrichs issued his opinion that the 16-year-old should be tried as a youth instead of an adult. The judge found that "his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac." Also confirming my detailed report and testimony, the judge found, "He has none of the characteristics of a perpetrator of violence. The prospects for rehabilitation are good."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter- ... 77930.html
As for ADD, that is another great example of a mental illness that does not exist. Same with the new mental illnesses - caffeine withdrawal, hoarding disorder, restless leg syndrome, etc. Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is called a brain disorder, when there is nothing inherently wrong with the brain itself, but rather a deficiency in Vitamin B1. Consequently, alcoholism (another "illness") effects this "disorder" but the problem is not the brain is inherently damaged but that it is being deprived of something it needs or it is being overloaded with things it does not need.

Thomas Szasz is more eloquent on the subject than I am and if you're interested in examining the other viewpoint, here is more to read.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.

~ Daniel Webster
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/02/thom ... alillness/
Image
User avatar
Tray Dub
All Pac-12
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Tray Dub »

Duck07 wrote:
Tray Dub wrote: SSRI drugs are really complicated, but it's oversimplifying to call them dangerous in my opinion. There's no evidence they cause these type of incidents whatsoever. The fact that some (not all) of these shooters were on medication just points to underlying mental health problems. It's not at all surprising they'd be on medication. SSRIs do help a lot of people. That's a fact.

As for medicating children, yeah, there's some over-diagnosis, though I think it's not as big of a problem as some people do. But anyways, that goes on more with ADD than with depression. The medication I'm more worried about is Adderall, which of course isn't an SSRI.
There is a load of empirical evidence from families, even judges which suggest otherwise and the "some (not all)" is more like a majority over the last 30 years. At what point is it no longer coincidence either? I can't seem to find any evidence that says that SSRI's DO NOT CAUSE violent behavior in the people who take them. If the side effect of a depressed kid is that they might end up violent, doesn't it seem like that we shouldn't prescribe that medication on the basis that the side-effect is worse than the symptom?
http://www.ssristories.org/
Provincial court judge Robert Heinrichs read my report and listened to my expert testimony in court. In his written opinion, Judge Heinrichs found "Dr. Breggin's explanation of the effect Prozac was having on C.J.P.'s behaviour both before that day and in committing an impulsive, inexplicable violent act that day corresponds with the evidence; as Dr. Breggin states in his report, there was no significant deliberation or organization by C.J.P. that afternoon."

Earlier in the year on September 16, 2011 Judge Hendrichs issued his opinion that the 16-year-old should be tried as a youth instead of an adult. The judge found that "his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac." Also confirming my detailed report and testimony, the judge found, "He has none of the characteristics of a perpetrator of violence. The prospects for rehabilitation are good."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter- ... 77930.html
As for ADD, that is another great example of a mental illness that does not exist. Same with the new mental illnesses - caffeine withdrawal, hoarding disorder, restless leg syndrome, etc. Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is called a brain disorder, when there is nothing inherently wrong with the brain itself, but rather a deficiency in Vitamin B1. Consequently, alcoholism (another "illness") effects this "disorder" but the problem is not the brain is inherently damaged but that it is being deprived of something it needs or it is being overloaded with things it does not need.

Thomas Szasz is more eloquent on the subject than I am and if you're interested in examining the other viewpoint, here is more to read.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.

~ Daniel Webster
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/02/thom ... alillness/
I don't really have strong opinions about this subject so I'm not too excited about a big debate. But I will just say that the evidence you provided is pretty weak -- a judge's opinion on a medical issue isn't of much value -- and the stories of individuals are anecdotal and highly susceptible to confirmation bias. Again, I'm not saying I think you're definitely wrong, just that I don't think you've provided much evidence that you're right. I'd respect a serious medical journal, peer-reviewed, double-blind studies, or the words of a prestigious medical association, or a doctor with some serious credentials. Not a mom who blames something tragic on meds, not a judge who was convinced of something he or she is not an expert on, not polemics from partisans. That's just what it would take for me to be at least a little bit persuaded. Thanks for trying to inform me though, I do appreciate the intention.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Does anyone feel that Edward Snowden is in the wrong for his actions?
Image
User avatar
greenyellow
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35683
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by greenyellow »

He's now coming off as more of an attention-seeking media whore than the good-doing whistleblower he tried to initially portray himself as.
Image
User avatar
Tray Dub
All Pac-12
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Tray Dub »

I don't see why doing an occasional interview makes you a "media whore." Lots of people do interviews.
oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by oregontrack »

i'm going to have to call bullshit on locking the ASU OL coming out thread on the other guys forum. someone complained it was offensive, and the moderator apparently agreed, but despite having two extremely different viewpoints housed together in one thread (over a very controversial topic) i thought both sides were acting profoundly mature and respectful. if there were any personal attacks at all, i flat out missed them. you can say we got off-topic, sure, and that's fine, but there was no reason to lock anything based on the grounds given. i thought there were some viewpoints worth responding to, so on that note i'm moving it over here to this wonderfully off-topic thread.
lukeyrid13 said: People are vilified, mocked and persecuted if they are a person of faith . If they come out and state it publicly there is no fanfare and calls for being a hero, if anything it's the opposite(Tebow). I just find it curious that this one issue is put on such a pedestal ( from both opposing sides)
though i'm sure it's not how you intended it to come off, this sounds a lot like, 'well, it happens to us (people of faith), so who cares if it happens to another group?' which, ironically, is probably the most anti-christian viewpoint one could take.

re: tebow. there was anti-christian backlash over tim tebow. i won't sit here and say there wasn't. but that was hardly the cause of, or majority, of the criticism he took. tim tebow was (i think) the victim of the espn machine, who needed a white, professional quarterback to fawn over once brett favre hung it up (and now that tebow's out of the picture, you'll notice johnny manziel has stepped into the limelight...). this caused two things: tim tebow was EVERYWHERE, and backlash ensued. christians locked onto his faith, many sports fans started hating on the guy because of the amount of media attention he was getting for *really* no reason, and things began escalating. based on my facebook feed, stock full of individuals from both sides, a lot of people of faith took any attack on tim tebow as an attack on christianity, which only caused the situation to sour even more. there were legitimate attacks on his faith. like i said, i won't claim ignorance.

but consider russell wilson. he's an athlete who has referenced his faith in literally every interview he's ever given. he's talked more about god in his two-year nfl career than tebow ever did. but there's, like, zero russell wilson hate out there. why? he's actually good, and he doesn't have a microphone in his face at every turn. if tebow actually had professional talent, and espn didn't molest him the moment the broncos drafted him, nobody would care that he's a christian. outspoken winners with minimal coverage don't get hated on. tebow was neither a winner (in the pros), nor was his coverage minimal...

and, lastly, while there are people of faith who are harassed for their faith, i think it's kind of silly to equate that to the kind of harassment that the lgbt community receives, in no small (ironic) part for the reason that it's largely men of women of faith leading to said harassment. there's a paradox for you. and let's be fucking real for a moment. half my high school attended young life, or went to a youth group, or identified publicly as a christian. hell, i went to many of these functions myself, not because i am or was a believer, but because i wanted to hang out with my friends. it was a socially acceptable thing to do. now let's talk about how socially acceptable it's been over the years to identify as gay as a teenager without the fear of public ridicule (or much, much worse). there's a pre/post game prayer said before/after every high school football game ever played in this country. how many gay high school athletes do you think there are? probably a bunch. how many 'out' high school athletes do you think there are? probably a very, very small %. people of faith do get harassed, i won't argue with you on that, but let's not bend the means of logic and say it's the same thing. it ain't.
UOducksTK1 said: I hear there word "J*sus" and "G*d Damn" probably of a ratio of 30:1 compared to the word gay or faggot. I'm incredibly offended every day at work and, really, every I go in public. Yet my opinion doesn't get any media attention. Personally I think using name of the Creator and Conductor of this world in vein to be beyond offensive.

But again, no one cares. I see no fruit in cursing homosexuals or treating them any less than any other person. However, equally I don't understand the celebration of two people practicing sodomy. Why don't players in professional sports get lots of media for fornicating? How people have sex at home should not even scratch the surface of sports news.
i think you have the makings of a point in your first paragraph, though i would stop short of saying they're the same thing. if i use 'Geez christ' as an expression, there's every chance in the world i'm not directing anything at you, personally. you have a point in that you might still find it to be offensive, but i mean no offense to you as an individual, it's just that saying 'oh my god', or 'Geez', or (whatever) has gotten into the common vernacular for very secular reasons. on the other hand, if you call someone a faggot, it's REALLY hard to justify that you're not trying to go out of your way to attack them.

you're second paragraph is wrong from the get-go. people DO care. people care for the very reason i outlined in my original post over on the other guys' forum. athletes coming out aren't necessarily trying to get your or my attention. we're probably not the desired audience. the point tends to be empowerment, and taking away the stigma that a lot of people have in this country that there's something wrong with you if you identify a certain way. i mean, consider if you grew up feeling like you were a lesser human being for feelings you have no control over. look at suicide rates among teens alone who identify as lgbt. if you live through that, and finally get to a point where you might have a platform to help others (especially youth) to not feel ashamed for who they fucking are, you're not reaching out to people who "don't care." your reaching out to people who NEED to hear that. honestly, not to tell you how to live your life, but the next time you do hear a coming out story, i wouldn't roll my eyes in disgust/anger/annoyance, just take solace that some teenager may not take his own life because he heard the same story...
Phalanx said: Well, you are right that there is a divide. You appear, for instance, to think that people are born homosexual, and that is a belief that flies in the face of all kinds of data. In the real world, the one that isn't directed by people with a political agenda, homosexuality is a choice that people make and unmake all the time, and a behavior that goes against the common grain of humanity. It is a choice that will never be universally accepted because it defies nature. We can decide as a culture to accommodate this choice, but it will never be universally accepted. I guess in your mind, that means people will always be having press conferences to 'come out'. The practice grows tiresome, and achieves the opposite effect that you describe. If homosexuality was actually the 'identity' that you and other liberals try to frame it as, it would not be necessary to announce. I did not, for instance, have to make an announcement that I am left-handed.
no, you probably didn't. but you also don't have grown men and women fighting tooth and nail to pass or retain legislature to keep you from getting married because you're left handed.

first, the practice of publicly coming out only grows tiresome to you for the very same reasons i just told TK. does it achieve the opposite effect? do you have anything AT ALL to back that up?

second, this isn't my first rodeo. i'm not going to sit here and debate with you whether or not being gay is a choice. changing someone's mind over an issue like that is not exactly commonplace on the internet, so there's really no point in going down that road. i would, however, invite you to explore the topic a bit more on your own, as it appears the research you've put into it is somewhere between zilch and slim, and, if you can, in your spare time, provide some links for "all the data" that suggests being gay IS a choice, that would be peachy. because honestly i'm on vacation for the next week, and i'm going to have some time kill while the wife is at work, and i can't think of a more amusing time-killer to destroy publicly in front of all these nice folks.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

I also think it was BS that the thread was locked, I didn't see anything that went over the line.

I think straight people should stop having gay babies and then we wouldn't have this problem, DUH!

I mean, OBVIOUSLY the issue at hand here is that the world is over-populated and through Jung's theory of collective unconsciousness we've seen a dramatic rise in homosexuality as a means to reduce the population (and the number of people I've got to compete against to get into heaven - double win!)
Image
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by lukeyrid13 »

To be clear I do not condone anyone being a homophobe or the use of duragotory terms toward the lgbt community. I am a christian and I eluded in my OP that the Christian community puts homosexuality on a pedestal and unnecessarily ridicule them. A gay man should feel welcome at church just as much as the people next to him. It makes me sad that the entire community feels ostracized and unwelcome when that's where they should feel most welcomed .

I also understand that a number of years ago it was taboo to be gay or come out as gay. As helfrich said if we had a gay player 'no one would bat an eye'. Is it shocking or front page news to find out clay Aiken is gay? That is where I think it is put on a pedestal from the other side.

I know it's not relevant to this conversation and doesn't need further discussion but I am quite often mocked and ostracized for my faith. I am not sayin that to condone an eye for an eye attitude but just addressing what was said above. Young life is a great organization but there's a difference between the attitude toward going bowling with Christians and say someone asking to pray for you
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by lukeyrid13 »

Duck07 wrote:
I think straight people should stop having gay babies and then we wouldn't have this problem, DUH!

!)
Honest question, do you think anyone hopes that their kid ends up being gay? Not trying to be a curmudgeon, it's something I have always wondered .

I won't love my daughters any less if they tell me 20 years from now they're gay btw.
woundedknees
All-American
Posts: 12855
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by woundedknees »

My favorite nephew, and probably one of the nicest guys I have ever met, is gay.

Do I wish he were not?

I have to be honest and say yes, but that does not mean we love him any less.
Autzen Stadium... Where great teams go to die...Hard!

Image
Post Reply