[This is an excerpt from a post I just made here in the Mental Health forum; specifically aimed at forging a defense for people like us who have been exposed to the horrors of "Invega" and the like -- perhaps to be presented to family members or "doctors." I have spent months struggling to speak my words that have been cut from me by these terrible poisons, and know that many of you must feel the same way. If this arguement in any way helps anybody here, please feel free to use it in your own defense. I only request that it is not used in a disingenuous fashion. Keep up the good fight; don't give up!]
Burned at the Stake:
If one is to be exposed to a "treatment," particularly against their will -- should not the onus of 'reasonable cause' be placed upon the feet of the "accuser?" 'Innocent until 'proven' "guilty,"' if you will - with reasonable evidence provided from the side of the accuser? Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the reverse should be true; that is "guilty, until 'proven' otherwise." In this case, the defendant is being accused of a "disease" that eludes a solid definition beyond symptomatology. There is NO evidence to defend against, other than the word of the accuser. There is nothing to measure or test with any sense of objectivity. We have been reduced to justification through opinion only. This is, I hope one understands - a VERY dangerous line of reasoning to be held against a defense team. It would be akin to the following example:
"I, the accuser, put it upon the defendant, to prove to this court that you are NOT "infected" by ghosts; I accuse you of this affliction. Furthermore, I accuse you of being mentally incompetent due to your "possession." It is the opinion of the plaintiff, that you should be forced to undergo lobotomization for your condition - to rid you of your possession. Unless you can provide evidence that you are NOT infected with said "evil spirits," it is the duty of this court to force this "treatment" upon you -- for your own good, of course. Now, being the fair people we are, we shall open the floor so that you may offer up your counterargument, before judgement is laid upon you. I represent the opinion of the profession of 'ghost-hunters;' we are an established, professionally recognized discipline; and more than one of mine has deemed this so upon you. Obviously, these ghosts within you may be tricking you into thinking that they are not so -- but believe ME... they are; evidence is not needed. Do you not see? I am a professional. My colleagues are professionals -- we have deemed this to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and have set the precedent by doing so countless times in the past. Surely, my colleagues and I must be in the right."
Obviously, "mental illness," ie: 'schizophrenia,' could easily replace the "ghosts" listed above; functionally - nothing is changed with regard to the argument. However, I hope that by replacing "spirits" with "psychosis," the reader may be more likely to see the cracks in the accuser's argument. Again, the "accuser," can clearly be seen as a stand in for the "psychiatrist," in the same fashion. How much of what you see to be a reasonable argument, may be a deferment through "appeal to authority, appeal to precedent?" Are you perhaps colored by your own bias to be more inclined to believe the words "psychiatrist" and "schizophrenia," over "possession" and "accuser?" Is this reasonable, and if so - why? Women were denied the vote in this country for generations, shall they be denied again due to precedent?
The defendant is now placed into "the box." Unless he can convince the "jury/judge" to see that the argument is logically invalid, there is no way "out" of the box. It's a logic trap, and an easy one to fall prey to. Even if you understand what it is, it can be difficult to effectively communicate your reasoning. (And if they've already incapacitated one's ability to reason -- good luck!) The system's rigged, you're fucked. Have fun. -- killing yourself...
People think you're dangerous, you can't be trusted. You're not "like them," they don't "understand" you anymore. They pull themselves away fearing their association with you, or what others in their social-circles might think if they knew that they were associated with what has become, a "social leper." An invisible disease that they've bestowed upon you, of social origin with no marks. A 'scarlet letter' with little hope for redemption, for even when you're "fine," cogent, intelligent-- it matters not. You've been 'branded.' You have "it;" "it" could 'strike' at any time, any place, it could kill us all. You must be put down. "For 'YOUR' own good." Disgusting. Pathetic. Weak. Fools.
"I, the defendant, submit that the accuser's argument is not valid. In addition, the burden of proof has been laid upon my feet, and yet I am not the one here making the claim for submission of judgement against the opposing party. Since the "ghosts" I am accused of harboring have no link for objective evidence to possibly draw from, it is impossible for me to "prove" the accuser 'wrong.' Their stance is one that cannot be refuted by its own definition. It has no objective definable terms. It is the accuser's "job" to prove that I am afflicted with "ghosts," not the other way around. They may believe this to be unfair, and ultimately, this would be because if they ARE the ones who have to prove that I have this affliction, they probably know as well as I do that this is by definition, NOT possible. Due to the lack of any objective measure for this argument, I submit that this case should be thrown out, and that I should not be subject to lobotomization."
My argument in this case, (the defendant,) is the only valid and sound reasoning that can be drawn. If the accuser wishes to "win," then they must appeal to "subjective" logic. Their argument is then allowed to be valid and sound within its own "ruleset," however now, by definition - it is only valid as their subjective viewpoint; it can only be argued to be "true" to a reasonable degree for their own separate reality. It is an opinion, with no objective basis. Relying on this type of reasoning completely undermines the entire point of arguing on equal footing. "Objectivism" is required so that both sides are "playing by the same rules," ie: that we "share" a reality, because if we don't -- none of this matters, and should be thrown out on those grounds alone.
This above example is nothing less than a "witch trial." You're 'guilty' if they want you to be, and unless they can see the flaws of their reasoning, there's no way out of "the box." This is the plight of those accused of "mental illness" and associated incompetence. Do you see? If you disagree, a psychiatrist feeling the other way might just tell you, "you're lacking insight; you have 'anosognosia.'" Give it a "science-y" sounding label, from a so-called "professional" -- people will eat that shit right up. How many people do YOU know, (you yourself perhaps?) who actually bother to fact-check anything? Do they even have a metric for what a 'fact' is in the first place? If a majority of the people around them believe a thing, or enforce a certain behavior-set regardless of any consistent logic behind it; how many people will just go-along with it, defend it even, with no critical thought or little to justify it? It's easier to not think, right? (Try telling that to all of the people who've been forced to undergo "brain damaging 'therapeutics;'" I don't know if it makes life easier for them -- but if anything, the statistics sure seem to suggest that it makes suicide easier.)
My last injection was 65 days ago, and i haven't taken any of my risperdal 1mg what I have been prescribed after i stopped the injections. I had 20 shots of 75mg (read my nickname). PEACE☮
!", thanks for the good advice man
, that may be the case for me if i can't manage it naturally.