1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
New Exercise Study Brings Both Illumination and Questions
Simon McGrath looks at new objective evidence of abnormal response to exercise in ME/CFS patients, and the questions that researchers are still trying to answer ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Please post here if you're a medic who thinks CFS is primarily psychological!

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Esther12, Mar 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    991
    Likes:
    452
    Bleijenberg

    Trouw a dutch newspaper had an item on cfs today.

    Blijenberg states: I will not go in discussion with this kind of people. You can't talk with them.


    Wat zegt Bleijenberg zelf van alle kritiek? Weinig. Ik wil niet in discussie met dit soort mensen, laat hij weten. Er valt niet met hen te praten. Het is maar een kleine groep, minder dan vijf procent van de patinten, die niets moet hebben van psychologische behandelingen. Ons centrum is wereldwijd bekend. Onze behandeling is d behandeling voor chronische vermoeidheid. De enige waarvan de effectiviteit is aangetoond.

    Volgens Bleijenberg is er geen reden om aan te nemen dat de wetenschappelijke inzichten zullen veranderen, e-mailt hij nadat hem een voorlopige versie van dit artikel is toegestuurd. Telkens weer toont onderzoek aan dat cognitieve gedragstherapie een effectieve behandeling is voor chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom.Binnenkort komt er een artikel uit waarin staat dat cognitieve gedragstherapie veilig is en geen negatieve bijwerkingen heeft.
  2. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    Well - we can't have accuracy, clarification and logic then, in case it allows other people to make ad hominem attacks on our psychological responses?

    Maybe in your world Esther. Accuracy, clarification and logic in the face of ad hominem claptrap is all most of us have got, whether we be sufferers or supporters/advocates. I'm sorry you're arguing against maintaining accuracy, clarification and logic here (because that is what you're doing, in this point at least). That's a worry.
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    Yes.

    i said that a convincing argument from a psychiatrist was as LIKELY as creationists accepting the primacy of evolution.

    I think that you easily misinterpret another persons statements and then comment on your interpretation instead of what was actually said

    2) You'd said that Stalin and Goebbals could explain their position very convincingly - I don't think so.

    I actually said that they DID convince many people with repeated plausible propaganda.it seems to me that you are misrepresenting my words or confusing your thoughts on a matter as fact or botht

    I'm not sure about this, but I think that for something to be a fact, it would need to be symbolically expressed. You cannot point at a person and say "That is a fact."

    What do mean by symbolically expressed could you define that term. The earth orbits the sun that is a fact .Why can I not point to a person and say that. on reflection however it seems to me that you are genuinely that uncertain about how to distinguish fact from fiction and believe that a factual statement has to be accompanied by a metaphor of some kind.I fear that your chances of succeding in a debate against a doctor would be minimal.



    Sometimes words will be used dishonestly or stupidly, as was the case with Stalin and Goebbals, but it seems neither of us find them terribly convincing, so I do not think that we need to worry about that. Personally, I think that had either of them engaged in the sort of open ended discussions that can take place here, this would have served to undermine their totalitarian regimes, that depended upon a restriction of free speech and debate. Too much free discussion and debate was not a problem in either case.

    Free debate and discussion was not a problem for the authorites.it was actively encouraged. it had no effect whatsoever apart from enabling the regime in question to target dissenters and eliminate them.It was certainly a problem fot those who took the opposing position in said debates. it is easy to dismantle an argument with the knowledge of hindsight and be able to see such an argument as propaganda. milions of people could not do so at the time howevervand totally believed the clever deceptions that they were repeatly fed. Every thing seemed plausable to them and they thought their authorities were telling the truth when they were not.highly skilled salesmen can create totally convincing arguments.It seems to me however that only a fool would believe them or someone who thogut they were telling the truth.It seems to me that there is not any practical difference.




    3) You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?


    I,m sorry that you view facts as a kind of entity.peoples who's arguments are based soley on the misuse of words do find facts to be a spectre or their nemesis. I actually said that you dont use any facts.If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english.perhaps you dont actually believe that there are such things as facts.I think that this might be the case as you tend to assume your interpretations are evidence enough. It seems to me therefore that you would not have any basis for deciding on whether an argument was a ggo one or not.

    4) One reference to an academic paper proving biomedical causation for CFS would be fine (assuming it's been replicated).

    Why only one paper surely that would not be enough to convince you.It seems to me that you dont understand the scientific method and this may be the source of your confusion Scientific hypotheses are confirmed as fact by weight of evidence not by any one paper Which ones haven,t you read?

    5) You'd started by saying I was underestimating the intelligence of people here, and end by saying that, while you would not be conned by the psychologiser's propaganda, they're so smart that they would be able to trick other, less gifted members of the board? I don't think it is I who is underestimating the intelligence of members here.

    I did not say any such thing.Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my words to further your argument or have simply misunderstood my position.As I cannot concieve of the former then i must assume the latter.If that be true then,as I am not trying to decieve you,your defeat in a debate against a proffesional in any field,let alone a proffessor of psychology,appears all too certain


    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    I note you dont want to see any facts on this matter.

    It is impossible to exaggerate the absolute literal absence of energy and exhaustion which lies at the core of this illness.

    It is however a simple matter to trivulize the illness by using the word tired.if you understand that using this term plays into the hands of denigrators of our fellow sufferers then why one earth are you using it.
    A great many people with ME cant get out of bed let alone "overanalyze" their symptoms.

    When in a war you dont give ammunition to the enemy

    I'm not at war. I'm not going to fight dirty. I don't like propaganda.

    yet you are willing to invite people who use nothing but propaganda.While you may not be at war these people are.

    In a debate, I want to highlight my own weaknesses to my opponent. It's wonderful to genuinely lose a debate, as you will have been shown that you are wrong, and allowed to learn and progress.

    You can lose a debate due your opponent having superior debating skills despite the fact that you are correct in what you say.I can see however that you want to highlight the weaknesses of your arguments and that you should be allowed to learn


























    The ways we describe our illness can be used against us whatever we do - best not to worry about it imo.

    No the way you describe the illness can be used against us.I think that some would describe your attitude as selfish and arrogant.Whether they actually do would of course be up to them to say

    It is possible to exaggerate how badly CFS affects patients - I could have a go if you wanted.

    Go on then have a go.That statement speaks volumes be careful though we would not want your motives misinterpretated would we!
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes:
    5,003
    Do not worry yourself, I have no problem with accuracy clarification and logic.

    Trace this discussion back - you were the one who started being concerned about ad hominem claptrap, and wanted me to alter the way I communicated because of it. You now seem to have flipped around to complaining that I am asking you to alter the way you communicate because of these attacks. This is not the case. If you don't think tiredness is a significant symptom for CFS patients, then do not use the word. I do, and will.

    This is a trivial point I understood what you were trying to say but thought its expression was slightly confused.

    You were saying: It would be as likely to get a convincing argument that CFS is a primarily psychological illness as a creationist not being a creationist (ie impossible).

    The fact that the impossible thing you are mentioning happens to involve a creationist has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, but because you are making a point about poor arguments which are unsupported by the evidence, the mention of a creationist is a distraction. I thought that maybe you mentioned creationism because you wanted to draw a parallel between creationism and the psychologisers, so re-phrased your analogy in a way which would do this. Just lending a hand.


    You said that Stalin and Goebbels could explain their position very convincingly, but only a fool would believe them. I dont think that the people on this forum should be assumed to be fools, so have no concern about them being misled by convincing arguments which only fools would believe.



    Right: The Earth orbits the Sun is a fact. But if you just pointed at the sun, this would not be a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, but if you just moved money around in front of someone to illustrate this, I dont think that could be described as a fact.

    Ive not really thought much about this, but I think the term fact only applies to claims about reality, rather than simple presentations of reality. You seemed rather dismissive of people using words rather than facts but I think words are often used to express facts, and that the word fact may actually only apply to expressed claims rather than just evidence.

    You seem to have a strange idea as to what free speech and debate requires. Openly challenging the ideas of these totalitarian regimes certainly was a problem for those who did so - the brutal punishments they faced would, to me, rather indicate a lack of freedom of speech and debate.

    ?

    This is good.

    Youre complaining about the fact I claimed you said The problem is that you dont speak for the facts. Maybe you should have checked on this before writing a post attacking me for so stupidly misunderstanding you. (check post 151).


    I did say assuming its been replicated. It clearly isnt universally accepted within the scientific community that CFS is not a psychological condition, so I saw no reason to ask you to show otherwise if you think you can though, that would be interesting to see. Ive not read any of the papers which prove that CFS is not a psychological condition.


    This thing you said seems like such a thing:

    If youre not concerned by the psychologisers using their manipulation skills ala Goebbels, and convincing some of the people here that they are right, then whats the problem with it?


    I think that propaganda can be taken apart through discussion and debate.




    You can lose childish, sixth-form style debates through poor planning or the greater skills of the other side. But an on-going discussion is not so easily guided by stylistic flair or clever quotations. Some people really do struggle to think things through properly, especially when heavily fatigued, but we can take our time on an on-line forum and work to avoid being led astray.


    If you want to call me selfish and arrogant, go for it. Phrasing it like that is just embarrassing.

    Ive already explained how our other forms of expression can be twisted into reasons to dismiss CFS. I think that people will always be able to find ways of interpreting the behaviour of those in difficult situations in a way which absolves others of their responsibility to help, and blames the victim.

    There are always crack-pots who will misinterpret your motivations.

    An exaggeration of how badly CFS affects patients: CFS tends to begin with flu like symptoms, and excessive tiredness following normal activities. As it progresses the patients will offer endure muscle pain, and occasional headaches. As the patients body begins to break down, they will feel their muscles tearing themselves apart, being shredded as if through a cheese grater, and then put back together ready for the agonising process to begin anew. As their muscles splinter, shards of glass and refuse are sucked in, being constantly integrated into their contorting body mass. Once the patients tentacles begin to emerge, they will systematically seek out and destroy any thing or person of value to patient, drawing them near and tearing them apart while the patients eyes are prised open. By this point their conventional body will have rotten down to a sickly black goo but the patients pain receptors will be maintained and will go on reporting the same excruciating bodily sensations as before an interesting over-lap between mind and body, and indicating a possible psychological component to this condition. As more and more mass is pulled in by the grasping tentacled monstrosity, which is now devoted to the torture of the patients mind, gravitational forces will begin to distort the curve of space-time, attracting more mass into the tentacles reach. As planets and stars begin to be collected, their mass will build until the now emerging black-hole is able to seek out other, denser material. As it wafts gently towards the centre of the universe, hungry for more fuel to allow its torment of the patient to continue it will eventually cause all matter and mass to collapse in upon itself, destroying all that is and ever will be. Oh and the patients soul in damned to Hell too. There is no known cure for this syndrome, but CBT may be able to help the patient manage their symptoms.

    CFS is pretty bad but its difficulties can be exaggerated. You could say CFS is terminal within one week they patients body will run and of energy and collapse. Actually, thats a slightly easier exaggeration to type out than my other one. I probably should have gone for that one first.

    PS: Really sorry Mark - it's turned into a squabble again. I just don't like letting things go. Hope you're well, and sorry for shifting things away from your good work.
  5. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    Firstly, Esther, you can communicate whatever way you like - I can't stop you. What I can do is point out your apparent flaws in understanding, reasoning etc. in the assertions you make. There's nothing odd about that.

    Secondly, you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my words about tiredness- I did not say it was not a significant symptom. I said other things though, which you just have not engaged with.

    And you have indeed indicated that people should not clarify or even problematize the issue of 'fatigue' or 'tiredness', in case we get smeared in some way. It was the logical conclusion of your assertion. So yes, I have a problem with that.

    But it's quite clear I haven't 'flipped around' at all, if you follow it through. Your use of the term 'tired patients' is problematic at best. I've merely called attention to it and tried to explain to you why.

    Why do you feel the need to bring Mark into it? He's not an adjudicator! Or is this just an attempt to trivialise people's legitimately expressed concerns and objections to your assertions as 'squabbles', and find an imaginary daddy figure to appeal to? No offence Mark, but you're not my daddy, and I guess you don't want to be either! : )
  6. Koan

    Koan Be the change.

    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes:
    53
    Esther,

    You might find Martine Batchelor's book, Let Go, A Buddhist Guide to Breaking Free of Habits, in which she observes: “people suffer from persistent habits of behavior that dominate their mental, physical, and emotional lives, and from which they feel powerless to escape”, helpful in this regard given that you have identified a tendency to turn discussion into squabbling. I find the work of the Batchelors (Martine and Stephen who recently wrote Confessions of a Buddhist Athiest) very helpful.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes:
    5,003
    This all started when Id said On-line forums seem to me to be the ideal place for tired patients to be able to engage in this sort of discussion. A rather innocuous comment you might think.

    Not for you though Angela. You somehow took as something of an insult, saying that if you suffer from CFS youre just tired, (tired with a sneer?) and that I couldnt possibly understand how ill some people are:

    Considering your post, I then replied rather gently:

    Here you do have a problem with my belief that tiredness is a significant problem, and seem to think that my use of the term is potentially damaging.

    Heres my reply, explaining that while I understand my way of communicating can play into the prejudices of others, I think that the alternatives can too. Please note that in this post I do not say We should only describe ourselves as tired and never examine any other symptom or anything of the like. I dont say that the problems caused by describing our symptoms in detail are greater than the problems caused by describing them casually and briefly. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - some people are so keen to dismiss CFS patients that they will use any excuse.

    You took that to mean I was saying we cannot have accuracy, clarification and logic, and was arguing against you using these devices in your arguments:

    I pointed out that I do not have a problem with accuracy, clarity and logic, and was in fact mirroring your own point about the way that CFS patients can find their own reasonable behaviour turned into ad hominem claptrap:

    Now were back to the present, where you no longer have a problem with my belief that tiredness is a significant problem for CFS patients although later in the post you do have a problem with me saying tired patients? So do CFS patients get tired or not? If so, then why is it such a problem for me to say so?

    Youve not pointed out any flaws in my understanding or reasoning youve just claimed to have done so.

    @ Koan: My partner is interested in the Mindfulness, secular Buddhism mind-management malarky. I think it's rather clever too.

    I'm able to 'let things go' in terms of recognising their rather trivial nature, and that continuing such discussions is unlikely to improve my own happiness. But I can get sucked into them like tetris - there's a satisfaction to be found in moving the blocks around and showing people why they're wrong. I don't think I turn discussions into squabbles, but when others have done so, I certainly perpetuate them.

    If you read my comment about 'tired patients' which set off Angela, I don't think I could have predicted it would lead to a squabble - but once it began I did not want to leave it alone.
  8. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    Look, with respect Esther, you can't just claim I've been 'set off' or claiming I 'no longer' have a problem with claiming CFS patients are tired (implying I've had a position change, which I haven't) or that I take something as an 'insult', without me thinking you have a tendency to use ad hominem against people in your argument style- which I certainly have a problem with. These are all just recent examples of your misrepresentation of what I've argued.

    I certainly did have a problem with your use of the term 'tired patients' which itself was a misrepresentation (possibly because of your misunderstanding) of Canadian defined 'ME/CFS'. However, cohorts used by, for example, Wessely et al, may well have 'tiredness' and little else, again, bearing in mind my pointing out to you the problems around claims of 'tiredness' and 'fatigue' in 'CFS' patients by doctors etc. which I note you have still not acknowledged. I think that is a significant problem, either because you are ideologically committed to a position which my explanation problematized, or because you have a problem with constructing argument without resorting to ad hominem and appeals to authority.

    I wrote about the problem of 'fatigue'- focusing in patient cohorts in response to Cleare and Wessely following the publication of the Erlwein paper. This is available on the Plosone website (Readers responses). This is another major problem with psychogenic explanations for 'CFS'.

    The majority of participants on this board appear to have Canadian defined ME/CFS, or, like me, are supporters of loved ones with such. The reducing of serious impairments to 'fatigue' is a major flaw of psychogenic explanations of 'CFS'. This has already been explained to you on this thread. So it is an important point - even if you wish to dismiss the problem and my raising of it.

    Certain comments you make - if taken to their logical extreme conclusion- can show how flawed they were. This is a common way to analyse if reasoning is fallacious in argument construction. Your comments are often like that - they are not playing into my 'prejudices', they are flawed arguments, and I need to object to them, because some of them are potentially damaging and misinformative. Other people are in the same position as me. This is the essence of public debate, in effect.

    I don't really care if you have a problem or tendency in trying to prove people wrong. But, like others, of course I am not going to refrain from objecting if I find what you write is objectionable.

    And - again taking arguments to logical extremes - shall we now find ever-increasing ludicrous ways to 'exaggerate' CFS - in the way you have? What purpose does it serve? What other subjects shall we do? Pitbulls?
  9. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    To esther
    mptom for CFS patients, then do not use the word. I do, and will.
    i said that a convincing argument from a psychiatrist was as LIKELY as creationists accepting the primacy of evolution.

    I think that you easily misinterpret another persons statements and then comment on your interpretation instead of what was actually said
    This is a trivial point

    so misinterpreting A statement is a trivial point now?

    i I understood what you were trying to say but thought its expression was slightly confused.
    g: It would be as l
    You were sayinikely to get a convincing argument that CFS is a primarily psychological illness as a creationist not being a creationist (ie – impossible).


    No Esther that is what you assumed not what i said you do seem to be prone to leaps of logic dont you

    The fact that the impossible thing you are mentioning happens to involve a creationist has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, but because you are making a point about poor arguments which are unsupported by the evidence, the mention of a creationist is a distraction. I thought that maybe you mentioned creationism because you wanted to draw a parallel between creationism and the psychologisers, so re-phrased your analogy in a way which would do this. Just lending a hand.

    Moderator note- Gerwyn please stop with the cutting remarks!
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes:
    5,003
    I think this probably needs an edit if you want to criticise me for not understanding clearly written posts.
  11. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    To esther part 2


    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    2) You'd said that Stalin and Goebbals could explain their position very convincingly - I don't think so.

    I actually said that they DID convince many people with repeated plausible propaganda.it seems to me that you are misrepresenting my words or confusing your thoughts on a matter as fact or botht
    You said that Stalin and Goebbels could explain their position very convincingly, but only a fool would believe them. I don’t think that the people on this forum should be assumed to be fools, so have no concern about them being misled by ‘convincing’ arguments which only fools would believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    I'm not sure about this, but I think that for something to be a fact, it would need to be symbolically expressed. You cannot point at a person and say "That is a fact."

    What do mean by symbolically expressed could you define that term. The earth orbits the sun that is a fact .Why can I not point to a person and say that. on reflection however it seems to me that you are genuinely that uncertain about how to distinguish fact from fiction and believe that a factual statement has to be accompanied by a metaphor of some kind.I fear that your chances of succeding in a debate against a doctor would be minimal.

    Right: ‘The Earth orbits the Sun’ is a fact. But if you just pointed at the sun, this would not be a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, but if you just moved money around in front of someone to illustrate this, I don’t think that could be described as a fact.

    you mean that moving money around cant be described as a fact

    ’ve not really thought much about this, but I think the term ‘fact’ only applies to claims about reality, rather than simple presentations of reality. You seemed rather dismissive of ‘people using words’ rather than facts – but I think words are often used to express facts, and that the word ‘fact’ may actually only apply to expressed claims rather than just evidence.

    you do seem to have trouble understanding the word fact dont you.words may or not be used to express facts. Facts and claims are different entities.are facts not evidence in your lexigon?
  12. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    To esther part three


    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    Sometimes words will be used dishonestly or stupidly, as was the case with Stalin and Goebbals, but it seems neither of us find them terribly convincing, so I do not think that we need to worry about that. Personally, I think that had either of them engaged in the sort of open ended discussions that can take place here, this would have served to undermine their totalitarian regimes, that depended upon a restriction of free speech and debate. Too much free discussion and debate was not a problem in either case.

    Free debate and discussion was not a problem for the authorites.it was actively encouraged. it had no effect whatsoever apart from enabling the regime in question to target dissenters and eliminate them.It was certainly a problem fot those who took the opposing position in said debates. it is easy to dismantle an argument with the knowledge of hindsight and be able to see such an argument as propaganda. milions of people could not do so at the time howevervand totally believed the clever deceptions that they were repeatly fed. Every thing seemed plausable to them and they thought their authorities were telling the



    You seem to have a strange idea as to what free speech and debate requires. Openly challenging the ideas of these totalitarian regimes certainly was a problem for those who did so - the brutal punishments they faced would, to me, rather indicate a lack of freedom of speech and debate.

    what I said was that that free DEBATE(not speech) and discussion had no EFFECT and was actively encouraged.you appear to have a very strange idea of the meaning of this statement!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post



    I,m sorry that you view facts as a kind of entity.peoples who's arguments are based soley on the misuse of words do find facts to be a spectre or their nemesis. I actually said that you dont use any facts.If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english.perhaps you dont actually believe that there are such things as facts.I think that this might be the case as you tend to assume your interpretations are evidence enough. It seems to me therefore that you would not have any basis for deciding on whether an argument was a ggo one or not.
    ?

    This is good.

    You’re complaining about the fact I claimed you said “The problem is that you dont speak for the facts”. Maybe you should have checked on this before writing a post attacking me for so stupidly misunderstanding you. (check post 151).

    No this your comment that I am referring to


    You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?

    you mentioned that you had stupidly misrepresented my post not me.
  13. Koan

    Koan Be the change.

    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes:
    53
    Emphasis mine, not Esther's

    I guess that constitutes fair warning, Esther. Not that you have misrepresented yourself re this tendency in the past.

    I don't understand why you find being a provocateur so satisfying but, clearly, you do. I'm trying not to judge - and failing - but I cannot understand why you do not put this energy to better use. Do you honestly believe this is useful dialogue of benefit to anyone?

    Please treat that as a rhetorical question.

    Mystified.
  14. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    to esther part 4

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    5) You'd started by saying I was underestimating the intelligence of people here, and end by saying that, while you would not be conned by the psychologiser's propaganda, they're so smart that they would be able to trick other, less gifted members of the board? I don't think it is I who is underestimating the intelligence of members here.

    I did not say any such thing.Either you are deliberately misrepresenting my words to further your argument or have simply misunderstood my position.As I cannot concieve of the former then i must assume the latter.If that be true then,as I am not trying to decieve you,your defeat in a debate against a proffesional in any field,let alone a proffessor of psychology,appears all too certain

    This thing you said seems like such a thing:

    so the entity I referred to seemed to you to be an entity.what has that got to do with my actual comment.

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    I under-estimated how many people saw the forum as a safe haven

    .I think you underestimated people's intelligence
    If youre not concerned by the psychologisers using their manipulation skills ala Goebbels, and convincing some of the people here that they are right, then whats the problem with it?


    I am glad that you begin to realise that manipulators "ala goebbels" can convince people that they are right when they are not.I cant understand that you cant see the problem with that

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
    I note you dont want to see any facts on this matter.

    It is impossible to exaggerate the absolute literal absence of energy and exhaustion which lies at the core of this illness.

    It is however a simple matter to trivulize the illness by using the word tired.if you understand that using this term plays into the hands of denigrators of our fellow sufferers then why one earth are you using it.
    A great many people with ME cant get out of bed let alone "overanalyze" their symptoms.

    When in a war you dont give ammunition to the enemy

    I'm not at war. I'm not going to fight dirty. I don't like propaganda.

    yet you are willing to invite people who use nothing but propaganda.While you may not be at war these people are.
    I think that propaganda can be taken apart through discussion and debate.
  15. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    If someone misrepresents my words then i will reply and take them to task for it.When someone makes vauge convoluted statements i am entitled to ask for clarifycation.When Esther is challenged she invariably" interprets" what is said to suit herself and replies based on what she "thinks" has been said.Now I know quite a few well known doctors who use THAT technique! She should not be suprised at the reaction that the use of that technique invokes.That technique is what I am highlighting in my posts.If you percieve that to be bullying then so be it
  16. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes:
    5,003

    I really thought that tracing the discussion back for you would have helped, but it doesn’t seem to have.

    You think that you are ‘taking arguments to logical extremes’ but you are not. When you read my comment “On-line forums seem to me to be the ideal place for tired patients to be able to engage in this sort of discussion” and decided that I was misrepresenting Canadian defined ME/CFS, or could not possibly understand the levels of impairment faced by others, this was not a logical extension of what I said, just a misrepresentation of it.

    I would not want you to refrain from commenting upon elements of my posts which you find objectionable, but please try to limit yourself to my posts. When you attempt to logically extend my comments you usually end up attacking a position I do not hold. I thought that my last post, going through the trail of our discussion, would have made that clear.

    Re I misrepresenting you: I do not see where I have done so. You gave two examples:

    1) You being ‘set off’ is my own characterisation of your response, I think it is a fair one, but even if it were not, it came immediately beneath a post where I had posted your response in full for all to see. I think I show be allowed my own commentary on it, even if you disagree with it.
    2) You being angry/not angry about me talking of ‘tired patients’. So is it true that CFS patients are often tired or not? If so, then why is it such a problem for me to say so? Again, I’d posted your full quotes here as well.

    I may not have acknowledged your points about Wessely, ‘tiredness’ and ‘fatigue’. As you present them again here, they are of no relevance to anything I’ve said, but I’m happy to acknowledge them for you. It’s not a significant problem for me.

    Considering the tone of your own posts, I do not think you can complain if I’m occasionally less the courteous in reply.

    Re exaggerating CFS: The whole discussion, from me being picked up for saying it’s possible to exaggerate how bad CFS is, was ludicrous and pointless.


    Part 1
    No, me trying to improve you rather confused analogy was a trivial point.

    Okay. Lets go back through this again.

    You’d written: “A compelling argument made by a proponents of the view that ME is a psychological disorder would be about as likely as creationists aknowledging the primacy of evolution.”

    The only assumption I’d made was that you were using a definition of ‘creationist’ which included a rejection of the primacy of naturalistic evolution in the emergence of life. You may been referring to those creationists who claim a Creator was involved at some earlier point, and then left the universe unguided – but this would have made even less sense.

    If a creationist is someone who does not acknowledge the primacy of evolution, then it is impossible to have a creationist who does so. It would be like 1=/=1.

    I’ll now go back to my earlier explanation, which I think did a fair job:

    >You were saying: It would be as likely to get a convincing argument that CFS is a primarily psychological illness as a creationist not being a creationist (ie – impossible).

    >The fact that the impossible thing you are mentioning happens to involve a creationist has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, but because you are making a point about poor arguments which are unsupported by the evidence, the mention of a creationist is a distraction. I thought that maybe you mentioned creationism because you wanted to draw a parallel between creationism and the psychologisers, so re-phrased your analogy in a way which would do this. Just lending a hand.

    Some of this post of yours seems a bit garbled eg: “g: It would be as l”? Letters seem to be missing or in the wrong order.

    These are simple points, and I’ve not over analysed them. I’ve just taken the time to explain them.

    Part 2. You seem to have missed out your reply to the first half of this part.

    As I tried to make clear, I’m not sure about this. But I think that if someone was to gather a crowd of people together and say “This is a fact:” and then spend a few minutes shifting money about, a lot of the crowd would think he was nuts. If someone then said “He’s moving money around”, that would be a fact.

    Regardless, the point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with being convinced about something just because of words – words are very useful way of communicating information and facts, indeed, I think that facts might require some such form of communication in order to be considered ‘facts’.

    I was talking about something different. I don’t think that facts and evidence are synonyms, although I think that facts can be used as evidence. This is all getting a bit linguistic and off topic though.

    Part3
    In my original post I’d said “free speech and debate” – in your reply you’d phrased it as “free debate and discussion”, but gave no indication of a change in meaning. Even if we accept your change of terminology, you’re still wrong.

    I don’t think you can be said to have free debate if it is known in advance that anyone who opposes the ideas of the government will be punished for doing so. If that’s free debate, what’s restricted debate? When people have their mouths sown shut at birth? I think it is you who have a warped understanding as to what ‘free debate’ would entail.

    I was playfully highlighting your slightly garbled use of language: “The problem is that you dont speak for the facts” is not a terribly clear way of communicating anything.

    Of course I don’t speak for ‘the facts’. No-one does!

    If you look at point number three of post #166 you can see you’re complaint that I misquoted you: “I actually said that you dont use any facts. If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english.” You can see that I quoted you correctly with “The problem is that you dont speak for the facts” if you go to post #155.

    The whole thing makes you look a little silly I’m afraid.

    Part 4:
    The post I was replying to began with “I did not say any such thing.” I then posted the quote in support of my claim, introducing it as ‘such a thing’.


    It’s possible for people to be convinced of stupid things, but I think that it is patronising to assume that they will be (I suppose some people deserve to be patronised), or to use that as a reason to limit the available discussions on a forum like this.

    I think that your position assumes rather less of people than mine.

    You also seem to have missed out some replies to part 4.

    Thanks KFG. I’m not remotely worried by the verbal flourishes and attempted bullying from others though – I’m quite happy to join in.

    I quite agree with more jokes though. Best to keep things light hearted.

    You knew I couldn’t treat it as rhetorical Koan – I can’t let things go!

    I don’t think of myself as being a provocateur- I don’t say things which I do not believe just to cause trouble. I just really try not to keep quiet about things I believe in order to avoid trouble.

    I think that much of this dialogue is totally pointless – but I feel like I’m just clearing up the misunderstandings and confused attacks of others. I don’t want to let that slide, and if I did, I think that it could further lead to an atmosphere in which people were unwilling to present views they thought might be unpopular.
  17. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    @ KFG

    I second Gerwyn's comments here.
  18. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    Also - we could go on like this all day. Round and round in circles. It's possible this is Esther12's intent, and the misrepresentation of others views part of that.

    Esther12 wants ILL (not 'tired') people to engage directly with psychs on this forum. People have explained why this is a TERRIBLE idea. Esther12's now taken on us a rather unpleasant detour (the exaggerating CFS- that's astounding, the misrepresentation of people as merely 'tired' NOT important enough to engage with by him/her? Wow. The choice of the word 'tired' instead of 'ill' big alarm bells). Then he/she blames others for objecting and basically accusing them of derailing the thread.

    In the end it becomes impossible to have a rational debate with someone who keeps misrepresenting other people's points, which is what Eshter keeps doing. Now - taking Gerwyn's last comments, if people are having problems with Esther12's technique of debate, similar as it is to the way we've certain public figures operate - imagine having to have that with one of the proponents of the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS!

    I've also noticed the pushing of certain buttons - certainly the fatigue/'tiredness' one is a major issue for people generally. I have no idea of Esther12's agenda here - it is possible he/she is truly an ingenue when it comes to the filthy politics of ME/CFS, actually naive but a little too arrogant to admit that. Maybe there is an ideological committment to a psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS there. Who knows?

    I do think it is significant that a major issue (around 'fatigue'/tiredness) has been trivialised by Esther12, including his/her last post. Of course, I brought it up for a good reason, not to be mean! That Esther12 tried to dismiss them as being of 'no relevance' is significant. Of course they are signficant points, not because my delicate ego wants them to be, but because many, many advocates over many years have objected to the over-focus and misrepresentation, of serious physiological impairment, to 'fatigue' or 'tiredness' and the dismissal of all the other devastating signs and symptoms suffered by those given a diagnosis of 'CFS' (and/or 'ME').

    This thread was not a good one to start with. The idea TERRIBLE. It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who uses various rhetorical techniques to prevent rational debate but win the point with the linguistic equivalent of saying 'you're a big poo-poo head' sticks their fingers in their ears singing 'la-la-la' then running off to an imaginary daddy.
  19. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

  20. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Messages:
    855
    Likes:
    170
    England
    Woah, people, we are all wired right now, aren't we. Please remember that one of the biggest lessons in life is learning how to let go. Of your kids, your youth, and in the end, your life.

    There are better things to be done with all the energy I see expended on this thread that spiking at each other. Haven't we got enough enemies already? Jesus taught us to love our enemies. Come on now, group hug, good things are happening. Let's focus on the positive, it's better for our health.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page