The title of this thread is meant to be whimsical, not unplesant. It is a statement that I'm drifting my thread with Marvin on purpose.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: Let's Not Bloody Vote > > > > Why is the mental health community wrong, then, when they say it is > > generally the right thing to do, not only for the community, but the person > > exibiting the undesired behavior? > > What I object to -- and I can see how one may say I'm just arguing a > technicality -- is the business of invoking the "mental health community." > It suggests we have a clinical understanding of someone whom we hardly > know, and that we have in our hands a justification that arguably meets > some clinical standard. To my mind this is laughably absurd. Why does it suggest a clinical diagnosis? I specifically excluded doing a DSM-4 diagnosis based on posts. The mental health community also tends to give general rules for functional families and good mental health that are applied across a large number of situations. Saying that boundaries is good for mental health is like saying exercise is good for physical health. I wouldn't think that one would argue that saying exercise is good for physical health is a clinical diagnosis? I don't want to presume, Marvin, , but your posts do not indicate a familiarity with the mental health profession. I've slept with a therapist for 20+ years and have some feel for what goes on. Indeed, I am particularly sensitive to the use of therapy as a technique in arguement. Way back at the start of our marriage, we had to establish that doing therapy during an arguement was playing dirty and merited the punishment of losing the arguement due to the foul. However, general discussions of things like boundaries were just part of the language we used. > Analogy: some guy tries to get rough with me in a bar. In self-defense I > punch his lights out. I won't agree with the analogy. Violence and a week ban from a list are two different kettles of fish. One cannot equate rearranging someone's face with what is essentially a time out. > But there's no medical, clinical analysis at stake, and if I tried to >justify my self-defense in clinical psychological terms any listener >would (I hope) consider me a nut for trying to do so. You live in a different world than I do. We talk about such things fairly frequently here. Its just like talking about a diet not being healthy. FWIW, I deliberately did not use diagnosis jargon. What I used were words that are generally used by people who work with youth, are on the AIDS care team, with people working on improving their marriage, etc. > > So, I agree that people need to be taught when their behavior is > unwelcome. I agree that we, as individuals and as a community have to > take reponsibility for establishing "boundaries" for our own protection. > I'm even willing to agree that you can draw a strong comparison between > what the mental health community says and what happens on line. > > I don't believe it's sound to use the language of mental health to justify > the kind of decision we're discussing, however, because I don't believe we > have enough knowledge about Mark, or about one another generally, to apply > any kind of reliable clinical standard. To act as though we do have that > knowledge is, IMO, overly familiar and insulting to the person being > discussed. So mental health ideas are only to be discussed in a clinical setting? Why? The discussion of boundaries doesn't require any diagnosis, just an understanding of what makes a healthy community. I'd be willing to accept that you differ with my understanding, but I think a high threshold is set when you call it "insulting and insane." Indeed, I'd argue that you've come much closer to diagnosing me when you use this statment than I am when I discuss boundaries. :-) Dan M.
