--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > A related issue is, even if the use of SSRI's etc was 30%, > > > > so what? The implication, perhaps not intended by you, is > > > > that this would be odd, crazy, an indication of social > > > > decadence. Perhaps even a sign > > > > of raging drugged out bliss ninnies, tranquillized zombies, > > > > pervading society. > > > > > > I wouldn't have phrased it quite like that, but yes. > > > > Just curious. Why is that? Do you believe SSRI's tranquilize people? Get them high? Make them "happy", oblivious to the ups and downs of the world? > > A fair question. Yes. > > It's a subjective call, I grant you.
But subjective for whom? For an outside observer (presumably like you) who have a subjective view of what they think SSRI's do to another's mental state? Or a direct subjective report of an SRRI user on the effects on them -- their depression, anger, OCD or general "rawness" casued by serotonin deficiency? I assume you mean the former. Which has little relevance, IMO. Who cares what an (often uninformed) bystander "feels" an SRRI may do to someone who takes it. > Modern society > would probably not think so. But modern society > doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between > liberating a country and taking it over and killing > lots of its people, so again I can't feel real bad > about my particular subjective call. Well, with all respect, and good-naturedly, that seems to be a strawman type "fake-out". Sure "society" -- that is prevalent views of a majority of people, can be quite uninformed, illogical, manipulated and well, "stupid". Reality has little to do with what (often uninformed) bystander individuals (presumabley like you) "feel" or think, nor with what an uninformed, illogical, manipulated "majority" "feel" or think. The only subjective reporting of relevance is that of SRRI users who have a serotonin deficiency. Do they feel tranquilized, stoned, anesthized, immune to "feelings", oblivious to life's ups and downs? No, they don't. Do they feel the rawness and inflexibility symptomatic of serotonin deficincy being allleviated? Yes they do. Do they feel more natural and "themsleves"? Yes they do. These are the only subjective reports that are relevant. Not uniformed bystanders sense of what SRRI use "feels" like, or what an uniformed public "think". > > Do you think a serotonin imbalance makes a person "mentally ill", > > "crazy", or a threat to society? > > Absolutely not. What do you think? I don't. I was just trying to assess where you stand, relative to say a Jeff/ scientologist who does, as i understand it, believe a serotonin imbalance makes a person "mentally ill" -- and by implication, somone who takes an SSRI is "mentally ill" and taking an ineffective therapy to deal with it. On the other hand, strong serotonin deficiency, not prevalanet in all with seretonin deficiency, can cause a lot of strong anger manifestation. Or frustration acting out in not nice ways. So in severe cases, I think such persons can be a threat to society. Thats why I believe that taking the stigma off SSRIs and helping such people to get effective therapy could substantially reduce social fractures (domestic disturbances, bar fights, yelling at the kids, vengance vows, etc), anger-crimes and violence in society. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
