I would like to take the rest of this conversation to a PM format, please.
I realized we are talking about people's personal lives here and it is probably not considerate to do it in public.
thanks.
We're talking about a girl whose back was treated much the same way as John McCain's arms were at the hands of the Viet Cong, and you're talking about it not being considerate to talk about people's personal lives.
This is why the topic title is such a fucking joke.
If you don't like it go start your own thread, otherwise why don't you pretend your civil, Pile. Those were the rules,"Awake" asked us to abide by.
I was wondering when I would get called out on this thread, a ‘Civil Discussion’ about the TTI. I have found it very difficult to talk ‘civilly’ about an industry that contains so much that is ‘uncivil’, and may even represent a dividing line in our society between what is considered civil and what is not. How can we have a ‘civil’ discussion, with opponents and proponents of the industry, when the topic is to discern what is socially acceptable as it concerns the use and abuse of programs and methods that are unacceptable in civilian society, and imposes a situation upon a person that denies their autonomy as a citizen and a person.
Pile, I think, has identified a particular point of conflict in that there are programs that have, in one way or another, been the progenitors of outright abuses that have caused considerable harm, physical and otherwise. In this case I think we should weigh what is more civil, to allow programs to act at the societal level without scrutiny, or, impolitely discuss the nature of a TTI transgression without the consent of the individual(s) ? Is the forced, abusive situation something that should only be identified if everyone involved openly chooses to, or, should we be able to identify for ourselves a situation that is happening to someone else that we would generally consider abusive, especially when the victims may be deterred from openly discussing it for some reason?
All in all, it’s an unfair position to be put in when trying to discuss the improprieties in the TTI, which I would add to the list.
I have run into my own conflict concerning talks about the TTI, only on the opposite end of the spectrum as it concerns the most fundamental aspects of programs and covert abuses that generally occur out of that framework.
It is clear to me that no program supporter can maintain their position in the face of their own prescription, even in the most passive, acceptable, and ‘civil’ of circumstances advertised by programs.
To make it clearer, the proponents believe in forced therapy in the current form, and the opponents don’t. This is a clear division on what we think is ‘civil’. So how are we to discuss this in a civil manner?
Recently I tried to demonstrate to some program supporters the fault behind their thinking by challenging them to face their own prescription. It only took a few transactions, (clearly within todays ethical standards), before it was deemed ‘uncivilized’ and I was attacked for it by industry proponents.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30775 So I have a couple problems, first is that if an industry supporter runs so quickly from their own prescription, are they really willing to openly evaluate the harm presented even in the most basic characteristics of the TTI, and should that weigh in on their overall opinion?
And Second, If the program prescription is re-written to address their ‘faulty’ belief in forced therapy, and it successfully works to stop outward behavior that exemplifies that support, is that a successful individual treatment model? And does the proponents’ belief justify a decidedly ‘civil’ use of that kind of thinking by opponents to illustrate the position being advocated?
I don’t see how proponents can come to an appropriate ethical conclusion for the use of programs without doing so.
