THIS Is The Presidential Candidate You Intend To Support?

[John Cotter]

And so it appears that William Niederhut went whining to the moderators about me again resulting in another ban, this time for two days. Well, one day and twenty-three hours to be precise (don’t ask), according to moderator Mark Knight.

There were two stated reasons for my being banned, my criticism of mainstream psychiatry and my alleged belittling of a member.

Regarding the first reason, it appears that some members can criticise the US government and its institutions, but I am prohibited from criticising the institution of psychiatry.

It’s obvious that the reason I was banned for this is that no one, including William Niederhut, was able to logically refute my criticism of psychiatry. Hence, the draconian ban.

As I’ve explained, the notion that psychiatry is just a branch of medicine like any other branch is pure codology. The following fact is apposite.

The difference between psychiatry and ordinary medicine was acknowledged by the Netherlands Equal Treatment Commission (ETC) in 2005. It ruled that ordinary doctors could remain working beyond the age of 65 but not psychiatrists because: “The ETC concluded that where there is no valid method available to test whether psychiatrists are still capable of doing their work properly, that fact constituted an objective justification for the age limit of 65 years.” (European Anti[1]Discrimination Law Review, Issue No 3, April 2006, page 78 – available free online).

Effectively the ETC was, like Thomas Szasz and other eminent medical experts, saying that institutional psychiatry is largely mumbo jumbo.

As for the allegation that I belittled another member, this is also codology. What I was criticising about William Niederhut was his perverse posting behaviour, specifically, his constantly cluttering threads with diversionary verbiage, much of which has already been refuted many times previously.

In this regard, I have previously cited an excellent article by The Ethical Skeptic titled, “How to Argue Like a Child” (see link below).

Anyone familiar with William Niederhut’s posting behaviour will see that points 3 (“Focused on Irrelevance”) and 8 (“Insulting and Demeaning … They will float their ‘PhD’ or other comparative appeal to authority in some manner.”) are especially applicable to William’s modus operandi.

William and the moderators would do well to heed carefully and learn from the concluding paragraph of the article:

“As an ethical skeptic, when you point out this set of methodological errors on their part, you are not committing an ad hominem informal fallacy. You are simply citing that their method of arguing has weakened the ability for anyone to conduct sufficient or scientific discourse. You are asking them to stop, and reengage under protocols of normal human respect. This is a valid topic of meta-discussion and is in no way tantamount to a critique of them personally (even though they may perceive it as such).”

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2019/11/10/how-to-argue-like-a-child/

Edited August 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[W. Niederhut]

This is yet another inaccurate, defamatory-- even libelous-- ad hominem Education Forum post by John Cotter.

The man knows nothing about the medical sub-specialty of psychiatry, and even less about my 40-year psychiatric career at Harvard and the University of Colorado.

One of my original objections to Cotter's inaccurate, repetitive ad hominem posts about psychiatry (and his misperceptions of my career) was that the posts had nothing to do with the political topics under discussion.

That remains the case today, and Cotter is, obviously, determined to impugn my professional reputation, despite knowing nothing about my work or about psychiatry.

I probably don't need to remind the forum that Cotter believes Thomas Szasz's old pop nonsense about mental illnesses being a "myth."

Anyone who has actually worked with mentally ill people knows that there is nothing "mythical" about psychotic illnesses and serious mood disorders-- not to mention neuropsychiatric disorders like autism spectrum disorders, OCD, and dementia.

Given his intractability and irrationality, I really must finally object to Mr. Cotter's continued membership on this forum.

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is yet another inaccurate, defamatory-- even libelous-- ad hominem Education Forum post by John Cotter.

The man knows nothing about the medical sub-specialty of psychiatry, and even less about my 40-year psychiatric career at Harvard and the University of Colorado.

One of my original objections to Cotter's inaccurate, repetitive ad hominem posts about psychiatry (and his misperceptions of my career) was that the posts had nothing to do with the political topics under discussion.

That remains the case today, and Cotter is, obviously, determined to impugn my professional reputation, despite knowing nothing about my work or about psychiatry.

I probably don't need to remind the forum that Cotter believes Thomas Szasz's old pop nonsense about mental illnesses being a "myth."

Anyone who has actually worked with mentally ill people knows that there is nothing "mythical" about psychotic illnesses and serious mood disorders-- not to mention neuropsychiatric disorders like autism spectrum disorders, OCD, and dementia.

Given his intractability and irrationality, I really must finally object to Mr. Cotter's continued membership on this forum.

William meets another criterion described in the “How to Argue Like a Child” article:

“Those who are perpetually captive inside a child’s mind engage in debate by means of the following method; the method of the faking skeptic or immature arguer. The agency who patrols social discourse and seeks to derail any stakeholder discussion which might serve steer science or its social discourse into a direction they disfavor. This style of arguer does not discuss the material at hand; their concealed goal is habitually instead, to discuss you. Their goal is to shut you down, if you dare disagree or even ponder a different conclusion.”

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2019/11/10/how-to-argue-like-a-child/

[W. Niederhut]

Just a reminder to forum members and the mods.

This is a "Political Discussion" thread about RFK, Jr.'s Presidential candidacy.

Yet the thread, and others, have been repeatedly hijacked by forum member John Cotter for the purpose of engaging in erroneous ad hominem attacks on me and on the clinical science of psychiatry-- two subjects about which John Cotter, obviously, knows nothing.

Is this acceptable Education Forum behavior?

[Leslie Sharp]

If this is the best clarification Team Kennedy could muster so far, I think it's safe to suspect there are "issues" inside the RFK Jr. camp. 

Kennedy Clarifies Position on Abortion

 August 13, 2023 Team Kennedy   1 Min Read

DES MOINES, IOWA—AUG. 13, 2023—Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair. 

Mr. Kennedy’s position on abortion is that it is always the woman’s right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion.

 

 

He/they left themselves wide open for Ed Kilgore's scathing attack published by New York Magazine:
 

' . . . If Kennedy’s plan was to give the forced-birth lobby a cudgel with which to attack his party, it worked instantly, provoking a statement from the chief proponent of a 15-week national abortion ban, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America: “Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s stated position is a stark contrast to the Democratic Party’s radical stance of abortion on demand, with no protection for babies in the womb or their mothers, right up to the end of pregnancy.”

In one fell swoop, in fact, Kennedy placed himself to the right of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy, all of whom have rejected the 15-week national-ban litmus test.

But even as the candidate’s statement begin bouncing around the echo chambers of American politics, Kennedy’s campaign leaped in to retract it, claiming it was as all based on a misunderstanding, as Politico reported:

[H]is campaign subsequently said Kennedy did not mean to support any federal limits on abortion.

“Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair,” his campaign said. “Mr. Kennedy’s position on abortion is that it is always the woman’s right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion.”

Kennedy was repeatedly asked simple questions on his position on abortion that no level of bleating of sheep or bellowing of steers could have possibly made all that confusing. That’s aside from the fact that it’s a bad idea to answer questions on the most inflammatory issue in American politics if you somehow don’t know the difference between “national” and “state” and have no clue what “viability” means.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/rfk-jr-executes-rare-double-flip-flop-on-abortion.html