@richrf,
Apologies for not being able to get back sooner; quite busy off line. However, taking care of this business first, today, it is of no great mystery, richrf, that we--both you and I--come from different positions. Likewise, in the very same manner and to the very same degree, it is no unfathomable unknown that in debate statements are couch, modified and quantitized to various degrees, in the postitive absolute. Such is always out on the table for all to see, if notice is taken or not, and should incurr no great concern within some range of operation.
Firstly, I will lay out the flow as it concerns this matter specifically, then, I will deal with your points.
It is a fact that in your
#6 on page one, you wrote the following:
[indent]
BTW, schizophrenics may just be highly tuned into the greater picture, and for this reason are unable to function in norm society. Nothing wrong with them, other than they are more evolved! :bigsmile: [/indent]
In this statement,
it is a fact that you said that there is nothing wrong with those who are afflicted with the often enough devastating mental disorder of schizophrenia. In this statement,
it is a fact that you stated that the schizophrenia brain build is more evolved than the normal brain build. In this statement,
it is a fact that you expressly insinuated that those afflicted with the schizophrenia brain build cannot function in norm[al] society because of possibly being of a 'higher conscious state.'
All three statements not only reflect, but represent either of two possible understandings: one, a lack of a certain pertinant degree of information, and thus by extension, knowlege, on the schizophernic brain build and gene derived factors--ignorance--or that you lack a certain proper degree of respect for the impaired degree of cognitive and conscious function that the disease so diabolically casts upon the inflicted brain. Which would it be?
I chose the lesser of two evils--
and, actually, not really any 'evil' at all, really--taking it that you, richfr, were
not making light-hearted, unconcerned and indifferent jest, in spite of the seriousness of the mind state of those patients, and their families.
In your
#11 on page two, you, richrf, wrote the following:
[indent]
No one knows what is schizophrenia[/indent]
I responded to this in my
#12 with:
[indent]
The part before the first parenthesis, however, needs to be quantified to degree. Schizophrenia is fairly well understood, but of course not enough to make it something of history accounts only.[/indent]
First of all, it must be pointed out that we are talking here, at this point, about
what state schizophrenia is; as opposed to what the causes of the state are. This is most obviously clear from the context. Now, richrf, whether you wish to accept my statement, or not, is a totally different matter, and I have no intention of trying to force feed it down your throat; nevertheless, it holds, and I stand by it fully.
Now as to your point in your next post, and the degree to which the statement had been intended to have been applied towards the case of schizophrenia, I agreed with that in my
#14--so no problem there, I'd argue.
Then, you posted the link which had the title '
Schizophrenia Not Caused by Genes, Scientist Says,' which is a claim with a touch of spin put on it, which I pointed out and made effort to rectify a little, to which you lost your composure.
First then to touch on your argument points laid out:
Your first point, richrf, is in error for support of what you wish to argue because you have snipped out a portion of my wording from within the context that it had fallen, and applied it so as to have been saying a different thing altogether. Here is my original statement:
[indent]
It is true, on the other hand, that in all papers, and many books, that deal specifically with this somewhat largely genetic disease, once the term schizophrenia is spelled out, it is immediately shown to be 'here after SZ,' and once the background information is given, it will almost always be SZ.[/indent]
Paying close and conscientiously to the sentence, and the context within which it had been penned, it is most clear that I am explaining the use of SZ instead of having spelled the word out. The modifying, embedded clause, namely, '
that deal specifically with this somewhat largely genetic disease,' is showing a descriptive portion of the disease, that it is somewhat largely genetic in cause. While the cause may not be as high as <80%, it is quite possibly 50% or higher. This is what I present as '
somewhat largely' a portion of the cause of the disease. To interpret the wording '
somewhat largely' as saying 'more than 50%' would be in error--an error in the English domain.
Then, as touched on above, you next quote from that same post of mine (
#12 ), namely, '
Schizophrenia is fairly well understood' is talking about the state of what is SZ--the brain build that is the mental disturbance, and the traits seen in early childhood before the full onset of the disease. Here, that I had not been talking about the cause leading to the disease is quite clear enough.
The final quote, is the same as the first, therefore see above. Therefore, you what you have claimed as having been a conclusion, has no weight whatsoever. Even if SZ falls into place as having anywhere within the 40%-60% range of genetic (and perhaps not all in the hereditory sense, even) cause, that is a
somewhat large degree of cause.
richrf;77407 wrote:Yes. Please do next time. You either didn't do your research, or purposefully misled in overstating your perspective (something that happens all the time with overzealous scientists). In either case, given that you called me ignorant, if I was in your shoes, I would be highly embarrassed, especially instead of apologizing you come back and suggest that I do more research. You can apologize for both posts whenever you see fit.
As far as I am concerned, you are not a credible source for information. Even ignoring the sources of my posts, which contradict you entirely, you yourself contradict your own statements:
One: I did do, and have done a fair amount of research and suggested that all be careful with on-line sites (not only you, richrf). Also, I might add, I did enough research on the follow up of the link you had provided to know that the paper itself, and some who had not been quoted by it (such as Nick Craddock, who had said that '
it couldn't be concluded from this study that genes are not involved in the aetiology of schizophrenia), do not give room for the title of the article on that NaturalNews site.
Two: as seen above, your claim that I have '
purposefully misled in overstating your perspective ,' is a false claim. Three; I did in fact read the sources you provided with those links, and I did in fact check them out further (as is most surely evident to those who look carefully), so to charge that I ignored them is again, a false claim. Of course, as I have written above, whether you wish to pay attention to the sources I present (most of which are not on-line sources, unfortunately) is a choice that you are free to make, I have no qualms with that.
Now, richrf, here is the bottom line. I acknowlege that you have fundamentally expressed the desire that I apologize to you for making a statement in which I had pointed out a degree of lack of information/knowledge (ignorance) of the state which is SZ. I am fully willing to apologize for making that statement to you, if you would firstly make a public apology here on this thread towards those who are afflicted with SZ, and their families, for being callous and indifferent to the reality of their plight !
KJ
I'll get back with you William, please bear with me...as I have said, I'm very busy these days and do not have time.
ps...will edit later, if an typos or mispells; I'm sorry. kj
