[Skybird]

Hottentot, you need to be aware of the context when I gave that snappy reply. I cut Takeda short, brutally short if you want to see it like that - and that was exactly what I wanted. Why?

Takeda said:

Skybird, I reject your view that past trauma renders every individual a suffering wreck or psychopath, which seems to be your general belief, both stated in this thread and in others. Painful memories are part of who I am as well. I would not have the procedure done.

He says that this and that "were my view. It isn'T and never was, and I have never, nowhere said that, also not in the thread with August on PTSD.

So I replied to that:

Thats something you read into it. I cannot recall that I made any quantitative assessment that allows the conclusion that I think every traumatization leads to utmost existential breakdown. As a matter of fact traumatization can come in many shades, forms and grades of severity. Thats why studies seriously researching on them often do - at least should - include the definitions of grades or diagnostic keys on which the researchers based when categorizing different grades of traumata.

Mind you, just days ago I explained that I have some practical experience with traumatization, and have had some more theoretical input on it from a specialist as well than just having studied general psychology. I also gave August links to some example studies that supported my arguments.

So, Takeda put soemthing into my mouth, I corrected that, by argument and in calm reaosnable tone. Takeda replied:

You're substituting philosophy for science.

Pardon? Have I missed something? Wrong party, maybe? I replied:

That's clinical fact. Traumatization can come in different grades of severity. Some are light, others are heavy. Don't even try to argue with me on this, I know it better than you. And active clinical practitioners know it better than you anyway. I have seen people with traumatizations that had pushed them into catatonic conditions for days and weeks, as if they were schizophrenic. Light cases of traumatization also suffer, but in kind of an automode or ghostmode can run the needs of everyday life. Between the two extremes, a wide variety of intensities and syndromes is possible. By diagnostic keys according to DSM or ICD, the keys and possible symptom list to be checked for may be the same. But the intensities by which symptoms form out, can vary tremendouslya, can find their very individual modulation.

How much more attention am I expected to spend to this kind of having a "discussion", and taking it serious as if it were of any compoletence on this detail of the generla mess created in here? I do nnot boast, I do not hide that I even do notn work as a psychologist, I just have said before, this and that are my qualifications for asssessing this detai, and from experience and theory, from both, I just know it better than you.

Read all the postings in chronological order, and see how it degraded more and more, and finally ended with Takeda'S snappish reply to the situation of a woman being raped that I quoted as an illustrative exmaple. "Strawman argument", he called that. Well. That left me speechless, and that was when I immediately lost any interest to deal with him any longer. Take note to the many other sidelines of the "discussion", and judge yourself. As I see it, I tried to keep things together. Some people got engaged and ignored the basis of this thread from their first posting on. Did not even take the time to correctly understand the original scenario. They just transported their anger on me from another thread, saw that I was here, and here we go again.

Sorry, I deliberately refuse to see such inconsistent and emotionally derailed chain of pseudo-arguments as somethign that I have to take serious for all time to come and must forever deal with respectfully and as if being of equal value. It's exactly like with Steve's old argument with me, and that is why somewhere else I compared the two, him and Takeda. And Steve also expects me to endlessly react and react to the same inconsistent chain of argument that he has started in a debate two or more years ago, which is why it makes me smiling, it just is that the longer it lasts the more manipulative his angry replies have become when I remind of it, since he sees he cannot bring me around by just repeating his view of things again.

Sorry, Hottentot, but every patience has limits. Mine was reached on that given detail when I gave that sharp reply to Takeda with the clear intention to cut it short at that point. I do not apologize for that, i do not feel bad for that, and same situation same conditions given, I would do it again. Takeda knows much more about musical history and composition and such, that's his profession. The issue discussed here, was part and special focus of my profession. And I probably indeed know the basics of it better than some layman who - even worse - engages me in a state of angry emotional arousal and in the aftermath of a different confrontation in another thread. I gave him repeated and sober, factual, calm replies to some really unqualified, partially unfocussed comments. But after some iterations, it has to end.