You'll have no problem linking to a source for that then?
A personal financial disclosure has been released, but that's not a tax return, and as I understand it, the PFD is both mandatory and public, so hardly an act of transparency. I can't find any evidence of any other financial release, and certainly not a tax return, but if you know differently please share.
Although this is obviously just an attempt at misdirection and you don't really care what it says, the first edition also mentions depression and depressive symptoms many times, often under the psychotic disorders chapter heading. Later editions changed some categorisations and there is scholarly debate over some of those changes, but depression has definitely been featured in every edition.
So you're out of touch with medical classifications as they've existed since 1952.
It took me literally a minute to search for the manual and search the text for depression, less time than it took me to write this post. It's not hard to do research and learn things.
you do realise that documents can be changed, right? they release further editions based on updated research that disproves theories, redefines terms and provides new discoveries. I mean, your precious constitution has 27 amendments. I'm sure you'd be right pissed if someone asked you "well what does the original draft say?"
it not what I believe. you claimed that depression is not a mental illness and I disproved that. if you choose to ignore that then that's what you want to believe
you do realise that documents can be changed, right?
Yes. They can be changed without a preponderance of scientific evidence, too.
they release further editions based on updated research that disproves theories, redefines terms and provides new discoveries.
And they also don’t do that. So if there’s a metric after which it has been proven that such things have occurred, wouldn’t you want whatever was said before that? To ensure a higher degree of scientific accuracy, that is.
I mean, your precious constitution has 27 amendments. I'm sure you'd be right pissed if someone asked you "well what does the original draft say?”
And if you understood the discussion at all, you’d know why that example was meaningless.
it not what I believe. you claimed that depression is not a mental illness and I disproved that. if you choose to ignore that then that's what you want to believe
And they also don’t do that. So if there’s a metric after which it has been proven that such things have occurred, wouldn’t you want whatever was said before that? To ensure a higher degree of scientific accuracy, that is.
yes but no one has proven that depression is not a mental illness, and you going on the internet and claiming that doesn't count. and don't try to come at me with that arguments of "well they've disproved things that we thought were fact before" argument because that's just shite. believing that you shouldn't believe in current scientific developments just because they might be proven untrue in the future is like saying you won't eat pizza because later it'll turn into crap
And if you understood the discussion at all, you’d know why that example was meaningless.
there is no discussion. you said something, you were proved wrong and now you're trying to worm your way out of it with fallacious logic. maybe I should go into the er and tell them their assessment of appendicitis is incorrect, and instead they should tie a leather thong around the patient's waist and tie the other end to a tree, because that's what they used to do. just admit that you were wrong and we can move on jesus christ
they simply release new versions just for the hell of it.
And you’ve evidence they don’t do this? Of course you don’t. There’s no authority over them that prevents them from doing so. They are the “authority”. They’ve done exactly this in the past, by the way, so you’ll have to forgive me for not trusting them when they admit to not having a scientific reason to update a listing.
yes but no one has proven that depression is not a mental illness
I’m confident that’s not how it works.
there is no discussion. you said something, you were proved wrong and now you’re trying to worm your way out of it with fallacious logic.
Whatever you want to delude yourself into believing.
No I'm right and it doesn't matter what you post in response I will not accept it. Tallest methodology is apparent. To try and debate becomes a war of attrition in which victory is claimed when everyone one else gives up.
The man who says "definitionally wrong" to nearly everything he disagrees with says something definitionally wrong and in desperation to save face starts attacking the authorities responsible for the definition.
Duly noted as yet another example of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
And still no comment on the erroneous tax return claim. What a worm.
Comments
Citation needed.
Already did. Mentioned that a while ago.
A personal financial disclosure has been released, but that's not a tax return, and as I understand it, the PFD is both mandatory and public, so hardly an act of transparency. I can't find any evidence of any other financial release, and certainly not a tax return, but if you know differently please share.
Here you go: http://www.turkpsikiyatri.org/arsiv/dsm-1952.pdf
So you're out of touch with medical classifications as they've existed since 1952.
It took me literally a minute to search for the manual and search the text for depression, less time than it took me to write this post. It's not hard to do research and learn things.
I mean, your precious constitution has 27 amendments. I'm sure you'd be right pissed if someone asked you "well what does the original draft say?"
it not what I believe. you claimed that depression is not a mental illness and I disproved that. if you choose to ignore that then that's what you want to believe
Yes. They can be changed without a preponderance of scientific evidence, too.
And they also don’t do that. So if there’s a metric after which it has been proven that such things have occurred, wouldn’t you want whatever was said before that? To ensure a higher degree of scientific accuracy, that is.
And if you understood the discussion at all, you’d know why that example was meaningless.
Again, whatever you want to believe.
yes but no one has proven that depression is not a mental illness, and you going on the internet and claiming that doesn't count. and don't try to come at me with that arguments of "well they've disproved things that we thought were fact before" argument because that's just shite. believing that you shouldn't believe in current scientific developments just because they might be proven untrue in the future is like saying you won't eat pizza because later it'll turn into crap
there is no discussion. you said something, you were proved wrong and now you're trying to worm your way out of it with fallacious logic. maybe I should go into the er and tell them their assessment of appendicitis is incorrect, and instead they should tie a leather thong around the patient's waist and tie the other end to a tree, because that's what they used to do. just admit that you were wrong and we can move on jesus christ
I'm going with that. I'm sure you'd say it's because I can't read, another example of what you say having no reflection in reality.
I’m confident that’s not how it works.
Whatever you want to delude yourself into believing.
Tallest methodology is apparent.
To try and debate becomes a war of attrition in which victory is claimed when everyone one else gives up.
The man who says "definitionally wrong" to nearly everything he disagrees with says something definitionally wrong and in desperation to save face starts attacking the authorities responsible for the definition.
Duly noted as yet another example of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
And still no comment on the erroneous tax return claim. What a worm.
Laughably misplaced arrogance.
Where are the tax returns, revered truthsayer?