Can Darwin See What Amber Heard?

America’s sweethearts- Johnny Depp and Amber Heard- are in a popular court case which can be watched on the internet, as all domestic abuse cases should be. Actually, if I am to be accurate, it is Depp’s libel trial against his former wife for defaming him in an op-ed. He used to be Jack Sparrow, but now he’s known as the man who either abused or was abused by Amber Heard. That’s what the trial seems to be about.

As part of this intimate look into two deranged Hollywood drug addicts, a Forensic psychologist delivered her assessment of Amber Heard and describes her as follows:

 “…externalization of blame, tending to have a lot of inner hostility” and “a tendency to be very self righteous but also to deny that self righteousness and judge others critically.” She added that Heard was “very full of rage” and had an intense fear of abandonment. 

Borderline personality disorder, which Curry diagnosed Heard with, involves “explosive anger when somebody needs space.”

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-court-case

Now, I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the field of psychiatry, but I have some questions about the way in which these diagnosis are founded.

The field is somewhat controlled by a collection of agreed upon labels and definitions, primarily the DSM-5-TR. Published in 2022, it is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.

That alone isn’t what worries me. But listen to what Psychietry.org has to say about how it was made:

It involved more than 200 experts, the majority of whom were involved in the development of DSM-5. In addition, four cross-cutting review groups (Culture, Sex and Gender, Suicide, and Forensic) reviewed all the chapters, focusing on material involving their specific expertise. A Work Group on Ethnoracial Equity and Inclusion ensure that appropriate attention to risk factors like racism and discrimination and the use of non-stigmatizing language. 

https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm

Did you see Sex and Gender up there? What about Ethnoracial Equity? It smells like the politicians on the left took a steaming hot pile of WOKE all over this thing, which is why homosexuality and transgenderism are no longer considered diagnosable and treatable conditions, even though they are lifestyles associated with some of the highest incidents of suicide in the western world. I could go off in the direction of how terrifying it is to let politicians affect the definitions of what is considered sane or not sane, but I need to ask something more foundational.

Jesus Vs the DSM-5

It will come as no surprise that the DSM-5 isn’t a Christian writing based on a Biblical worldview. Like anything else that received tax dollars, it is founded on the assumption of atheism. But once you have rejected the creation of mankind in the image of God, and replaced it with the racist nonsense that is evolutionary theory, how do you decide that ANYTHING is a “Disorder?”

When the analyst describes Amber Heard as “tending to have a lot of inner hostility” and “explosive anger,” why does this get labeled as a “disorder”? Where do they get the idea of order from which to distinguish a disorder? As a Christian I can easily look to the teachings of Jesus, who seems to prefer peace over conflict, and forgiveness over anger. But what in the evolutionary worldview says that the primate which is modern humans is supposed to NOT have explosive anger? What if instead that is just the next step in human evolution? Maybe we are evolving into rage monsters.

I can look to the teachings of Jesus and see that he seems to prefer we be humble and not self righteous, and that we be loving instead of judging others critically, but on evolutionism, why should we not be self righteous and critical? What model of human evolution says that it is a disorder for the primate which is modern humans to be self righteous and critical? What if it has a survival advantage? It might.

And it seems that Amber Heard has on several occasions expressed her anger and frustration with the men in her life in much the same way that dogs or cats might- by pooping on their side of the bed. But what if that behavior was simply inherited from whatever evolutionary ancestor we share with cats and dogs? Why should such behavior be condemned? Assuming we evolved from some common ancestor to cats and dogs of course. But assuming a Biblical worldview, this is disgusting behavior. Deuteronomy 23 tells the people of Israel to poop outside the camp, and to burry it so no one has to walk in it or even see it. So, needless to say, pooping in someone’s bed is right out. We’re not ANIMALS for heaven’s sake.

Today’s Crazy Is Tomorrow’s #Pride

Once again I need to point out that, on Atheism, we cannot even declare something to be an illness or a disorder because these things assume an ORDER from which the health has deviated. Disorder compares the present state to the created order, but if there was no created order, then calling a symptom an illness or a disorder is like going out to the driveway and declaring that a rain puddle is “the wrong shape.” What if the defense for Amber Heard declared that, YES she has rage and explosive anger and she’s harshly critical of other people, and she’s happy with who she is! What if she just declares her new gender to be Explosively Self Righteous? Then what? Remember that The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity (Transgenderism) is not in itself a mental disorder.” Meaning, if Amber claimed to be a MAN, she would be considered perfectly sane, yet somehow because she gets angry in a very efficient manner, she is considered to have a “Disorder.”

2018 Disorder = 2019 SANE!

To bring this into focus, the World Health Organization considered transgenderism to be a disorder until 2019. Dr Lale Say, a reproductive health expert at the World Health Organization, said: “It was taken out from mental health disorders because we had a better understanding that this was not actually a mental health condition, and leaving it there was causing stigma.” SOURCE

And yet, in 2022 data indicated that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. SOURCE If men look at themselves and can’t accept the fact that they are men, and then more than 8 out of every 10 of them are suicidal, MAYBE the DMS needs to reconsider it’s definition of “Disorder.” But I think what is clear is that the DSM-5 was NOT changed because of a “better understanding.”

Where is the unmoving foundation on which to judge these things? How does an atheistic, evolutionary worldview decide what a healthy personality is SUPPOSED to be like so that it can judge one to be in DISORDER? Very simply it cannot. A rain puddle cannot be the wrong shape, because it has no purpose. If we are made by the same accidental, unguided natural processes that make rain puddles and not by a creator who has a purpose for us, then we can no more be the “wrong shape” in our minds than a puddle can be on the driveway. Without starting at the purpose God had for us and his creation, we can describe behaviors and thought processes, but we cannot distinguish between healthy and unhealthy, order and disorder. None of those would be real categories.

Jesus says to love our neighbor, and so if we fail, we are out of order with our purpose. If we evolved in an atheistic world, then we’re just animals, dancing to our DNA. And if we have evolved a lot of inner hostility and rage, expressing ourselves by pooping in our Ex-Husband’s bed. Be careful what you say about Bed Poopers. I think the DSM-6 is likely to develop a “better understanding” of them before it goes to print.

This entry was posted in Philosophy, SocioPolitico and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Can Darwin See What Amber Heard?

  1. Yes! Amen. When we live in a random world of spontaneously mutating chaos, how are we supposed to measure what is disordered?? By what standard?? By Whose standard?

    Also, when there are major drugs and alcohol, addiction going on, it is virtually impossible to know what the mental health baseline for someone even is. These are mood altering substances that surprise, alter your mood and behavior making you appear crazy and irrational all of the time.

    Like

    • Hi IB22!
      Yeah, I’ve been thinking about the drugs too. Like, on Atheism/evolutionism, why outlaw drugs? How does the “If it feels good, do it” crowd with no moral compass justify making it illegal to do something that they want to do? Right? I’ve never done drugs myself, but I’ve heard that the purpose is to make you feel good. But then, the Democrats keep legalizing drugs, so maybe the concept of “Illegal Drugs” is the hate speech of tomorrow. Nothing would surprise me anymore. As always, thanks for stopping by, and thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend

      Liked by 1 person

    • fgsjr2015 says:

      I used to be one of those who, while sympathetic, would look down on those who’d ‘allowed’ themselves to become addicted to alcohol and illicit drugs. However, upon learning that serious life trauma, notably adverse childhood experiences, is very often behind the addict’s debilitating addiction, I began to understand ball-and-chain self-medicating:

      The greater the drug-induced euphoria or escape one attains from its use, the more one wants to repeat the experience; and the more intolerable one finds their sober reality, the more pleasurable that escape should be perceived. By extension, the greater one’s mental pain or trauma while sober, the greater the need for escape from reality, thus the more addictive the euphoric escape-form will likely be.

      The lasting mental pain resulting from trauma is very formidable yet invisibly confined to inside one’s head. It is solitarily suffered, unlike an openly visible physical disability or condition, which tends to elicit sympathy/empathy from others. It can make every day a mental ordeal, unless the turmoil is treated with some form of medicating, either prescribed or illicit.

      The preconceived erroneous notion that addicts are simply weak-willed and/or have committed a moral crime is, fortunately, gradually diminishing. Also, we now know that Western pharmaceutical corporations intentionally pushed their very addictive and profitable opiates (the real moral crime?) for which they got off relatively lightly, considering the resulting immense suffering and overdose death numbers.

      Like

      • Hey Figgy Jr,
        You make interesting points, and I am inclined to agree. I would say that, like anything else, there are dangers in swinging the pendulum too far in either direction, and always exceptions to any rule. I personally believe that a LOT more people self-medicate than anyone tends to think about, because we do it with a lot of “normal” things. I personally self medicate with YouTube videos and video games.

        When people simply demonize addicts without any compassion, we fail to offer the open door to recovery they might be looking for. On the other hand, when we stupidly tell people to just do whatever feels good, we encourage people toward self destruction. Worse yet is the social media trend of making mental health problems TRENDY. All the cools kids are depressed just like the cool kids used to have tattoos. Now everyone is depressed and has tattoos.

        The short version is, lot of people need more self control, and some people need antidepressants. Most of us could use a hug now and then, but all of us need Jesus. And Jesus loves you, Figgy Jr. Thanks for your comment.

        Liked by 2 people

      • fgsjr2015 says:

        I’ve not been personally affected by the opioid overdose crisis or other heavy substance abuse/addiction; I have, however, suffered enough unrelenting ACE-related hyper-anxiety to have known, enjoyed and appreciated the great release upon consuming alcohol and/or THC.

        Albeit likely on a subconscious level, human beings can actually be perceived and treated as though they’re disposable and, by extension, their suffering is somehow less worthy of external concern, even in democratic and relatively civilized nations. (Maybe it’s something similar to how human smugglers perceive their cargo when choosing that most immoral line of business.) Then those people may begin perceiving themselves as worthless and consume their substances more haphazardously.

        While the cruel devaluation of them as human beings, though perhaps on a subconscious level, is essentially based on their self-medicating, a somewhat similar inhuman(e) devaluation is also observable in external perceptions/attitudes [typically by the Western world] toward the daily civilian lives lost in protractedly devastating war zones and famine-stricken nations. The worth of such life will be measured by its overabundance and/or the protracted conditions under which it suffers and/or even its lack of ‘productivity’. …

        Though perhaps needless to say, no one — including the chronically self-medicating — should ever be considered disposable.

        Like

      • Hey figs!
        Again, I think you make a lot of valuable observations. What I think you illustrate here most of all is the fact that the value of human life HAS to come from something above us. We can all view ourselves and each other as disposable, so if the standard of our value is only how we see ourselves or each other, then the value of any or all lives can drop to zero in a moment.
        Ultimately, our value MUST come from the fact that we are made in God’s image, loved by Him, and he loves us enough that he was willing to become one of us, live a perfect live, and die a criminal’s death as the atoning sacrifice that could wipe our debt clean and make us right with God, so that we can have eternal life. If we can see not only ourselves but even the worst of others through this lens, we can maybe learn to love our neighbors as ourselves.
        Thanks again for your comments, and thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. “Jesus says to love our neighbor, and so if we fail, we are out of order with our purpose. If we evolved in an atheistic world, then we’re just animals, dancing to our DNA.”

    it’s always great fun to see just how Christians don’t love anyone but themselves at all and have no problem making false claims. Happily, even though we are indeed animals dancing to our DNA, no evidence for any gods, especially the vicious and hateful Christian one. Alas, poor christians can’t agree on what their imaginary god wants, all insisting that this god agrees with their personal hates and desires.

    Like

    • Hey Clubby, Thanks for the fine example of how Atheists are ignorant bigots willing to lie in order to justify their blind hate of people who tell the truth.
      It was very useful. Because you are an ignorant bigot.
      [and SCENE]
      Do you see how easy it is to play the 6 year old, “I know you are but what am I?” card? I realize that you think it took EFFORT to write your comment, but it is the kind of crap that snotty grade school kids come up with instinctively. MAYBE- and I don’t want to tell you how to do your job (although I will start deleting your comments after this if you refuse to comply) maybe you should brew up some espresso, get comfy, and try and say something of SUBSTANCE. For example, you begin with an ad hominin “Christians don’t love anyone but themselves at all and have no problem making false claims,” which I can assume is aimed at me, but since you neither clarify who you are talking about or why you think this, it is empty hate. If you really think this (and let’s face it, you know this isn’t true- for example, when you compare the number of Christian charities and the number of Atheist Charities) then present some REASON why you think so. Otherwise, just save yourself the time and write ” I HATES ALL CHRISSTIANZZ!!” 😡
      THAT is the great thing about HATE, Clubby! It NEEDS no reason! It’s much easier when you abandon reason altogether! Which is probably how you became an atheist! So you have the skills. Now…. GIVE IN TO YOUR HATE. LET IT FLOW THROUGH YOU…

      And your claim is (somehow,) linked to MY comment that says “If we evolved in an atheistic world, then we’re just animals, dancing to our DNA.” which you literally agree with, as you say: “we are indeed animals dancing to our DNA…” So, in your ONLY actual reference to something I said, you reply, “Yes, you are correct.”

      So… maybe you’re new to the concept of debate, but it’s more or less traditional to tell the other person that you disagree with them. And then caffeinate your brain enough to at least TRY and tell them WHY.

      I suggest you either give it another try and attempt to make sense, or just give in to hate and abandon sense entirely. Right now, you’re not very good at either. But as always, thanks for stopping by, and thanks for letting me be your Rernt-A-Friend

      Like

      • I do love the wonderful hate and ignorance you show, dear orangey. It’s hilarious that you think that quoting this “And yet, in 2022 data indicated that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide,” is evidence that being trans is a disorder, when people like you who torment transpeople are the cause of such despair.
        You have accused me of lying, and of course, can’t show that to be the case.

        You, like every other Christian, claims that only your version is the “right” one, and that only your worldview is “biblical”, but alas, not one of you can show this to be the case.

        You also try to conflate secularism with atheism, which are too different things. Happily, the US gov’t is secular, and doesn’t favor your religion or another religion. In matter of psychology, your religion doesn’t get to determine what a disorder is just because you don’t like someone. And yes, ideas of what a disorder is change with time since humans learn. We happily aren’t stuck with the ignorance of people from 2000+ years ago. Magic doesn’t happen and demons don’t exist.

        Your rather pitiful attempt to declare that you have true source of “order” is amusing, and gee, you can’t show that claim to be true. All of your nonsense is no more than the argument from morality, where the theist, often Christian, claims that his god agrees with him and only him, and that what the theist believes are the only objective standards of morality. The problem is that theists can’t agree on whose god exists nor what morals this god wants, with contradictor baseless claims being thrown in from all sides.

        Alas, no where did use the childish “I know you are but what am I” nonsense, and you have simply lied about that. You also try to lie and claim what I’ve written isn’t of “substance”, and dear, it doesn’t have to be written in caps.

        It is not an ad hominem argument that Chrsitians only love themselves. We can see that from the basic idea of your religion: you should not ever put yourself in danger of losing your “salvation”, no matter what, not to stand up against evil, nothing. Jesus is quite clear about this in his speech about turning the other cheek. I can also demonstrate your false claims about mental illness, so you indeed have no problem at all making false claims. Your own actions support my points.

        Many, if not most, Christian charities are for themselves and to spread their nonsense, nothing more. If this were not the case, then Christian charities would never requires anyone to listen to their proselytizing, would never put a tract in a box of food, etc. If you only wanted to help others, it wouldn’t require your spreading your baseless nonsense.

        I don’t hate all Christians, but I do hate the ones who repeat harmful lies, like you. But nice strawman you’ve attacked, dear. Hate does need a reason, and yours is your religion, orange.

        alas, for your strawman, I became an atheist because of my reason. There is no evidence for the claims of Christianity or any other religion. I noted that in Chrisitanity every Christian makes up their god in their own image, and often that image is ugly.

        We are indeed animals dancing to our DNA. And that doesn’t preclude having morals and not needing you or your god. I disagree with you because you make baseless and harmful claims. As I noted a above, you tried to claim that your god is somehow the source of “right” in the universe, and you fail to support that lie. You are upset that people don’t agree with you anymore, orange. You need to cling to outmoded definitions so you can feel validated in your need to demonize transpeople, etc. As humans advance, your ignorant religion is being left behind, having less and less influence.

        Like

      • Welcome back Clubby! Another round of ignorance and name calling I see.
        Try not to feel bad for looking like an idiot. I blame myself, really. When I said “say something of SUBSTANCE” and “it’s more or less traditional to tell the other person that you disagree with them. And then caffeinate your brain enough to at least TRY and tell them WHY.” I wasn’t clear enough. I should have explained that SUBSTANCE isn’t name calling and insinuating unsubstantiated “facts” which can be debunked with the slightest effort or a grade school education. So I think we share the blame for how asinine your most recent comment was, like 92%/7% but what REALLY bothers me is where that other percent of blame is? Was it Biden? Climate change? Maybe we’ll never know.

        But this is a learning opportunity! I can help.
        YOU need to learn to make an ARGUMENT. It goes like this:

        1. State your position. CLEARLY.
        For example, I said, “on Atheism, we cannot even declare something to be an illness or a disorder because these things assume an ORDER from which the health has deviated. Disorder compares the present state to the created order, but if there was no created order, then calling a symptom an illness or a disorder is like going out to the driveway and declaring that a rain puddle is “the wrong shape.””

        2. Use evidence which is relevant to the topic to defend your position.
        To defend my above assertion, I used this example: “the World Health Organization considered transgenderism to be a disorder until 2019.” and showed the conflict with this fact, “The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity (Transgenderism) is not in itself a mental disorder.”
        And important to my position is this set of facts: “82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide.”

        3. Use logic to explain why the evidence reasonably defends your position.
        Having shown that “Transgenderism” USED TO BE considered a mental illness, and now is no longer described as a mental illness, even though the suicide rates are still greatly above that of their own culture and population, we see that the secular/Godless ideas of “Mental health” are not only shifting without a fixed point to refernce, but also now include suicidal tendencies as mentally healthy.

        The key ideas here are 1, to state your position CLEARLY and not merely INSINUATE a position. Then (#2) you need evidence which is again clear and relevant. Finally, 3. the evidence needs to be shown to support your position.

        Let’s look at one random example from your comment to see how you failed at that.

        You said “It is not an ad hominem argument that Chrsitians only love themselves. We can see that from the basic idea of your religion: you should not ever put yourself in danger of losing your “salvation”, no matter what, not to stand up against evil, nothing. Jesus is quite clear about this in his speech about turning the other cheek.”

        1. State your position. CLEARLY.
        You say, “It is not an ad hominem argument that Chrsitians only love themselves.” So far so good! Assuming you know what “ad Hominem” means. But we’ll pretend you do in order to save time and move on.

        2. Use evidence which is relevant to the topic to defend your position.
        “We can see that from the basic idea of your religion: you should not ever put yourself in danger of losing your “salvation”, no matter what, not to stand up against evil, nothing. Jesus is quite clear about this in his speech about turning the other cheek.”

        And here is where you go ENTIRELY off the rails. Nothing in the Christian worldview warns us “you should not ever put yourself in danger of losing your “salvation”, no matter what.” This is not in the Bible, let alone is it THE BASIC IDEA of Christiaity, and so I am left to wonder where you got this idea. And if you know that I am a Christian. You do know I am a Christian, right? Because either you don’t know I am a Christian or you have no idea what Christians believe. Or both. Is it both?

        But even if your baffling inaccurate statement about fearing the loss of your salvation WAS true, it still would not defend the idea that Christians only love themselves any more than showing we wear seatbelts and try to avoid disease would prove the same. So your “facts” are entirely wrong and your conclusion CANNOT follow from them even if they were true.

        Your comment about Jesus’s teaching on “turning the other cheek” is not only irrelevant to this topic, but shows that you failed to even read enough context to know what Jesus is responding to in this verse. You seem to think that Jesus is teaching his followers to “not to stand up against evil,” and you imply rather strongly that you think that standing up to evil somehow endangers a person’s salvation- again an idea so absurd that I can’t begin to imagine where you got it. But Jesus is telling his followers to be forgiving and not selfish. NOT resisting evil is in contrast for seeking one’s own vengeance with the adage “an eye for an eye” but the violence he says to tolerate is at the level of INSULT, not ABUSE. You turn the other cheek because you’ve been slapped, not punched.

        While it would benefit you greatly to learn how to make an argument, the simple fact is you’ve shown yourself to be SO ASTOUNDINGLY ignorant that I have to instead suggest you entirely stop arguing and instead start asking good questions. You are CLEARLY in no position to correct or educate ANYONE, so instead, ask about the things you don’t understand. Also, try and tone down the derogatory language, because your negative emotional language, especially when paired with your ignorance and complete inability to make an argument, just makes you look like an amazing bozo.

        Try asking questions. At least until you have learned enough to make a rational argument. You’ll be glad you did.

        Like

      • [OH SNAP! Orange has hit the EDIT BUTTON to add comments RIGHT INTO Clubby’s LONG winded comment! Let’s see how she did!]
        Alas, our poor fellow, Orange, has yet to be able to support his claims about me. It’s amusing when he can’t cite a single instance to support his accusations.
        [If you check the previous comment, Orange accused Clubby of making emotional comments without logic, and failing to make an argument, and also showing herself to be horribly ignorant of the basic facts she tries to use to call Orange childish names. And I was able to do so from her own comments and doing a few seconds of research. SO this comment is a LIE. Orange- 1, Clubby- 0]

        I’ve told you why your claims fail, [100% false] and it is hilarious to see you try to claim I haven’t in a recording [You mean “written?”]medium.
        [I only make this claim because I can read] I have to wonder, do you think denying something makes it vanish? [Again, Clubby fails to understand how arguments work, even though I taught her step by step in my previous comment to her]

        For all of Orange’s claims that my points can be “debunked with the slightest effort or a grade school education” he never does so. Now, why might that be? [Maybe because Clubby is illiterate, or incapable of understanding simple logic? It’s not because she hasn’t been shown to be wrong.]

        Unfortunately, orange tries to teach me something, and he fails.
        [I’m confident that this has been the outcome of ANYONE who has EVER tried to teach Clubby something.]

        I have stated my argument clearly, [100% FALSE. A LIE AND A BAD ONE] and it is always sweet when a Christian thinks making something in caps is impressive. [ALL CAPS IS AMAZING. YOU SHOULD TRY IT.] He has yet to show I haven’t. Again, I must wonder why? It’s also wonderful when poor orange tries to make believe I agree with him. Happily, I do not and again, poor orange cannot show that my “most recent comment” was “asinine”.
        [You mean when I showed that your comment betrayed your total lack of understanding of the Christian faith, or that you tried to quote a Bible verse out of context and proved in doing so that you failed to even read the ONE VERSE PRIOR in order to understand it? That by quoting you I could show that you are both lazy and ignorant? I think calling it “asinine” was being kind.]

        His example does do a wonderful service in showing how conservative Christians must cling to outmoded information to support their claims. [My data was from 2019 and 2022] Happily, the various DSM’s are not claims of dogma and can be changed as human research expand our knowledge of how humans function. [Yes, they CAN be changed. Constantly. For ANY REASON. Which is the POINT I AM MAKING.] He must desperately claim one superseded version is the only “right” one since it agrees with him. [AND she’s missed the point again. Can you say, “Straw Man,” boys and girls? I know you can!] This is common with creationists too, when they desperately ignore anything written after 1950 when it shows that geologists do not hold to a gradualism concept. [Because this article was about geology. And because Clubby did her homework to… oh, wait, no, this comment is 100% stupid and wrong and irrelevant.]

        [Also, the RATE Project exists: https://www.icr.org/rate/]

        Orange also shows nicely how he must assume that it is being transgender or homosexual have considered suicide because they are transgender, when that is not the case at all. [The stats I provided are consistent in all countries and cultures, among those in leftist, secular nations and even after they have been given marriage rights and gender reassignment surgeries. But let’s let Clubby spew more ignorance…] It is the hate that conservatives like orange spew that make such people feel unloved and unwanted and “wrong”, when they are not. [EVIDENCE, Clubby? No? Unsubstantiated blanket assertion of blame based on your own bigotry and no facts to support it? OK. Par for the course…] Happily, secular ideas of mental health have not shown that suicidal tendencies are “mentally healthy”, far from it. They do however show that ignorance and hate can make people feel suicidal.
        [It’s nice that godless roach clowns like Clubby here are around to show me what love and tolerance look like.]

        [That was sarcasm, Clubby.]

        [And you’re still projecting your own hate, ignoring the facts, and trying to justify your own bigotry by denying actual stats of real people by quoting the Leftist narrative from CNN and not from the real world. Turn off CNN and learn to read. Maybe start by finding stats based on the testimonies of those gay and trans people and not the anti-Christian bigotry which is the basis of your position.]

        [You can start HERE: RESEARCH THAT MATTERS TO THE DISCUSSION!]

        What seems to be happening is that orange is upset that his actions are being called out for the harmful nonsense they are.
        [When I said you were projecting your own hate- this is exactly what I mean. Thanks for demonstrating that.]

        Alas, poor orange cannot show that I’ve “insinuated” anything at all, even in his example. Pleading his case, we see that he tries very hard to literally insinuate that I do not know what an ad hominem argument is. I do, [No, you don’t] and orange has yet to show that I’ve used one. I wonder why? He also has yet to show that I am incorrect when I have said that Christians only love themselves, in their need to demonize anyone unlike them.
        [Ugh… ok, had you taken even the TINY effort it takes to Google it, you would have found that Wikipedia defines this for you: “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’)… Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” Sound familiar?
        So, when you said that Christians only love themselves, in their need to demonize anyone unlike them, you are literally committing the logical fallacy of an Ad hominem. Like everything you have said, none of it is an argument, it is the insinuation or statement of my alleged character flaws.]

        I have indeed said ““We can see that from the basic idea of your religion: you should not ever put yourself in danger of losing your “salvation”, no matter what, not to stand up against evil, nothing. Jesus is quite clear about this in his speech about turning the other cheek.”

        [For those of you reading, maybe Clubby is new to the English language, or she’s too lazy to write a coherent sentence, but how else would you interpret this statement? Has she not said that “Jesus is clear in his speech about turning the other cheek that Christians are not to stand up against evil, because doing so puts us in danger of losing our salvation, which is the basic idea of Christianity”? I mean, all I have done is stated her position in the opposite order. Does this not seem ASTOUNDINGLY ignorant? But she tries to defend it! Grab some popcorn and read it for yourself!]

        and the bible literally says what I have said. Orange is terribly ignorant of his own bible. [Ad hominem!] We have Matthew 5 saying exactly what I have said. We also have Jesus supposedly saying that even the merest thought of something will put in in danger of damnation: “ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin,] tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.] 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” That’s in Matthew 5 too, [NOTE: to defend her reading of Matthew 5:38-40, she quotes verses 28-30, and her argument is, “That’s in Matthew 5 too.”] so it seems it is a bit too much for orange to read. Again, the bible supports me, an atheist, and not a supposed Christian like orange.

        [Are you trolling me? This is a prank, isn’t it? OK, Ha ha. I get it.
        Nobody is THIS stupid. Nobody would look at Jesus saying that it is better to lose your eye and go to heaven than to be a pervert and go to hell, and then claim that, by telling people not to LUST, Jesus is telling people to NOT RESIST EVIL- to TOLERATE EVIL from some selfish spiritual ambition.
        You had me going for a while there Clubby, but the joke is over. I get it. Very nice. Who is this really? Eric Hovind? Vocab Malone? John Branyan? New phone. Who dis?]

        [I admit it. You got me. But in the end, you showed your hand by being TOO ridiculous. “Again, the bible supports me, an atheist, and not a supposed Christian like orange.” Riiiiiiight.
        Even an atheist should have the sense to see her own quoting of v 28-30 in the pretense of proving that v 38-40 show Jesus telling people that they will go to hell if they oppose evil as illogical and way off point. I mean, I know that’s what Atheists do here in the comments, but THAT was a bridge too far.
        But, yeah, you got me. Funny. But, seriously, who is this?]

        Like

  3. fgsjr2015 says:

    Clearly, there are serious mental health issues involved, including Johnny Depp’s. In the case of him — and men, in general — according to the author of The Highly Sensitive Man (2019, Tom Falkenstein, Ch.1): “… academics are telling us that ‘we know far less about the psychological and physical health of men than of women.’ Why is this? Michael Addis, a professor of psychology and a leading researcher into male identity and psychological health, has highlighted a deficit in our knowledge about men suffering from depression and argues that this has cultural, social, and historical roots.

    If we look at whether gender affects how people experience depression, how they express it, and how it’s treated, it quickly becomes clear that gender has for a long time referred to women and not to men. According to Addis, this is because, socially and historically, men have been seen as the dominant group and thus representative of normal psychological health. Women have thus been understood as the nondominant group, which deviated from the norm, and they have been examined and understood from this perspective. One of the countless problems of this approach is that the experiences and specific challenges of the ‘dominant group,’ in this case men, have remained hidden. …

    While it is true that a higher percentage of women than men will be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or a depressive episode, the suicide rate among men is much higher. In the United States, the suicide rate is notably higher in men than in women. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, men account for 77 percent of the forty-five thousand people who kill themselves every year in the United States. In fact, men commit suicide more than women everywhere in the world. Men are more likely to suffer from addiction, and when men discuss depressive symptoms with their doctor, they are less likely than women to be diagnosed with depression and consequently don’t receive adequate therapeutic and pharmacological treatment. …

    This is backed up by numerous psychological studies over the last forty years that tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the ‘strong man’ is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”

    …. I believe there remains a societal mentality, albeit perhaps subconscious: Men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men. In the case of sexual abuse/assault, for example, I’ve noticed over many years of news-media consumption that when the victims are girls their gender is readily reported as such; however, when they’re boys, they’re usually referred to gender-neutrally as children. It’s as though, as a news product made to sell the best, the child victims being female is somehow more shocking than if male.

    Like

    • I’ve been thinking about this too, and as trite as this might sound, I think it’s related to the fact that men don’t like to ask for help. Specifically, we don’t want to go to the doctor until we’re actively bleeding, or we don’t want to take the car in until it’s literally on fire. Women are more likely to try and get their husband into marital counseling than vice versa, etc. I think more women are diagnosed with depression because more women go in to be diagnosed.
      As always, it’s more complicated than can be said on a bumper sticker, and there are far too many different stories for anyone to say “All men THIS” or “All women THAT,” But it’s something worth thinking about. Thanks again.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. It is interesting how people appeal to atheistic evolution-based psychology, but have no clue about it. (In fact, psychologists admit that their field is often a crapshoot.) People “diagnose” others without a basis. I’ve had atheopaths accuse Christians of “projecting” and exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect (and still use the latter, even though it has been debunked!), and I’ve asked them where they got their licenses and training in psychology. And when they gave people they are “diagnosing” clinical examinations. But they’re right. Because atheism.

    According to the NY Post:
    “Dr. Shannon Curry, who is a licensed — but not board certified, as Heard’s attorney pointed out — clinical psychologist, testified on Tuesday that she believes Heard “demonstrates psychological symptoms of combined borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder,” evidenced by “an overly dramatic presentation” with “impressionistic speech” that “really lacks any substance,” Curry explained at one point.

    “Curry, who noted in her testimony that she often works with celebrity clients, based her evaluation on case materials provided by Depp’s attorneys as well as two arranged interviews with Heard.”

    That’s malpractice, old son. She’s not certified, and made her judgment based on cherry-picked data. The Bearded Buddha would be proud.

    Like

  5. Adelyn Ivy says:

    I Think Amber Heard Is on the same level as Meghan Markle, Virginia Thomas, Melania Trump, Hilaria Baldwin, Rebekah Neumann, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Elaine Chao, Ivanka Trump, Lara Trump, Blac Chyna, Anna Sorokin, Patrizia Reggiani, Vanessa Trump, Elizabeth Holmes, Ghislaine Maxwell, Wallis Simpson, Leona Helmsley, Heather Mills, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lucrezia Borgia, Carolyn Bryant, Eva Braun,

    Like

  6. Adelyn Ivy says:

    I Think Amber Heard Is the modern-day Lucrezia Borgia

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s