Szasz has been a great influence on my thinking about medicine and science, about what it means to be skeptical about the medical profession, what to be skeptical about and why. He had that polarizing streak not unlike Mises, but he also had a relentless passion for his subject not unlike Mises. He lived a long, fulfilling life, and even though he won’t get to see the outcome of this latest uprising in the liberty movement, I believe we are capable of adequately carrying that torch.
You’ve had plenty of opportunities to make your case (unconvincingly, I might add) about Mr. Szasz on these forums, and I’m sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to do so. But as opposed to you showing the least bit of respect for the man’s death and sitting this one out, you attempt to take a s*#t on his grave anyway. So yes, you’re a moron, and that really does say it all.
I had to give up trying to make my case against you because its like arguing with someone who brain dead. Szasz was a quack, plain and simple. And I feel obliged to oppose any attempt to praise him.
It’s not an ad hominem since I couldn’t care less about your argument, Your Logical Highness. But I’ll give you credit, when you decide to go classless, there’s no stopping how low you’ll go.
Just an FYI, Vichy ArmyRicky James Moore IIIwhoever-else-you’ve-been myhumangetsme - I’ve reported all your posts where you’ve been insulting to Vladimir Ulyanov, and I will continue to do so.
Just as an FYI Autolykos, I’m not any of those people. And I reported your post as abuse as well, since you seem to think you’re the sole arbiter of who’s right and wrong here.
@Ulyanov: I briefly scanned a few brief snippets of that long-winded Wiseman interview. A couple things:
He constantly rephrases Szasz’s purported ideas in his own words. If he is debunking Szasz’s actual views, why not just address some specific quotes in Szasz’s own words?
He uses at least one ad hominem / genetic fallacy when he says that Szasz’s views “didn’t change in 70 years since he was a teenager”. What does that have to do with anything?
He mentions that Szasz denied the existence of diseases that are not medically measurable - but one measurement that Wiseman neglects to mention is the individual’s own report of suffering. Szasz’s beef is with the coercive diagnosis of “disease” when the individual himself/herself does not report any suffering. This has become an epidemic in the US.
He closes with reading of the Church of Scientology’s practices. What the hell does that have to do with Szasz???
I agree with Vlad, a load a quackery. Labeling people as “drug addicts”, “insane” or “obese” is the same as persecution of Jews and homosexuals? Yeah, right.
Genetic fallacy. If the Church of Scientology opens a Holocaust Museum, would you deny the Holocaust? The fact that they happen to be right in opposing psychiatry does not debunk opposition to psychiatry, nor does it constitute an advocacy of their own quack alternatives to psychiatric quackery on the part of either Szasz or the CCHR.
