Why do conservatives reject the idea of mental illness? It's not like they have any evidence against mental illness a concept, yet they mock it. They'll wonder how you could "catch sadness like a disease." In reality, the brain is a physical organ, and it can be broken up from birth, just like any other. I don't think this has been internalized by the American public. Especially not by conservatives - they still believe that the mind is an immaterial soul thing. Free will is also assumed to be true even though it completely contradicts everything we understand about the brain. "Descisions" are patterns of neural firing. Your brain is largely a product of genetics as well. People have a personality from birth. Why is the American public so hostile to the results of science?

>>81732137 (OP)
They dont, in fact, the acknowledge bluehaired libtards are mentally ill.

>>81732137 (OP)
Conservatives are fundamentally against kindness and empathy. They reject anything that involves showing compassion to another human.

>>81732149
seething rightoids already arrived lmao

>>81732186
Im not a rightoid, I am just stating that they do believe in mental illness, just not when it applies to them or their loved ones. You should get over your culture war obsession friend.

>>81732149
So they accept it, but only when they can weaponize it against people they don't like.
>>81732186
It's not even kindness, it's that they reject actual science for superstition like souls and free will

>>81732137 (OP)
The brain being an immaterial thing is pretty universal in political and social thought since the enlightenment. Tabula rasa as a concept is batshit insane and contradicts even basic reason but it's the basis of western liberal ideas.

>>81732201
I think its >>81732200
partly because they fear it. Conservatives have a different valuesystem and will see their own as more important (observable), than strangers.
Mental illness is a terrible thing, one in 5 people suffers from it and its even higher if you add trauma or depression. Its hard to ignore a genuinely schizophrenic aunt and pretend all is right, they just dont want to acknowledge it for sentimental reasons.

>>81732137 (OP)
>Why do conservatives reject the idea of mental illness?
Are trannies conservative
>Free will is also assumed to be true even
you faggots say shit like this and expect me to respect any other retarded view point you spew
Keep it pushing tranny this is a chud board

I have a mental illness and use that to get neetbux. In a society where people don't believe in mental illness its a lot easier to force people into working for society. If I didn't know I was mentally ill and just thought it was all my fault, I'd probably go to work everyday. My life would be a lot worse but society wouldn't need to care about that. If you do believe in mental illness its more difficult to make the people suffering from them feel guilty and also to justify your own actions against them. I think sometimes it actually does do harm to tell people about mental illnesses though because it can turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.

>>81732212
Then western liberalism needs to be updated in light of new scientific developments
>>81732282
Reminder that rightoids are liars who reject the results of honest inquiry into the world and cling to superstition instead

>>81732137 (OP)
1. that's a loaded question and your premise is objectively false according to all of the evidence. conservatives identify and call out retards all the time.

2. most scientists believe that the study of "mental illness" and psychology in general is not a real science because there is nothing to measure or establish in terms of evidence. it's just an exercise in labeling and categorizing human behavior. semantics and maybe memes, but not science based in reality. most mental "illness" has nothing to do with physical brain damage or meme chemical imbalances, it is often just someone behaving in a way they personally believe is normal but in a broader context is considered strange.

3. everything we understand about the human brain literally points to free will as a human experience. it might need to be reframed in terms of why we experience free will through a conscious brain, and why it's hard to draw the line between conscious and subconscious/involuntary behavior, but the free will part of our willpower is quite literally the reason we have science in the first place, as well as delusional misguided posts like yours.

>>81732345
2. is an apeal to an unnamed consensus. Its also clearly wrong, mental illnesses have a genetic basis and run in families. Regarding 3, please explain to me how a physical system like the brain has free will. What evidence demonstrated this?

>>81732321
>if i didn't know i had a disability i would probably just stop being disabled
Based.

I mostly agree with removing certain types of people from the workforce and have them depend on the government, but you are correct for the wrong reasons. A society that emphasizes your mental "illness" is a society that wants to take away your agency. The entire OP post is explicitly saying that you don't get to choose how you live your life, especially if some dickhead rich guy tells you that you have a magical spiritual illness that nobody can detect or prove. The people who genuinely can't function in society aren't considered "ill" they are considered dysfunctional.

>>81732343
Liberalism as a concept is predicated on tabula rasa, to the point of it seeming schizophrenic to outsiders.

>>81732399
>behavior has a genetic component
ok and?
>how a physical
the physical human experiences free will. the evidence is in the fact that we have humans physically exercising free will. we tend to be forced into creating small scale deterministic models at the cellular and tissue scale, but at the human scale we find that even the same "physical structure" has the capacity to act in probabilistic and unpredictable ways.

>>81732410
I'm concerned with why rightoids are liars who refuse to acknowledge scientific realities
>>81732432
Then liberalism needs to be done away with. I'm tired of pretending things aren't what they are.

>>81732453
The entire point of being leftgroid is to destroy science. They hate biology especially.

>>81732448
What we experience is irrelevant. That we experience colors is not evidence that colors exist outside of perception. Further, randomness is not proof of agency, which is what actually relevant in the free will debate

>>81732467
Rightoids hate biology as well. They believe we're magic soul beings instead of animals, deny evolution, and insist that free will somehow exists. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and rightoids actively demand it be taken out of schools.

>>81732469
>observation is not evidence
try again? the asinine philosophical thought experiment of "nothing exists outside of perception XD" doesn't lead anywhere. if you are grounded in the idea that you have a brain and that brain is made of smaller components, then you can also start to understand higher level systems.

>randomness
I said nothing about randomness, and I simply don't care what you think is relevant or not relevant if you don't even know what you're talking about.

>>81732478
Exactly. Leftgroids are trying to erase the entire literature on how humans evolved into men and women with very specific roles and dimorphic forms.

>>81732137 (OP)
>Why do conservatives reject the idea of mental illness?
Because mental illness is fake and gay. It is completely rational to be depressed when put in an intolerable situation for an extended period of time, anxious when under stress, etc. Pathologising those sorts of things is an attempt at avoiding having to deal with the actual issue.

>>81732552
what about anxious when having a routine interaction with another person, or depressed despite living a normal and objectively decent life?

>>81732137 (OP)
it's not a conservative thing it's a normalfag thing
it's as simple as "it didn't happen to me (or someone close to me) so it doesn't exist"

>>81732614
normies are literally the ones telling us that "depression" is a real thing and then when you ask them to define or measure it they suddenly run away.

>>81732186
empathy=/=sympathy. This is extremely hard for many leftoids to grasp. Of course you don't behave that way when it's your opponent.

>>81732137 (OP)
If you think 3 billion base pairs are enough to explain almost all human behavior, you're about as clueless as people who believe in ghosts. What counts as a mental illness has changed over time, and most of them have little to no genetic link. It's just a naive, reductionist take to think everything comes down to genes and hormone levels. Psychologists have spent centuries trying to figure this stuff out and still haven't found clear causes for most mental illnesses, let alone an effective cure.

I think I'm center. I agree with almost everything OP said I'm just not certain if conceptualising it as a disease is the most useful way of thinking about it. In fact, some syndromes that the public calls mental disease are already classified as disorders instead.
The symptoms are definitely real, but a different way of thinking about them might yield better results.

>>81732513
Introspection just can't reliably answer metaphysical questions. Free will only makes sense in the compatibilist sense, but whether we should call that free will is a social convention imo. Libertarian free will is one of the least plausible philosophical positions imo.

>>81732878
>words words words
Explain which framework you use to reliably answer metaphysical questions.

We call free will those intentions and subsequent actions which we associate with free will. There might be a cognitive threshold for which humans can experience or practice free will. There might be a way to reframe all human behavior into component parts that do not individually represent consciousness or agency. But the philosophical argument is separate from the biological one, and the biological argument is separate from the legal or practical one. How much sense or 'plausibility' the term has is completely irrelevant. The existence of free will only requires that we distinguish free will from involuntary/unintentional behavior.

>>81732920
Many define free will as the ability to do otherwise. If you could rewind time, would a person always act the same or would they sometimes act differently? That would be in line with libertarian free will.
We can also use your distinction, but there's nothing in that distinction that even suggests that your behaviour is independent of your genes and prior causes.

>>81732975
To elaborate a bit, you say:
>We call free will those intentions and subsequent actions which we associate with free will.
That's your definition, but the definition of free will is what is debated. It sounds like you argue for a version of compatibilist free will, but many people think there is a morally relevant difference between having that sort of compatibilist free will and having libertarian free will.

Compatibilist free will makes sense, but calling it free will is a social convention imo. I learn no new physical or metaphysical fact by calling the processes of the brain free will or not. As long as the brain functions according to the laws of nature it's up to us what we call that.

>>81732975
you didn't provide a framework to reliably answer metaphysical questions.

you don't need to rewind time, you can literally just observe a persons actions over time.

there is almost nothing that we do at the human scale that we describe in terms of genes. you are clinically and brain mentally retarded to use that framing. if you go just one level down you end up with only 4 nitrogenous bases. do you think every action can or should be described in terms of their dependence on the letters A, T, C, and G? genetic predispositions and more importantly how genes are regulated can help us estimate probabilities at the population scale, but in any meaningful conversation about an individuals ability to practice free will, we can't and shouldn't use genetics or "prior causes" for anything other than hindsight bias.

>>81733034
I'm not debating the definition of free will at all. You keep referencing concepts that have nothing to do with what you are trying to say or respond to.

You are struggling with the philosophical origins and physical mechanisms underneath what anyone would call "free will". That is literally just an extension of the fundamental question of why we exist or if we exist at all. There's nothing interesting about that discussion beyond thought experiments. I'm saying that the existence of what anyone can call free will only requires that you differentiate the "free will" from involuntary or unintentional actions. Whether that has a dualistic or deterministic or probabilistic "reality" behind it does not fucking matter because we can't see behind it, we just see that it exists.

>>81733102
Unfortunately I don't have a great framework for answering metaphysical questions. Many arguments suck imo and it often bottoms out in unjustified "intuitions". After thinking about it and researching it, I simply don't see a reason to believe in libertarian free will, everything seems to follow the laws of nature.

You aren't arguing for libertarian free will anyway, so maybe that's not important though.

>I'm saying that the existence of what anyone can call free will only requires that you differentiate the "free will" from involuntary or unintentional actions.
And I know that you can conceptualise it like that, but why is it the correct way? Are you making an appeal to pragmatism? That won't necessarily work because many people find other distinctions morally relevant. I agree that we don't describe higher level systems in terms of atoms but there is still an ontological reduction to fundamental particles, and people find it morally relevant.
That's why I'm saying it's a convention, it depends on goals. If your goal is a high level description of human actions in terms of efficient causes, your theory works well, but for morals and responsibility it might not.

>>81732137 (OP)
Because today's conservatives are yesterday liberals and they believe in the Enlightenment's free will bullshit

>>81732137 (OP)
>Why do conservatives reject the idea of mental illness?
Leftist mental stability on full display.

>>81732137 (OP)
Mental illness is caused by pollution of the environment and poor diet. Anything leftover from that are the residuals of permanent brain damage by similar factors, or via physical trauma. Mental illness is a meme and you can treat all cases with a singular diet with great success, but humanity relishes in suffering so it's a taboo topic.

>>81733481
What diet?

>>81732201
>actual science
There is no actual science in the conceptualization and construct of "mental illnesses." The diagnostics criteria and constructs of these supposed syndromes are completely non-scientific and have no actual, rigorous, empirical basis to them.
They're decided upon and built up by a bunch of suits sitting in a room, figuring out these diagnoses almost solely for the purpose of insurance coding.

>>81732137 (OP)
>Why do conservatives reject the idea of mental illness?
Even as a fascist, this 'mental illness denial' embarrasses me.
Clearly, this globalist cabal have pushed the masses past breaking point (into wage-slavery or jobless poverty) and it's manifested in rising mental illness.
Same thing with outsourcing to slaves leading to no jobs left in the West for autists to even tolerate, let alone succeed in. Hence the 80%+ NEET rate.

I'm more concerned with why OP is spending so much energy on "conservatives" that he felt the need to throw an incel tantrum on an anime image board about them.

Surely this is improving his life, right? Being upset and grumpy all the time.

>>81733199
>appeal to morality
>reductionism
pick one. i have no idea what you're even trying to say. people do not attribute morality to gene variants. morality is layered on top of our capacity for free will. if you're falling into the rabbit hole of moral relativism and claiming that without agency (in some magical predetermined world) we therefore can't have moral agency, I would just say that you are a fucking idiot. The concept does not need your permission to exist.

>>81732137 (OP)
They don't, it's just libfags try to make the diagnostic criteria really broad and vague.

Leftists have made it so crazy people can attack and even kill others and they get away with it because "they aren't in their right mind". That is outrageous.

they dont, at least, not entirely. mental illness is hard to accept nowadays because it seems everyone has one. At what point is it a legit disability or just someone being an asshole? That's not an easy question to ask but saying you dont believe in non-brain damage mental illness is so much easier.
Not to mention the amount of retards claiming to be retards to get neetbux. conservatives already dont like giving out free money so combine that with skepticism and you have your answer

>>81733791
But people obviously do. Some laypeople and some philosophers think that you can't have moral responsibility if your decisions aren't sui generis, or if you can't do otherwise.
It's weird, because you just have your definitions of words and you talk as if your definitions correspond to some Platonic form of that concept instead of looking at hiw they are being used empirically. You should think.more like a scientist and not like a Scholastic digmatic.

>>81733858
the disconnect happens because you have a portion of the culture that is anti-authoritarian and raised to make individual independent choices that value personal comfort and freedom above social cohesion or community. and then the entire concept of mental 'illness' originated from a persons inability to function in society, i.e. obey authority and conform to social norms. so now you can't tell if someone is intentionally transgressive or just mentally unstable.

it's probably a long conversation but the line is easy to draw. ask someones intentions and if they lie or can't follow through with their intended behavior, they are evil/mentally ill. simple as.

>>81733880
So some people said that your behaviour will depend on your genes. Then you said, that we don't need a theoretical reduction to genes, I agreed that we don't necessarily need one (depending on our goals) but that there's still an ontological reduction to subatomic particles and the laws of nature.
I claim that many find this morally relevant, you just claim that they don't, or that it doesn't matter, or that they don't have the right concept.
It's just an empirical fact that it matters to a fair amount of people, and you have not shown why they are wrong.

>>81733880
scientists define their terms in their own literature and even if they cite other works, the scope of their study has to fit whatever problem statement or hypothesis they are looking at.

>some people think you can't have moral responsibility
these people are idiots. this is akin to saying we cannot have laws. yet laws are quite literally written and influence everyone's lives and are the subject of many debates and revisions. i can follow the argument that a portion of human individuals are too fucking retarded or too young or too old or too brainwashed to have the capacity for free will and moral agency as we understand it locally or regionally. but again, these concepts quite literally only require a definition to exist because they represent observable human experiences. the argument you are referring to is about what free will or consciousness emerges from, and there is no answer for that yet.

>>81733880
OP here. I think i basically agrees with you. Libertarian free will is almost entirely unsupported, and compatibilism isn't even a claim about reality. Personally I tend to a pretty extreme moral anti-realism, so I'm not sold on moral responsibility existing anways.

>>81732149
Fpbp libs owned
/Thread

Is letting people live on the subway, use fentanyl and shoplift an act of empathy and kindness?
Are Conservatives rejecting compassion when they prevent this from happening in their city?