[lutusp]

> The efficacy of bibliotherapy should not be readily dismissed.

What happened to what is popularly known as common sense? A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real. To see the point, try treating any real disease by visiting a website.

> Words, written or spoken, images, still or moving, or sounds can create or alleviate illness in the mind.

Yes, but only when an "illness in the mind" is imaginary.

[bsdshepherd]

> What happened to what is popularly known as common sense?

In my own experience, I did not gain "Common sense" until I did what you did - move to the middle of nowhere and gain direct experience. Until then, my understanding was gained through media.

> A disease that can be treated by a website is virtual, not real.

Let us begin by defining our terms. How do you define:

.) dis-ease

.) treated

.) website

.) real

.) imaginary

Make no mistake - I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter.

[lutusp]

> I'm in assloads of pain with every keystroke but I will rip you a new one on this matter.

Let me ask a common-sense question. What's my incentive to continue an exchange with someone who is obviously psychotic and probably dangerous?

[bsdshepherd]

> psychotic

Choose - mental illness is either real or it isn't.

Seek help.

[lutusp]

>> psychotic

> Choose - mental illness is either real or it isn't.

Calling someone psychotic doesn't grant the reality either of the term's generally accepted meaning or mental illness as a category. Any more than the common use of the term "genius" is reducible to scientific consensus on the meaning of that term.

[DanBC]

So you're happy to use mental illnes to stigmatise and discriminate against people, but you dismiss it as nonsense when people seek treatment?

Another example of you using mental health diagnosis in a stigmatisig way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8250828#up_8251567