Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The Johnny

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 207
This was recently brought to my attention, and I found it pretty fascinating:

From a clinical case study by Mariska Mantione, Martijn Figee, and Damiaan Denys published in May in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.

Mr. B., a fifty-nine-year-old married man, was referred to the department of anxiety disorders at the University of Amsterdam, having suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder for forty-six years. In spite of extensive treatment with pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, symptoms were still overpowering and Mr. B. remained extremely hindered in daily living. Mr. B. was included for treatment with deep-brain stimulation (DBS) targeted at the nucleus accumbens. After DBS surgery Mr. B. entered an optimization phase in which optimal stimulation parameters were adjusted. Within six weeks after surgery, Mr. B. experienced a decline in anxiety and obsessions. Mr. B. reported that he felt very confident, calm, and assertive, and he started to call himself Mr. B. II, the new and improved version of himself.

Mr. B. had never been a huge music lover. His musical taste was broad, covering Dutch-language songs, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones. While music did not occupy an important position in his life, his taste in music had always been very fixed. Half a year after DBS surgery, Mr. B. stated that he was turning into a Johnny Cash fan. He had been listening to the radio when he heard “Ring of Fire” and was deeply affected by the song. Mr. B. started to listen to more of Cash’s songs and noticed that he was deeply moved by the raw and low-pitched voice of the singer. Moreover, he found that he preferred the performance of the songs in the Seventies and Eighties, because of the fullness of the voice of the older Johnny Cash.

Mr. B. reported that he felt good following treatment with DBS and that the songs of Johnny Cash made him feel even better. From this moment on, Mr. B. listened solely to Johnny Cash and bought all his CDs and DVDs. He reported that there was a Johnny Cash song for every emotion and every situation, feeling happy or feeling sad, and although Mr. B. almost exclusively played Johnny Cash songs for the following years, the music never started to annoy him. From the first time Mr. B. heard a Johnny Cash song, the Dutch-language songs, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones have been banned. Except when the stimulators run down or accidentally go out.

nice that his anxiety got better, but being a Cash superfan seems a bit obsessive still

I'm am 95% certain this never happened, but I'm sharing it anyway because of that 5% chance it's not.

Its quite a psychoanalitical trope related too:

The son wishes to chastise the father for betraying the mother, but gets compensated by the satiation of his perversion which is hentai (which at the same time is named by the father as not manly enough, counter chastising the son).

Twist of story: the son ends up banging the mother, then they cut off the fathers genitals, cook them and eat it, thus accomplishing each and all 4channers incestuous fantasy and resolving paternal and authority issues simultaneously.


Well, Cali would be nice, Im almost certain their Gross State Product is bigger than all of Latin America put together.... but Arizona and Texas?... sure, some indian casinos, javelinas and oil would be nice, but im not 100% sold.

....That doesn't change the fact that statistically speaking, women are more likely than men to be victims of rape, and men are more likely than women to be rapists. Talking about male victims of rape is super important, but it can't hijack every discussion about the problem, and it really can't be the response every time someone wants to talk about better models for consent and how to specifically teach boys to recognize and ask for consent....

Point, this is why im sorry.


Well, I dont agree with MMMW's comment and tendency.

As to explain why I wrote what i wrote: while I was writing it, it was a light-hearted criticism as the tendency that i have seen that only women can be raped, that men de-facto cannot be raped, and that only people with penises can rape. I also wanted tried to make it clear it wasnt an entirely serious comment with the "/snobbery" on my part, which was indeed a bit of a snobbish nitpick of the OP.

While i still think my point has validity, the way i expressed it and in the context i expressed it was of bad taste, so, my apologies.

It's incredibly sad, when it comes down to it, but paranoid schizophrenics really require specialized help and people who are not trained and don't have backup are rarely capable of helping.

I agree fully with that. Including the bit that untrained people occasionally help paranoid psychotics. Very rarely, but they do. I would like to respectfully request a derail (or should I start a new thread in this instance?) for discussing how they do it, on those rare occasions.

I really think its hit or miss for non proffessionals, and when its miss, its really really bad, i wouldnt reccomend it to anyone.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:26:55 pm »
And after reading thread, my thinking is that technology will and can augment the Cost-Efficiency of Enforcement, so things that are hard to prosecute will be made easier to do so; get ready to pay a littering fine for spitting bubblegum on the pavement.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« on: November 01, 2014, 10:05:09 pm »
As technology progresses, I've been increasingly thinking about Laws and the justice system.

To start with, it's an odd word to use; Law. It would imply, that like say Gravity, it would apply and be enforced all the time. Without fail or favour. It seems to me that we are increasingly reaching a point where it would in fact be trivial to do this.

Think about it. Everything on-line is monitored by a variety of folk. You're on CCTV from the moment you leave indoors. Staying inside is an option but the phones are tapped and they can just switch on your mobile's microphone whenever they feel bored. Hell, they can go old school and just stick remote surveillance on your place and watch the windows to know exactly what you're actually saying. Sound reconstruction is crazily advanced now. Or go quite modern and just shine a laser at your place to know what you own that you shouldn't. This is all assuming they don't want to get handsy and come a-knocking.

Now, that might sound slightly paranoid, with the "they" and the remarkably intrusive shit for no reason. And yet it happens. Constantly. Daily. Increasingly frequently.

So, Laws. As before, I would understand a Law to be something that would be enforced constantly. And it seems so easy to do so given that half of the above is done to you already whether you like it or not. For your own safety, of course.

Upon then pondering the myriad of Laws that I am apparently bound to obey, the natural conclusion would seem to be that I am a horrendous criminal, as well as likely everyone else I know. Take a simple motorway journey. Sit in the slow lane at 80. You'll be being overtaken by around 70% of traffic. Anywhere. Minimum. A GPS system to monitor this is a pittance. If even the simplest of traffic laws were enforced with 100% efficiency, then there would be stunning numbers of banned drivers overnight. You literally wouldn't be able to build the required jails and such quickly to deal with it.

This leads me to thinking that we may need to look at some of the crimes we punish and how we punish them. Honestly, consider what your potential fine or jail term is just from what you've done today. If you honestly think it's nothing then the chances are you're not familiar with all of the laws that apply to you. You certainly aren't skilled at thinking like a servant of the Law.

Which leads to enforcement. The classic scene of a dossier filled with pictures slapped in front of the guilty. You're very, very guilty. Of what? Well, what would you like to talk about? By default, you're having this conversation with someone who has access to at least the crudest methods of surveillance, and if so inclined likely others. This is an easy reality for anyone who wants to bother. Most of the time they won't need to as you're already spilling your guts. Do you think confessions and testimonies against others increase or decrease in a recession? Check it out, I wonder why those numbers are like that.

There are, surely, some Laws that universal enforcement would be laudable. Crimes against beings and to a relevant extent property should probably prevented and deterred. Just saying there's obviously some lines that most would like to draw.

To me, the current various justice systems seem to be lacking incredibly behind what current technology could potentially enforce. You would need to take an immediate look at every single law and consider the what 100% enforcement would do and if if such a thing is wise.

And then I think, I am a horrible old man. Surely brighter, younger minds have considered the shape of the society they are perpetuating into the future.

I look at the politicians and I wonder.

I look at the police and I wonder.

I look at the press and I wonder.

I wonder when they will all stop being so fucking stupid and help people.

(Im replying to OP before reading other's responses as to not get tainted by your opinions  :fnord:)

Rather than thinking in terms of "Innocent until proven guilty." i think its more efficient and coherent to think of terms of "Innocent until you are proven economically viable to be prosecuted.". What does this mean?

Theres a bridge between Laws and Prosecution called Enforcement, and Enforcement is constrained by Efficiency and Manpower which are a basic equation that gives you Cost-Efficiency.

Traffic tickets are done either by automated cameras at stoplights (which generates FREE pillaging the citizens other than the initial costs of infrastructure and repairs) or say, speed traps at the bottom of hills; the latter poses a problem, in which it involves the time and attention of an officer which has a salary, so the commitment of said officer to given bottom-of-hill must be Cost-Efficient to have surplus value from the salary that is paid to the officer.

Why do rich people get off of jail time? (other than race issues, etc) Its because they can demonstrate to the Prosecution thru expensive lawyers that they generate more revenue OUTSIDE of jail than INSIDE jail... OUTSIDE of jail they generate revenue thru taxes, while INSIDE prison they only generate revenue thru proxy, thru the formal contracts of prison operators which pillage taxes. So the expenditures in court are merely a demonstration of how you will generate revenue to the system, thru your taxes or thru proxy.

Maybe i could ramble on and on, but i think my basic argument has come across, what do you guys think?

Im extremely dissapointed with pd and its content, talking about lesbians that like dick, how to cook diseased javelinas without getting aids and ebola, loons that want to rape, industrial accidents, syria, and the only thing i ever wanted was to learn Nixon style ballet and some sculpting.

I am unable to respond to this because of your avatar.
I uh. I registered for this forum years and years ago. I had this artpiece done for me by request in a 4chan thread, and...I kinda liked the coloring another person did for it.

Sorry that ponies bug you.

Lots of shit bugs me.  Bronies, though, are in a class all their own.
I am not going to defend the reprehensible people in that fandom. I am not obsessed with the identity. I just like the show, and maybe enjoy things most right-thinking right-wing Americans would find horrible. I'd like to think I'm better than most of them, but that's just me being narcissistic.

Im sure most bronies would say this. Why depreceate what you are? BRONIES STAND PROUD :fnord:

Its not ethical to fuel his deliriums, simple as that. On the other hand, its harsh to confront them and tell them they are wrong or actively disproving them, it will only make them feel bad without accomplishing anything.

Or Kill Me / Re: On Being Terrible
« on: October 27, 2014, 05:20:16 am »
sometimes it takes being not such a good person to be a good person.

Maybe just in funding. Maybe in existence.

It's another problem arising from external labels. If you stick by what you are called, you are following a pattern that is perceived by them but might not be true to yourself. And others notion of goodness might not be your own personal notion of goodness, so doing your personal good might alienate you from their notion of good.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: UNLIMITED Arizona Hilarity thread
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:05:17 am »

Karl Klomp is known for his extravagant seasonal decor, and this time the Phoenix man let his political views inspire his work.

He's got a headstone for President Barack Obama.

Klomp's neighbors said they're used to his decorations.

"Back in November of 2012 there, when they were doing the reelection, he was supposed to not get reelected. I'm a Republican, I don't make no hiding of that,"

"Klomp" is now my new shorthand for teabillies.

#1 civilian candidate  for October's watchlist

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Weev now full blown white supremacist.
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:16:24 pm »
Many times the hardest part is getting someone to admit or realize they have a problem.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 207