![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2003, at 20:54:33
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 20:42:27
Doesn't that assume that the underlying condition is something that was shameful? Otherwise why would anyone feel that defamation was being practiced. And I don't think it's at all shameful to have bi-polar or schizophrenia. The person would just be mistaken, not defaming. Now if the accusation included an untrue statement about someone having a disease, along with an implication that that disease made someone unfit to be someon'e friend, or unfit to lead, or something of the sort, a totally different sort of defamatory statement has occurred. A statement that defames everyone with the disease, not just the person accused.
There is a poster who often comes to the board and says I have schizoaffective disorder, or a thought disorder. And I will confess that I find it a bit distressing because it is untrue. And I think that it may possibly fall under the civilty guideline of jumping to conclusions about others, since I have never stated that I have any such disorder. But I don't think there is anything shameful or loathesome about the diseases themselves.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 21:10:30
In reply to Re: But..., posted by Dinah on August 19, 2003, at 20:54:33
Dinah,
The people that lable us are the one's that are wrong. I do not consider any illness to be loathem. That is a term 100's of years old still in the commom law.
Let us look at this example:
Let us say that there is a town meeting that I am at to prohibit motorcycles in the commuunity. I stand up and argue that the prohibition would be discriminatory and other unlawfull concepts. Another stands up and says," That guy is a manic-depressive.
Now this is the case that I tried to convey. His remark is defamatory, even though I am bipolar. his remark was malicious and made to defame me. I am not ashamed to have bi polar disorder.
Thank you for bringing this up. I try to write the best for the community but sometimes it is difficult.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 21:18:40
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation-INDO, posted by paxvox on August 19, 2003, at 20:12:36
> I'm sure that, eventually, you will tell us what it means... You know, sometimes individuals become so calous that they do not even realize when they are being offensive to others. Thanks to kind folks like yourself,we may be better able to understand (and clarify) this sort of weakness in ourselves.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't be sarcastic or post anything that could lead others to feel put down. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2003, at 21:21:01
In reply to Thank you for bringing this up » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 21:10:30
Yes, I agree that the intent of that person in the town meeting was unkind. But I guess I have hopes for the world. I have hopes that a fair percent of the people would stand up and say "So what? What does that have to do with his opinion on motorcycles?"
Perhaps I'm an idealist.
I do know how hard it is to present my ideas in the way that I intend them. Thanks for the clarification. Although I did realize that you didn't intend any harm to anyone with those diagnoses. That wouldn't be at all like you.
Posted by Sabina on August 19, 2003, at 21:55:56
In reply to A short introduction on defamation-SHM, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 20:19:28
i had absolutely no intention to weigh-in on this protracted topic. however, i feel that a line has been crossed within the text of the preceding "introduction" from Lou.
concerning civility: i would like to go on record as feeling *extremely* hurt and put down by the implications of the preceding post and i request a retraction, and/or rephrasing, at least.
in fact, i do feel that it qualifies as uncivil by the terms of this board. i absolutely refute the notion that *any* of the conditions listed below are in any way shameful or loathesome.
as an individual living with bipolar disorder, i have to deal with enough social stigma and ignorant preconception in my everyday life, both personally and professionally.
i am both disappointed and offended to see manic depression described by such vivid, negative adjectives by another poster on this board.
in the end, that was indeed, and ironically, "another type of defamation".
> Friends,
> Another type of defamation is the accusation of the person having a shamefull condition or loathem disease. Examples are:
> He has AIDS
> He has Herpes
> He has smallpox
> She has syphlis
> He is a schizo
> She is a manic-depressive
> and so on...
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 22:07:53
In reply to I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by Sabina on August 19, 2003, at 21:55:56
Sabina,
Dinah just brought this up and I realise that for me to explaine things that sometimes it is diffficult for me to do so.
The point that I was trying to bring out is that people that address people like us that have these disorders in a way that brings out our affliction is a form of defamation in and of itself. I have bi- polar disorder and I am not considering it to be something that anyone can use to defame me. It is when others use that to defame people wuth these disorders, then that constitutes defamation for it is done with malice and intent to hurt.
I gave an example above about if I was in a town meeting to prohibit motorcycles from the community and I stood up and said that any such thing would be discriminatory and other unlawfull practices. Then I gave the example of a man standing up and saying, " that man has biploar disorder." That is an example of being defamed in regards to one saying such things. Dinah then wrote a concurrance. See the posts in front of your post.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 22:49:41
In reply to A short introduction on defamation, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 19:00:56
Does this thread belong on admin? I'm confused.
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 22:49:41
> Does this thread belong on admin?
Well, it has to do with what to consider civil, so I think it's OK here for now at least. Did you want to redirect it somewhere? :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 8:59:54
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
Friends,
Another form of defamation is cruelty in the statement toward another. Now if someone said, "Your diction is atrocious", that appears to not be a defamatory statement. But if that person had a speech impediment from a neurological disorder, then the statement would be cruel and defaming.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 9:44:48
In reply to A short introduction on defamation--CRL, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 8:59:54
Friends,
Another form of defamation is when a statement is designed to stigmatize another person. Some examples are:
Making a person have a particular identification or segregating them.
Disallowing a person equal accesss..
Lou
Posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 11:18:52
In reply to Re: A short introduction on defamation--Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:57:01
Well, I wondered because it is very general. The posts aren't talking about Psycho Babble civility issues, but the nature of defamation in the opinion of one poster (and I'm not sure about the accuracy of the examples).
I suppose if people want to talk about "what is defamation" I'd see it belonging on social. If someone wants to say "this poster defamed me" I'd see it belonging here.
However, in the larger scale of the history of humanity, and the infinite future of the world, I suppose it really doesn't matter where it goes.
Shar
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:32
In reply to I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by Sabina on August 19, 2003, at 21:55:56
Another type of defamation is the accusation of the person having a shamefull condition or loathem disease.
So you are saying having AIDS is shamefull (sic) ?
Seems like a judgement to me.
Posted by PAXVOX on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » paxvox, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 21:18:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
In reply to Re: I *am* a manic-depressive. shameful? loathesome? , posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:32
stjames,
In writing about what defamation is, historically, there were laws that punished people for making statements that caused others to be shunned or avoided. These laws were called "loathsome disease" statutes and originated way before AIDS and diagnostic psychiatry were ever known of.
So to use a statement to cause another to be shunned, the defamer would say that the other person has a "loathsome disease" so that others would aviod that person. They would say that the person had a sexually transmitted disease or leprosy or smallpox or the plague. This was carried to its extream in the middle ages where antisemitic people defamed the jews by saying that they spread the plague, or worse, that the plague was brought to Europe by the jews.
Also, to cause shunning of another back then, the defamer would say that the other person is "crazy". The inplication there is to make others aviod the person because "crazyness' was associated with violence and psychopathic murder and such.
So that is where the "loathsome disease" wording came from and it is still used in the language of law today. It is an anachronism.
Today, there are new ways for defamers to use the old method of saying something about another person in order to have others shunn or avoid them. They could say that the other person has AIDS, because they want that person shunned and some people will shunn a person with AIDS out of ignorance of the contagious aspect of the disease. If someone spread that a women has AIDS, she would be shunned by many men who wanted a sexual partner. The defamation occurs when the person defamed is defamed falsely, except in some jurisdictions that do not consider the truth as a defense if the defamation was made with malice to harm.
The "shamfull" aspect of this terminology referrs usually to sexually transmitted diseases back in the past when they were associated with adultery was considerd shamefull. Defaming a women by saying that she has syphilis, let's say in 1920, would cause that women great harm if it was not true.
Today, calling someone "crazy" could be defaming also for it is damageing to the reputation of people to be labled such for some people will shunn or aviod people that are called "crazy" by others, for many have fear of others that are labled "crazy". But today, that word has been replaced by "schizzo" and "manic-depressive and such. So it is defamation if someone calls you a manic-depressive ,without privlege, for they are really using the old mentality of trying to get others to shunn or aviod you. I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull, for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
The hypothetical example that I used about the town meeting about the proposed ban of motorcycles in the town is illistrative of such. And if that was to actually happen to me, I would consider the man's ststement as defamatory.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
Are you trying to say that you feel you have been defamed on this site??
If so could you provide quotes to back this up.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:11:32
In reply to Are you saying?, posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
NikkiT2,
You wrote, "Are you saying that you feel you have been defamed on this site??"
Well, it depends. It depends on people's conception of what constitutes defamation. What would be the criteria that you would use to constitute defamation here? If you could list the criteria that you consider to be defaming, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 15:47:04
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 14:30:12
I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull, for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
So you are implying that if you get it via other
methods, like gay sex, it is shamefull.
Posted by lou pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:54:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 15:47:04
stjames,
You wrote,[...are you implying that if AIDS is aquiered...,like gay sex, it is shamefull?...].
No, I am not.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by lou pilder on August 20, 2003, at 15:54:32
I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull,
(lou, since you added the next part, you are qualifing that is not shameful if you get AIDS
via some methods, and it is implied it is shameful if you get it by others>for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
Please don't say things that would cause me to feel put down, as I am gay.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 16:51:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
stjames,
Let us look at this link in regards to your post.
Lou
http://www.look4law.com/topics/Defamation.asp
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 17:05:23
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 16:51:14
> stjames,
> Let us look at this link in regards to your post.
> Lou
> http://www.look4law.com/topics/Defamation.aspNot intrested.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:13:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post, posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
sj,
please do not accuse me of writing something that I did not write, for I did not write anything that implies that if you get AIDS by another method other than a blood transfusion that the condition would be shamefull. It is the community that could consider someone that has HIV to be shamefull, not me, and that is what I wrote. I wrote ," I am not saying that any of these situations are shamefull." Please do not misquote me or write that I am implying something that I am not.
Society is quick to jump to the conclusion that if someone has a sexually transmitted disease, that they commited adultery. I wrote that sociey is guilty of rushing to that conclusion for one could have gotten the disease from the other spouse that was unfaithfull or could have gotten the disease though non-sexuall means.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:47:59
In reply to Are you saying?, posted by NikkiT2 on August 20, 2003, at 15:03:11
NikkiT2,
Defamation occurs when somone writes something that is injueous to the other person's reputation. But there are other forms of defamation that i am also writing about here.
Cruel statements about another person are defaming. Hatefull statements are also defaming. Accusations if infidelity are defaming. attributing a loathsome disease to someone is defaming. Calling someone a manic-depressive is defaming. All of these and moe that i hav not finished writing about yet are contingent upon them being false or without privlege. Some jurisdictions do not accept truth as a defense if the statement was made with malice. Mlost of these are not in the US.
You had asked me for examples that have been written concerning me. One of the most horrible defaming statements ever made to me in my life was by you when you wrote, Lou, you are a nasty piece of work. I asked you to clarify and you did not. the phrase is distinctly British comming from the antisemitic England after 1290 when the jews were expelled by the king from England. The jews were later falsely portryed by Shakespeare in "The merchant of Venice, the person named Shylock. Shakespears himself used the phrase in Hamlet, I belive. The piece of work is referring in that time to something made. A human that was called a nasty piece of work was being called a human that god made that was nasty. You called me that on this publuic forum after you defamed me in a previous post and you were still allowed to continue posting. You also wrote that my spelling was awfull. That is one of the most cruel statements made to me in my life for I have explained many times hear that I have a rare nerological condition that impairs me to write or spell correctly. It is not my fault and I can do nothing about it ever, for thecondition is permanant. You have mad eother defaming statement about me and they are in the archives. As far as others defaming me, that is another story.
Lou
Posted by stjames on August 20, 2003, at 19:29:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjame's post » stjames, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 17:13:47
Lou, I am really trying to understand this. Why did you write this:
for sexually transmitted diseases could be given to you by an unfaithfull spouse and AIDS can be gotten through a blood transfusion, notably Auther Ash and others.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2003, at 19:33:51
In reply to OK, I'll be good (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by PAXVOX on August 20, 2003, at 13:48:34
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.