da1

Your analysis is obviously spot on. Psychiatry is subjective at best and quackery at worst.

When you write "needs improvement" I think "need a complete overhaul" would be better.

Other people in this thread have already mentioned the drugging of children but I'd like to stress something else.

You compare psychiatrists to chiropractors as far as legitimacy is concerned, but there is a very big difference.

No one can force someone to see a chiropractor and that chiropractor can't strip you of every civil right without an accusation or a trial based on his assessment.

A psychiatrist can and does that on a regular basis.

This is a huge difference.

Come on!

Not nearly as many font faces and colors.

Give the guy some credit.

Indeed hidden iframes were the original way in which these effects were implemented.

> The tech came out in 1996 by Microsoft and nobody used it until 2003.

Not really.

Ever since there iframes things like that could be implemented. People just didn't care...

You totally got it.

Because it's very clear that whoever did this had a point, an objective. Therefore it's not pointless.

> Please stop this pointless killing.

I think by definition this anything but pointless.

> Believe me people, the problem is real.

Just like that? Without any examples or data?

Do you really expect people to just listen and believe?!

Edit: typos.

True but Galileo's developments took place after the decline had clearly started. That was my point.

> Also the Genoa and Venice seem to have played a big role. I think this relates to how they based their economies on naval power, but had strategically very bad positions. So they had to stay ahead in technology.

If that were the case "Italy" would have taken the place of "Spain" and Portugal at that time regarding seatrade and clearly they didn't neither then nor in the future being almost irrelevant.

Because I was identified before getting in and I was the only person not involved in the trial there.

I would be in serious trouble.

That laptop's disk went kaput so eventually I lost it (this might have been 6 years ago).

I did come back but never heard anything that outrageous.

When the judge says "stop recording" my heart sank because I realized that recordings were not an accurate description of what happened there.

Recently I read about a case where a judge convicted a witness, just like that.

Eventually it was overturned but now that judge is at the European Court of Human Rights.

Convicting the witness without an extra trial is far more serious and nothing came out of it...

Edit: Court name was wrong.

How come this is never brought up in international settings, say the UN or EU?

It's so outlandish when I first heard it I though people were just joking.

> We always look at Sweden as a very advanced country with the most progressive policies

Sweden and Norway were the undisputed leaders in lobotomies per capita up to the 1970s so not long ago.

Thank you very much for the detailed description.

> or you can take a blank ballot and write it manually

I've been told that in small places in the countryside doing this is tremendously deviant and carries serious covert social consequences.

> So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert.

I highly recommend going to a courtroom and just observe a trial.

The level of dishonesty, stupidity and incompetence is tremendous.

At the jurisdiction where I did that trials have all audio recorded. I saw the judge asking to stop the recording, basically saying out loud that the defendant was guilty because he felt it (basically he was creepy), resume the recording and then make some bullshit excuse to validate what he already had decided on a hunch.

I never had much respect for people involved with the law. I lost whatever little respect I had left that day.

I was actually recording audio (probably illegal and criminal) so at home I confirmed it just in case I was under some kind of delusion.

Sweeden has many "peculiarities", the one that tremendously impresses me is that voting is effectively not secret.

From what was described to me, when you vote you ask for a sheet of paper. You can ask for several but you'll get weird looks from people. The end result is that anyone that votes in fringe options is effectively identified because no one else asks for those options.

The person that told me this was competely oblivious to any problem with it. When I mentioned that this makes voting "de facto" not secret he mentioned that next time he would ask for all options.

I just don't get it.