Latest BS Psyco-Babble

[Ignacio]

But isn't that why it's posted in 'Completely Off-topic Discussions'? Or is there a better place to put it?

Posting in Off-Topic doesn't nullify the guidelines.

The success fo this board remains that the vast majority of discussion is about FJRs. Some off-topic discussion and jokes are allowed because it doesn't mess up the signal to noise ratio. We've had problems in the past as some old-timers can attent.

Bottom line is if you want to talk politics, religion, or philosophy--do it somewhere else like I do. There are tons of other boards, blogs, and places to do that. This board is about FJRs.

Thanks.

 

[worldbound4now]

So, the other day I was on my FJR and I became extremely pissed at every cager on the road. All I wanted to do was twist the throttle back and watch life fly by....

Not really.

But now it's FJR related.

 

[airboss]

Some times the daily comute can really get to you, the stupid things other drivers do, and of course riding a motorcycle magnifies any incident and makes it worst because of how exposed we are on the bike.

I've learned to take a few deep breaths, and let it go, holding on the the rage won't do me any good, I mean I can't go home and beat the wife, she knows karate, and shes good at it. Kick the dog no way hes big and got lots of teeth.

 

[sparky3008]

Some times the daily comute can really get to you, the stupid things other drivers do, and of course riding a motorcycle magnifies any incident and makes it worst because of how exposed we are on the bike.
I've learned to take a few deep breaths, and let it go, holding on the the rage won't do me any good, I mean I can't go home and beat the wife, she knows karate, and shes good at it. Kick the dog no way hes big and got lots of teeth.

Actually beating the wife might work out really well for you. Since she can fight it will adjust your attitude real quick

 

[airboss]

Actually beating the wife might work out really well for you. Since she can fight it will adjust your attitude real quick

You can bet it would be a lot more adjustment than I could handle. :dribble:

 

[FJRski]

RU still beating your dog?

 

[airboss]

Never hit the dog too many teeth, and a never quit attitude!* :lol:

* See AKC breed referance for Airdale terriers.

 

[Maddog]

Sorry but I don't see any harm in this development. As has already been stated here, the existence a mental disorder does not relieve a person of legal responsibility.

More importantly though is what it means for drivers seeking treatment for their anger. If the disorder is in the DSM-IV-TR (the most recent version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) then insurance companies will reimburse for treatment. This, of course, increases the number of people seeking and getting treatment.

Ask yourself, do you want drivers treated for IED? Or would you prefer they continue driving angry? It is very common for courts to order road rage drivers to take anger management classes. I think this is a good thing. The designation of IED as a distinct disorder gives courts one more way to deal with road rage drivers (i.e., they must get treatment).

 

[sparky3008]

Sorry but I don't see any harm in this development. As has already been stated here, the existence a mental disorder does not relieve a person of legal responsibility.
More importantly though is what it means for drivers seeking treatment for their anger. If the disorder is in the DSM-IV-TR (the most recent version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) then insurance companies will reimburse for treatment. This, of course, increases the number of people seeking and getting treatment.

Ask yourself, do you want drivers treated for IED? Or would you prefer they continue driving angry? It is very common for courts to order road rage drivers to take anger management classes. I think this is a good thing. The designation of IED as a distinct disorder gives courts one more way to deal with road rage drivers (i.e., they must get treatment).

I see no problem with it being a way for them to get help but it also gives the lawyers a card to play to get them less punishment. If they agree to get some type of help it could reduce if not eliminate their sentence.

I disagree that the existence doesn't relieve them of legal responsibility. I have seen where people who have epileptic seizures have had one and had their car kill an entire family. Do you think they got voluntary manslaughter or murder? No, but in my opinion they knew they had this problem and yet they went out driving with the knowledge it could happen at anytime and kill someone. Even more scary is they shouldn't have had a license with this condition anyway. I even know diabetic's who have many low sugar attacks and have blacked out many times driving, endagered their own kids, had car wrecks etc because of this yet they still can drive and nothing is done to them...

Sorry I don't agree or get it...

 

[Bounce]

Some time back they stopped political stuff all together no matter where you put it. Seems some just can't take it.

That

makes

me

FURIOUS!

https://tinyurl.com/qhulx

 

[twowheelnut]

Okay, Bounce, you lost me on the Ben Stiller link... clue the clueless, wouldja? :blink:

 

[Maddog]

Sorry but I don't see any harm in this development. As has already been stated here, the existence a mental disorder does not relieve a person of legal responsibility.

More importantly though is what it means for drivers seeking treatment for their anger. If the disorder is in the DSM-IV-TR (the most recent version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) then insurance companies will reimburse for treatment. This, of course, increases the number of people seeking and getting treatment.

Ask yourself, do you want drivers treated for IED? Or would you prefer they continue driving angry? It is very common for courts to order road rage drivers to take anger management classes. I think this is a good thing. The designation of IED as a distinct disorder gives courts one more way to deal with road rage drivers (i.e., they must get treatment).

I see no problem with it being a way for them to get help but it also gives the lawyers a card to play to get them less punishment. If they agree to get some type of help it could reduce if not eliminate their sentence.

I disagree that the existence doesn't relieve them of legal responsibility. I have seen where people who have epileptic seizures have had one and had their car kill an entire family. Do you think they got voluntary manslaughter or murder? No, but in my opinion they knew they had this problem and yet they went out driving with the knowledge it could happen at anytime and kill someone. Even more scary is they shouldn't have had a license with this condition anyway. I even know diabetic's who have many low sugar attacks and have blacked out many times driving, endagered their own kids, had car wrecks etc because of this yet they still can drive and nothing is done to them...

Sorry I don't agree or get it...

I hear what you are saying but it is unrelated to mental disorders. The fact that an epileptic can get a drivers license is a function of politicians who are unwilling to say NO to anyone. Every crybaby that comes down the track say their rights are being violated because they are _________ (fill in the blank). And unfortunately, political correctness has not run its course.

You are probably correct in saying that it gives attorneys another card to play but here in California the prisons are literally overflowing so judges are looking for excuses to send offenders to somewhere other than prison. So forcing them into therapy at their own expense sounds good to me.

 

[Ignacio]

Everybody can thank Maddog for turning the thread political. I'll refrain from further comment and just close this thread.