So you do not cite any reference for your defiinitions yet you acknowledge that the so called ‘new’ definition is not accepted....Your logic is flawed at best.
Saying that people react to stressors differently is a no brainer
The definition cited is simply from an article which shows the co-morbidity of PTSD and psychosis in recent studies. It’s not rocket science. It’s the first quote “scholarly” article that appears in google science with the search terms PTSD and psychosis.
I’m getting real sick of the knuckle dragging Neanderthals on this site with at best a 6th grade reading level comprehension. It’s like most Freepers lately, are all elderly and retired and have nothing better to do than act like petulant 17 year old children arguing simply for the sake of arguing.
I need to loosen my tin foil hate or I’m going to begin to believe that most posters are paid trolls sent by leftists to FR whose sole purpose is to make “conservatives” look like stark raving lunatics.
My quote says “newer non-standard definition and less well-accepted” it does not say “not accepted”. I then posted a 50+ minute video about the first studies of PTSD in World War One which you probably won’t and/or didn’t watch so I reposted the link with the video advanced to the last 3 minutes of the BBC documentary which summarizes the entire video and said so in my post. You probably didn’t bother to watch that either.
In the last 17 years the level of discourse on this site has degenerated to nothing more than “I know you are but what am i ...” like childish rants.
People don’t even bother to read what has been posted and go off half cocked raving about their pet neurosis. Whether its the “cops” threads, the “Duggers”, “Mormons”, or the entire set of open and closed “Religious Forums”, Black helicopters, Armageddon, the way in which feminism has ruined western civ, foreign brides superiority to rotten American women , the destruction of society by gays, feminism blah, blah, blah etc.
Freepers use to be activists and hold rallies and sponsor Dinners, and protests, and candidates and be activists, andsupport the troops at Walter Read Etc. Not Anymore!
In your post to me you said “Your logic is flawed at best.” I have studied advanced mathematics and If you would like we could discuss this using logic.
First learn the difference between :
“less well-accepted” and “not accepted”
Then study the following type of formal fallacies.
formal fallacies
Invalid arguments that may appear convincing at first glance because they closely resemble legitimate patterns of reasoning. Commonly occurring formal fallacies include:
four terms (quaeternio terminorum),
undistributed middle,
illicit major,
illicit minor,
exclusive premises,
affirmative conclusion from negative premises,
existential,
affirming the consequent,
denying the antecedent,
converting the conditional,
negating the antecedent and the consequent, and
affirming the alternative.
As a starting point. Then Call me when your done.