@usagi @lina >That's an obvious fallacy. That you encountered a bad therapist only proves existence of bad therapists...

As an iron-clad argument, that's right: there are holes in my argument, which I was aware of and did not bother to patch because it would take some time.

The more detailed argument follows:

As you noted, there are anecdotes of "good" therapists and normal therapists.

- Normal therapists (such as the one I encountered) encourage things such as self mutilation and suicide. It is clear that encouraging someone to see such a person is evil.

- "Good" therapists (those who exist to me only in anecdotes of anecdotes) are said to provide effective treatment to those who are ailing. I argue that these people do not have any sincere desire to cure patients, and thus should not be meaningfully called "good."

-- The existence of such people provides legitimacy to a practice which is overwhelmingly harmful, thus encouraging people to see normal therapists. Given such an evil, if such people wished to stop providing legitimacy to such an evil system, there are two paths: one is to reform the system, and one is to abandon it.

--- If they are practicing, they obviously have not abandoned the system. If they are not practicing, then they aren't a therapist. Therefore, a good therapist must seek to reform their evil system.

-- However, no efforts are made to reform this system: else, the types of things that happen to me would be abnormal enough to warrant punishment (something that does not happen). These things not being investigated suggests no attempt to reform the practice of therapy: we must conclude that these "good" therapists do not work to fix their system, and that their effect on society is primarily to encourage people to seek normal therapists (those who encourage self harm and suicide).