Here is something someone brought to my attention that was on WorldNetDaily. Some posters here may find this interesting, or revelatory, or at least amusing, if they are not too threatened by it:
______________________________________________ Top shrink concludes liberals are clinically nuts! Makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 17, 2008 9:31 am Eastern
WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals (Fascists) thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals (fascists) relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal (fascist) Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals (Fascists) do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals (Fascists) do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals (Fascists) do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal (Fascist) agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
-creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
-satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
-augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
-rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism (Fascism)– and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational belie fs of the liberal (Fascist) mind," he says. "When the modern liberal (Fascist) mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal (Fascist) mind becomes painfully obvious."
_________________________________________________
Here is the link to the webpage for the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.:
I find this too threatening, please take it down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, where do you really think you're going to go with that Ron?
Coincidentally, I just saw a news article on the nightly news the other day that said MRIs have been done recently on Democrats and Republicans (self described) and preliminary tests show that by and large, Democrats look at issues using the parts of the brain that have to do with reason and logic, whereas Republicans use the parts more associated with base emotion. In otherwords, we're thinking things through rationally while you're running around calling us fascists.
I think it was the NBC nightly news, you can look it up.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Stop it. It's seriously pissing me off. I hate that so called newspaper. Especially when they print how dare they impede on our right to spank (beat with blunt objects) our children. That is not cool We need middle ground. Not all this liberal bashing, conservative bashing. It doesn't do a bit of good. Middle ground Facts. TRUTH! That's what I'm craving.
Also liberalism and fascism are not the same things. Where do they get that from? They don't even know the real meaning of that word...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Is that serious? It read like an Onion article.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
While I don't actually find it 'threatening' (dumb humor, though it was going to "go somewhere"), I really think it's inappropriate*. Though I am VERY amused, but *especially because your version of it with the (fascist) tagging. Because actually Synethesia, it's Ron doing that Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That doesn't sound logical either. Where are the solid facts? I was struggling to find some source about the Vietnam war that didn't equal Hinoi Jane made us lose.
And what does this one guy reviewing this book have against minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Those are good things. I'd be screwed without unemployment.
Perhaps it's not worth being bothered with. i should instead study Japanese and do research on attachment.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Actually since we're on the subject and all, I'd like to ask: What is Liberalism and what is Converatism?
I did the wiki thing with the Right/Cons and Left/Liber, but I still don't understand why the two are opposed and why members of either who define themselves by either term act the way they do and take a certain stance with various issues. With the wiki articles at least, personally I agree with the general positions of both (conserving, individual freedom, yadda) Is it just something ambient I have to pick up on? Because the more dictionary definitions don't seem to explain to me what's going on, and when I try and look it up in other places I just get negative attacks.
Is there some site that just lays it all out?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish I could find something like that. I want some sort of useful middle ground between the so called left and the so called right and it just isn't happening. You can have individual freedom AND make sure folks don't slip through the cracks, but who on earth is saying something like that? It's just fighting and divisiveness It makes me so irratable I can't even spell properly. If you find such a site, let me know.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal". That wasn't in the article. Is it a joke? Are you trying to get a rise out of the liberals on this forum?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal".
Answer: Ron Lambert is an impressionable fool with a black-and-white perception of the political world, and he thought that even an article from WorldNetDaily (a yellow journalistic rag for old, dumb conservatives) was too subtle for his tastes in demonizing liberalism.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This thread makes me laugh.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Does anyone else find it ironic that liberal, quite literally, means free, yet people say it means fascism?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I get a few laughs out of that one.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Hmm. I believe I hear a large flock of ducks passing by.
quote:He’s attempting to define Progressivism (of the historical, capital ‘p’ variety) as a literal fascist movement, so that everything liberals ever do, have ever done, or may do in the future can be identified with figures such as Mussolini and Hitler.
I already said holy crap but
holy crap Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Thanks Ron, that's a great article. I couldn't help thinking of the the film "Reefer Madness".
I love the continual use of the "liberal (Fascist)" nomenclature - it's as if the author assumes the reader is afflicted with some sort of attention deficit disorder.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Y'all know that I'm not a big fan of modern liberalism. I think it absolutely does choke the freedom out of people, and favors a horrible paternalism that infantilizes the general populace. That said... Good Lord, Ron, are you trying to parody yourself?!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That would involve his actually being self-aware enough to do so, so I doubt it.
Of course, I disagree, so I MUST be threatened by it's "truths"....
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know if conservatives get that rampant conservatism causes rampant liberalism and vice versa.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I really can't stand the rampant hate in our political discourse. What ever came of disagreeing with somebody but still respecting their opinion and their person?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My new book--Conservative (Communists) Are Insane. It shows how all Conservative views in reality will lead to bigger government, loss of individual rights, and an end of Democracy being replaced by a corrupt cronyistic aristocracy. This must prove that they are crazy folks, just crazy.
Actually this falls under what I call the Sauron Doctrine. Gandalfs plan in LotR was to sneak a small group into Mordor to destroy the ring. It would succeed because Sauron was so focused on world domination that he could not imagine anyone actually destroying the ring. So do I notice that some politicians will project their own worse nature on the opponent, accusing them of things that they are guilty of.
The standard diagram of politics has Fascists on the far right, so when a group of far right politico's want to attack the left, the grab what they are used to--Fascism.
When a politician says "My opponent is slinging mud at me" one needs to check very closely at who is slinging the mud.
When a politician yells, "My opponent is all talk and no substance" check out who really has the most substance.
When a politician complains, "My opponent the war hero was actually a coward during the war." check and see if that politician even saw any action, or if he sat out the war in some protected way.
The Sauron Doctrine, my guide to understanding political speech.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Is this article from the same people who insisted a while back that atheism was a psychological disorder?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I really can't stand the rampant hate in our political discourse. What ever came of disagreeing with somebody but still respecting their opinion and their person?
I know there are good things about conservitism and good things about liberalism We need both in a good balance to make our country good.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal".
Answer: Ron Lambert is an impressionable fool with a black-and-white perception of the political world, and he thought that even an article from WorldNetDaily (a yellow journalistic rag for old, dumb conservatives) was too subtle for his tastes in demonizing liberalism.
Awesome. I didn't have the patience to check out the original article after reading the OP and I'm glad you did check it out and did notice that. Yikes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, this is the kind of thing that is only crazy if you start from the premise that it isn't true. If it isn't true that we should care for those who are less fortunate, then it is "crazy" to believe that we should. It is only crazy to think that some people are victimized by the system if we start with the premise that the system is just.
It is like saying that Jesus had a messiah complex. Of course, Jesus would already been considered crazy by Dr. Rossiter.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have done some re-checking, and should state: I did not insert the word "fascist" in the text. I just copied and pasted a quote someone else provided of the article. I checked, and see now that the WorldNetDaily article did not have the word "fascist" inserted. I thought it was a little strange. It is apparent now that the person who did insert the word "fascist" was trying to distinguish between classical liberalism (which he believes in), and the much different kind of modern liberalism Dr. Rossiter is critiquing. Sorry for the confusion. It would have tipped me off if the inserted word had been enclosed in proper brackets instead of parentheses.
The word "fascist" is often applied loosely to anyone who is controlling, in the sense of being a control freak. They routinely trample upon the individual freedom of choice of others.
Of course, in historical terms, German and Italian fascism involved an unhealthy alliance between government and industry--which was characterized by very controlling rules and regulations that favored whatever government and its approved industries wanted to be favored. So the trains ran on time, even if they had to run over people to do it.
I know some of you might like to wish that this article came from the satiric Onion, but the book is actually available at Amazon.com, and Dr. Rossiter is an actual forensic psychologist listed at: http://www.forensicpsychonline.com/cvs.html/rossiter.html
Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion. No one who respects science can say it is unworthy of consideration. Some of you need to re-read what was actually said; you evidently did not get it right.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion.
No he isn't. He is a licensed clinician. He is not a research scientist. He has a total of one published paper from back in the 70s. This book is not he result of any sort of valid sceintific research.
A person publishing their opinion doesn't become scientific because they have letters after their name.
---
edit: I'm a little conflicted about saying he could offer this as a professional opinion. If he attempted to treat "liberals" as an entire group according to this perspective, it is extremely likely that he'd be censured and then stripped of his credentials in pretty quick order. There are rules that a clinician has to follow and he would be violating a number of them by doing. I would not be surprised if he is no longer practicing as a counseling clinician and is fully forensic now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But his opinion is more qualified than yours.
Perhaps he is trying to drum up more business, since the implication is that a good portion of the Democratic Party is seriously in need of psychotherapy.
This is something that the rest of us have been able to see for years. Dr. Rossiter is simply one of the first to provide specific details about how the liberal dementia works, and how the mental disorder developed.
Instead of reacting instinctively with denial and anger, the first response of a wise person would be to do a little introspection, and see if there is any possibility this qualified analysis of a respected psychoanalyst might be true, and apply to himself.
Dr. Rossiter has never been associated with any form of activism before, or been identified with any conservative groups. But he is saying that both Democratic major candidates for president clearly give evidence of this serious mental disorder. This is no trivial matter, if what he says is true. We do not want to elect a madman, or madwoman, to run the country! This is exactly what many of us believe Democrats are in danger of doing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But his opinion is more qualified than yours."
Sure. But there was a book saying basically the same thing about conservatives a few years ago. And that book had actual research in it. This is one man's opinion. Research>>opinion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But his opinion is more qualified than yours.
Which opinions are you talking about?
This isn't science nor is it scientific. That's not an opinion. It's a matter of basic definitions.
I've published more peer reviewed papers in psychology than this guy has, but neither of us have published any peer reviewed research relating to this subject. Neither of us is qualified to offer an informed scientific opinion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
And may I remind you, Dr. Rossiter is a forensic psychologist, whose "opinion" is used to provide useful profiles to aid law enforcement in identifying criminals and tracking them down, and his testimony has been used in court to help convict criminals. Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it. Dr. Rossiter's opinions have been authoritative enough to help send some people to prison.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Dr. Rossiter has never been associated with any form of activism before, or been identified with any conservative groups.
This is not actually correct. He's been a member and established blogger on townhall.com since at least 2006. And that's with me barely trying to find out information.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That does not make him a card-carrying member of any conservative-activist organized group. Just because I post in this forum, that does not make me a Mormon.
He would have to publish where he can readily get published. Moveon.org is hardly going to be receptive to his professional opinions.
But if he knows what he knows, he would have to care about it, and feel a conscientious obligation to say something about it--especially when it comes to warning people that we may be on the verge of electing someone to be president who is suffering from a clinically identifiable mental disorder.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it.
Outside of actual peer reviewed scientific research, which is extensive on this issue and contradicts what he is saying.
And, as I said, if he pushed this opinion on a patient in treatment or in a professional capacity as a forensic psychologist, he would likely quickly be censured and, if he persisted, have his credentials stripped.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is the link to the webpage for the book, The Liberal (Facist) Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.:
Fixed that for you... Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ron, I'm glad to hear it wasn't you who inserted (Fascist) in the OP.
"...a clinically identifiable mental disorder." Just because one psychologist prints an opinion piece doesn't make liberalism a clinically identifiable mental disorder.
Where his research? Also, aren't mental disorders defined by consensus? Can one guy, shrink or not, just make up a mental disorder and expect it to be valid?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And may I remind you, Dr. Rossiter is a forensic psychologist, whose "opinion" is used to provide useful profiles to aid law enforcement in identifying criminals and tracking them down, and his testimony has been used in court to help convict criminals. Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it. Dr. Rossiter's opinions have been authoritative enough to help send some people to prison.
frankly, if this is true it terrifies me...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Also, aren't mental disorders defined by consensus?
In practice, yes, but theoretically anything that can be shown to meet the criteria could be considered a mental disorder.
However, nothing as broad as a liberal belief system could ever be considered a mental disorder. The best you could come up with would it as an indicator for or coincident with a host of actual mental disorders.
---
edit: For the record, although there has been research that shows that certain traits correlate moderately with styles of political beliefs and/or personal identification as a liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican, it is very clear that neither of these can be attributed in a broad case to any sort of mental pathology. Which is one of those things that I expect people to say "Wow. And they actually spent money figuring that out." But then look at this.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Conditions 3 and 4 are clearly violated.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You wish. That does not make it true that conditions 3 and 4 are violated.
Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
That is certainly true. However, 1) you put this forth as science and 2) this book and the opinions in it conform to neither scientific nor forensic psychology methodology.
---
I had a thought. Ron, do you know what a forensic psychologist does? It is very different from what Dr. Rossiter did with this book.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You wish. That does not make it true that conditions 3 and 4 are violated.
Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
Condition 3: There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.Fail
There are no scientific papers supporting Rossiter's thesis.
Condition 4: The person in question is not significantly biased.Fail
Self-evident. He has expressed political opinions that are directly related to the subject area.
What this means, Ron, is that it is fallacious for you to keep dodging the points that people are bringing up by bleating "but he's an expert and you're not!"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion. No one who respects science can say it is unworthy of consideration. Some of you need to re-read what was actually said; you evidently did not get it right.
I think Dr. Rossiter is one of the few people on earth who could've benefited from science lessons from Dr. Price.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bob, are you talking about George McReady Price, the late creationist writer?
If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me. I would not just blithely, unthinkingly reject it. When he says that about the two main Democratic candidates for president, it is a matter for serious concern. Never mind how much you want to deny it. What if it is true!!! Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There are credentialed and experienced people saying all kinds of kooky stuff. There are tens of thousands of scientists out there, so it's bound to happen. So long as it's only an occasional lone voice, it's just static. I'll worry when "liberal" makes its way into the DSM.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Bob is talking about Weston Price, quack (sorry steven.)
But your good doctor Rossiter is not just saying this claptrap about 2 people, Ron. He's tarring a huge swath of the population with the label mad. From the book, pp405: edit: just before what a quote below is a laundry list of supposed "symptoms" I didn't quote for brevity's sake. Among them are bogus psychobabble terms like "infantile demandingness".
quote:pp405 The Treatment of Modern Liberalism
Therapy must also address the liberal's self-pathology, especially his immaturity, self-centeredness, and grandiosity; his lack of empathy for and recognition of others; his marked sense of entitlement; and his impaired sel-esteem and identity. Educational programs to cure the liberal's ignorance of free-market economics, libertarian political process, constitutional democracy, and the psychology of cooperation rank high among therapeutic priorities.
google books link Bolds mine. Does that read like an unbiased scientific researcher? Or someone with an obvious agenda?
No doubt said education will occur in cozy camps easily accessible via train.
[ February 18, 2008, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me.
No psychologist who was following the rules would claim to diagnose you according to their professional role without an in-depth interview. Dr. Rossiter (who, incidentally, I can't find as any sort of "Top Shrink" from a reputable source) is not in a place where he can offer a valid professional opinion of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Likewise, he is speaking outside his professional capacity when he says that liberals as a whole suffer from a mental disorder.
All he is offering is his personal opinion, which is contradicted by a great deal of established, peer reviewed literature. I'm going to have to go with the actual authorities on this one, Ron.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why is being a liberal such a bad thing? That I don't get.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Why is being a liberal such a bad thing? That I don't get.
Because it means you're CRA-AAZY!!?!! Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, where do you really think you're going to go with that Ron?
Coincidentally, I just saw a news article on the nightly news the other day that said MRIs have been done recently on Democrats and Republicans (self described) and preliminary tests show that by and large, Democrats look at issues using the parts of the brain that have to do with reason and logic, whereas Republicans use the parts more associated with base emotion. In otherwords, we're thinking things through rationally while you're running around calling us fascists.
I think it was the NBC nightly news, you can look it up.
Wow, that study obviously hasn't included myself. Every personality test I've taken diagnoses me with a mathematical brain, and yet I lean conservative on many issues. But hey, this article is about liberals and conservatives, not Republicans and Democrats. Given the neo-Republican behavior, especially in the Executive Branch (not necessarily one person in particular), the GOP has been threatening their own right to call themselves conservative. I do think this article is a dumb attempt to rally conservatives (fascists) and provoke liberals (general). In all seriousness, any attempt to do such, of any demographic, can result in two possible outcomes: Success, driving partisan lines even wider and making people even angrier at each other, Failure, getting everyone to laugh at the author (which is the most likely case in this instance), and nobody noticing.
On a side note, NBC has as much a liberal bias as FOX has a right-wing bias.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The Communists in Russia had a lot of accredited doctors, PHD's, Phsychologists, etc, who also spoke about diagnosing psychosis via the ballot box. If you didn't vote for the Communist, or if you in any way differed from the Party View, then these doctors classified you as insane. You were sent off to special hospitals and given a wide array of medications to keep you sane, asleep, and quiet.
But that's not what you want to hear.
What you want is a point-by-point defense of "Liberal View Points".
Well today I am too busy to give them to you. I do know this: The strawmen liberals--surrender monkeys, haters of soldiers, despisers of free choice and small government and all the rest, probably would be classified as insane. That is why the conservative pundits create them. Real Liberals are none of the above. you should try to meet them before sending them to the looney bin.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:
quote:Educational programs to cure the liberal's ignorance of free-market economics, libertarian political process, constitutional democracy, and the psychology of cooperation rank high among therapeutic priorities.
Does that read like an unbiased scientific researcher? Or someone with an obvious agenda?
That's not written in valid psychological terminology. Education of facts is not a therapeutic measure. You may as well say that converting someone to Christianity is a therapeutic priority. It doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sheesh, Ron,
If a palm reader says you have a mental disorder you could still worry about "What if it's true!"
I have a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology, fwiw.
I'm a big fan of modern psychiatry because of the scientific application of medicines that affect neurotransmitter systems and manage to a decent job of ameliorating the effects of a host of mental illnesses. To be honest, however, if one of these people said that someone I know was insane, my immediate reaction would be to get a second opinion.
There are standards for diagnosing mental illness. Here in the US, they are embodied in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychological Association. It is in it's 5th edition (DSM-V -- in review).
I suggest that this guy's career as a consultant to courts is probably already over, or he would've never written this book. Anything that can be pointed to as a lack of professionalism or objectivity makes it virtually impossible to retain your "expert witness" credentials in a court room. Thus, I'm guessing this guy has pretty much decided he doesn't need the money/hassle of being a witness in court, and has decided that this politics thing is a good way to cash out his winnings.
Ultimately, if he is used as an expert witness, all a smart lawyer has to do is bring up that the guy thinks 1/2 of the US population is fascist or insane. Let him get really wound up on his little Libertarian rant in the court room, just once, and his career really will be over.
So, yeah, he's got some credentials, but he's obviously figured out that his career trajectory is elsewhere than credibly practicing psychology.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
for the same reasons why religious fanatics back in the good ol' days burned witches at the stake, except nowadas witches are now called liberals and there are some pesky laws getting in the way of some good natured stake burning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me. I would not just blithely, unthinkingly reject it. When he says that about the two main Democratic candidates for president, it is a matter for serious concern. Never mind how much you want to deny it. What if it is true!!!
Wait
wait
whoa wait
Let me get this straight: You find some guy with 'qualifications' — not caring as to the relevance of those qualifications towards the research base of his claims — and in your defense of his solo scholarly™ classification of liberals as total nutballs you say, essentially, that because of his credentials and experience, even if one person like him says it, you think you would not reject it outright.
And yet, you are the same person who has repeatedly demonstrated open dismissal and rejection of majority scientific viewpoints where and when you elect to find it in conflict with your own views; the liberals have to give equal time to Dr. Horsecrap, and you are free to blithely dismiss universal, massively researched, repeatedly confirmed scientific consensus in 'harder' sciences such as involve evolution or global warming or the fact that you can't de-homosexualize someone.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
What's your response.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good point, Sam.
Give Ron some time; he's timesharing this with an identical thread on Ornery.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Okay, that I've got to see.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Bob, are you talking about George McReady Price, the late creationist writer?
If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me. I would not just blithely, unthinkingly reject it. When he says that about the two main Democratic candidates for president, it is a matter for serious concern. Never mind how much you want to deny it. What if it is true!!!
There were people who labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder. There are kooks to this day who say so. You know what they say about opinions, Ron. They're like a certain part of the anatomy.
The opinion of an expert means nothing unless he can back it up with facts. If Albert Einstein said that the speed of light in a vacuum varied according to the time of day, it'd be sheer idiocy despite coming from Einstein, because there's zero evidence to substantiate it.
Psychology is not science. I don't think any of the so-called "social sciences" qualify as science. As someone much wiser than me once put it, if it can't be expressed in numbers, it isn't science; it's opinion. But even if you were to consider it a soft/mushy/vague science, there are shrinks who say liberals are disordered and there are shrinks who say that conservatives are disordered and there are shrinks who say that gays are disordered and you can pretty much stick an X in there and find some shrink somewhere who will declare that X is disordered.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I sense thread drift impending.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I sense thread drift impending.
Given the subject it began with, I'm all for thread drift here...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Not to confirm C3PO's prophecy, but the way I heard it, the moment when the American Psychological Association stopped describing homosexuality as a disorder was when the 5-member board of their official magazine, three of whom were homosexual, voted 3-2 to declare that homosexuality was not a disorder.
Prior to the time when it became PC to accept homosexuality, many psychologists claim they were routinely successful at treating homosexuality, by a series of conditioning treatments that desensitized homosexuals to inappropriate same-sex stimuli, and sensitized them to proper opposite-sex stimuli. It was a pretty straight-forward process, which only took a few weeks. The only caveat is that the patient had to be willing to change. Nothing appeared to be programmed into his genes, or wired into his brain. It was all a matter of conditioned responses, based largely on choices.
That in turn brings up the contradiction I have mentoned in the past. Logically, it must be conceded that if homosexuals have no choice in being homosexual, then it cannot be considered morally wrong. And homosexuals almost universally claim that it is their nature to be homosexual. That is the "way they were made." And yet just as near-universally, and just as loudly, homosexuals will claim that homosexuality is nothing other than a "lifestyle choice." This appears to me to be a contradiction.
So much for that issue, which I only mentioned because someone else brought it up.
As for me disagreeing with the majority view of the scientific establishment on the doctrine of origins, I do not disregard them. I listen to them, consider their evidence, compare it to contrary evidence, and recognize that the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of creationism. That is why I disagree.
As for the psychology of the looney left, I can see for myself that Dr. Rossiter's reasoning appears to be sound--the reasons he gives for justifying his conclusions that the modern liberal mindset does manifest elements of identifiable mental disorder. Yes, I truly and seriously believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, etc.) are genuinely and clinically insane, and so is anyone else who sees the world in the same demented, schizophrenic way that they do. I did not need Dr. Rossiter to tell me that. He merely articulated the reasons why and how that dementia developed. Many other people have noticed the same things and commented on them in public in recent years.
[ February 18, 2008, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
“Do you know what this could mean to science, Betty? Actual advances in the field of science!" The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
As I already noted, the work in question appears to ape a paper finding conservatism can be explained as a set of neuroses. Losing any sleep over that?
Because, what if it’s true?
You know I only ask out of deep, heartfelt concern.
The earlier study at least has this much going for it: it purports to examine actual individuals, rather than a poorly conceived boogey man.
That Rossiter’s work defines liberalism from an outset only through a set of pejorative and inaccurate descriptions says a great deal about him, his biases, and his willingness to prostitute his questionable credentials, and absolutely squat-all about liberals.
If one wanted to take both theses on faith, it would appear that about 50% of the American populace is suffering from a mental disorder (assuming the other 50% can somehow be classified as “moderate”.) As most of those people are perfectly functional in their daily lives, such a conclusion would beg the question as to whether “suffering from a mental disorder” is any longer a meaningful diagnosis.
Alternately, one could come to the conclusion that attempting to claim that those who disagree with you suffer from a mental disorder is the province of small-minded cretins so incompetent to state their views with the slightest shred of reason, wit, or accuracy that the only civilized response is to ignore them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I sense thread drift impending.
Given the subject it began with, I'm all for thread drift here...
I think you spoke too soon...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sterling, you inflate your numbers. In fact, only the extreme fringes of the population are "hard core" liberal or "hard core" conservative. At least 80% of the population describe themselves as moderate. This is why Americans never knowingly elect an extremist of either left or right. Any candidate who wants to win general election must do all he or she can to move closer to the middle in the way they are perceived by the general public.
The last truly conservative candidate Republicans ran for president was Barry Goldwater--and he was buried in a massive landslide. (Despite some claims by conservatives after-the-fact, Ronald Reagan was not a true conservative. On almost everything he was a moderate.)
The only clearly liberal candidates for president Democrats have run, were George McGovern (who lost every state except his home state), and John Kerry (who managed to lose against one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why is homosexuality considered immoral in the first placE? Especially when there are things that are REALLY immoral that are totally ignored.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
On the chance you are actually seeking answers, Synesthesia, there are people who do NOT ignore the things that are REALLY immoral, as you say. There is a problem with priorities, I will grant you. Adultery would have to be just as immoral, if not more so, because it usually involves deliberate betrayal.
As for why homosexuality is considered immoral in the first place--there are three reasons. One, the Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexual behavior is condemned. Anyone who denies that betrays their ignorance. Second, the vast majority of people--even non-religious people--react toward homosexuality with instinctive repugnance. Third, it is logically obvious that if everyone were homosexual, the human species would become extinct, and giving general approval to homosexuality can be seen as encouraging that end--the ultimate destruction of humanity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Prior to the time when it became PC to accept homosexuality, many psychologists claim they were routinely successful at treating homosexuality, by a series of conditioning treatments that desensitized homosexuals to inappropriate same-sex stimuli, and sensitized them to proper opposite-sex stimuli. It was a pretty straight-forward process, which only took a few weeks.
Even if one were to grant the claim and believe such treatments work (and I am extremely skeptical), I find it completely unbelievable that any such treatment could be a matter of weeks.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There's probably specific reasons why homosexuality is prohibited in parts of the bible. See shellfish, pork and other assorted things that are banned that folks do anyway. There might have been specific historical concepts overlooked. Also, the whole entire world is not ruled by bibilical laws and rules. That is a good thing in a lot of ways. I don't see how homosexuality is so repugnant. Some people react with revoltion to all sorts of differences. Doesn't mean it's right. Also, large amounts of people will NEVER become gay. It's only a small population of people who are gay. It will not destroy the species because quite a few gay people also want children. And, contrary to popular belief, being raised by people who are gay doesn't make a person gay. Really I think people should just leave gay people alone and focus on other things.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for the psychology of the looney left, I can see for myself that Dr. Rossiter's reasoning appears to be sound--the reasons he gives for justifying his conclusions that the modern liberal mindset does manifest elements of identifiable mental disorder. Yes, I truly and seriously believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, etc.) are genuinely and clinically insane, and so is anyone else who sees the world in the same demented, schizophrenic way that they do. I did not need Dr. Rossiter to tell me that. He merely articulated the reasons why and how that dementia developed. Many other people have noticed the same things and commented on them in public in recent years.
So you're saying that you believe I am genuinely and clinically insane because I favor attempted diplomacy over knee-jerk military action, environmental protection laws, view immigration as positive and support controls on government spending that keeps the budget deficit in check?
Huh?
I'd be angier about being called insane, except I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest such a thing. And if they do, they can generally be ignored. It boggles my mind.
Of course, I grew up around conservative evangelicals who pretty much did think this way. Except the reasons liberals were Satan's spawn was because they supported legalized abortion and homosexual rights.
Well, I'm a registered Democrat who is very strongly pro-life (however, I do support legalized abortion because ruling out any religious beliefs I hold on the subject, it makes sense to me that a government would institute such a law to protect women who choose to have abortions; and I feel that my religious beliefs should not be enforced by my government - "Render unto Caesar" and all that).
To me, judging a political party based on one or two issues solely is just dumb. It breeds radicalism and an "us" and "them" (or, "us vs. "them") mentality.
But my attempts at trying to explain my views to the conservative evangelicals I grew up with always met with a wall of "But abortion is WRONG!"
I often wondered if most people are incapable of comprehending macro-societal-issues. It's just so easy to latch onto one issue and make that your stand. I think this applies to both conservatives and liberals - it's the failure to see the forest beyond the tree you're standing directly in front of.
I'm rambling and digressing... Happy President's Day everyone!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Bob, are you talking about George McReady Price, the late creationist writer?
If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me. I would not just blithely, unthinkingly reject it. When he says that about the two main Democratic candidates for president, it is a matter for serious concern. Never mind how much you want to deny it. What if it is true!!!
There were people who labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder. There are kooks to this day who say so. You know what they say about opinions, Ron. They're like a certain part of the anatomy.
The opinion of an expert means nothing unless he can back it up with facts. If Albert Einstein said that the speed of light in a vacuum varied according to the time of day, it'd be sheer idiocy despite coming from Einstein, because there's zero evidence to substantiate it.
Psychology is not science. I don't think any of the so-called "social sciences" qualify as science. As someone much wiser than me once put it, if it can't be expressed in numbers, it isn't science; it's opinion. But even if you were to consider it a soft/mushy/vague science, there are shrinks who say liberals are disordered and there are shrinks who say that conservatives are disordered and there are shrinks who say that gays are disordered and you can pretty much stick an X in there and find some shrink somewhere who will declare that X is disordered.
Lisa I just wanted to say that you are doing a much better job saying essentially what I wanted to say than I could have. You're pointing out the absurd flaws in Ron's posts, pointing out flaws with Psychology, and doing it all without defending modern liberalism. I was struggling for a while with how best to do exactly that, but now I don't have to. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Is that serious? It read like an Onion article.
This article is tied in with the inane Mike Savage, who wrote a book with a similar title. It's pathetic garbage for mental and moral lightweights.
[ February 18, 2008, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: Actually since we're on the subject and all, I'd like to ask: What is Liberalism and what is Converatism?
I did the wiki thing with the Right/Cons and Left/Liber, but I still don't understand why the two are opposed and why members of either who define themselves by either term act the way they do and take a certain stance with various issues. With the wiki articles at least, personally I agree with the general positions of both (conserving, individual freedom, yadda) Is it just something ambient I have to pick up on? Because the more dictionary definitions don't seem to explain to me what's going on, and when I try and look it up in other places I just get negative attacks.
Is there some site that just lays it all out?
A short lifetime of reading and studying have not given me a satisfactory answer. Essentially I think left/right distinction boil down to deeper, culturally inherited modes of thinking and behavior that govern our opinions and actions in manifold, unpredictable ways.
Essentially any liberal or conservative can claim to be more attentive to personal freedom, security, economic fairness, compassionate government, and so on. There isn't really a single issue that isn't built on a foundation cracked with seemingly unlikely contradictions and confusing rhetoric.
I favor the explanation that most politically minded people, and those in government, govern using their best knowledge, and that their decisions are colored by the interpretation of that knowledge, through their personal characters- which lie on a spectrum ranging from one mode of thought- left to another- right.
They are thus naturally separated into camps by their most basic cultural and moral cues to identify with either the interpretations of the issues that others of their camp favor... or the personality with which those interpretations are lobbied. Meaning, essentially, that if someone talks like you do, they have your ear, if they agree with you, they have your support.
People who are blessedly and cursedly aware of this process are cast to the moderate margin, and are disaffected by the political process because it fails to identify with any of their core values. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, cited this process as one that concerned him deeply as a young man, and one that he believes is becoming more common in American politics, leading to a brain-drain in the political field.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Attack ideas, not people, please.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
(What she said. --PJ)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I just want to say that I can't believe anyone still responds to Ron's posts, and now that he's flat-out said that he considers a good number of us insane I hope everyone will consider just ignoring him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: Actually since we're on the subject and all, I'd like to ask: What is Liberalism and what is Converatism?
I did the wiki thing with the Right/Cons and Left/Liber, but I still don't understand why the two are opposed and why members of either who define themselves by either term act the way they do and take a certain stance with various issues. With the wiki articles at least, personally I agree with the general positions of both (conserving, individual freedom, yadda) Is it just something ambient I have to pick up on? Because the more dictionary definitions don't seem to explain to me what's going on, and when I try and look it up in other places I just get negative attacks.
Is there some site that just lays it all out?
A short lifetime of reading and studying have not given me a satisfactory answer. Essentially I think left/right distinction boil down to deeper, culturally inherited modes of thinking and behavior that govern our opinions and actions in manifold, unpredictable ways.
Essentially any liberal or conservative can claim to be more attentive to personal freedom, security, economic fairness, compassionate government, and so on. There isn't really a single issue that isn't built on a foundation cracked with seemingly unlikely contradictions and confusing rhetoric.
I favor the explanation that most politically minded people, and those in government, govern using their best knowledge, and that their decisions are colored by the interpretation of that knowledge, through their personal characters- which lie on a spectrum ranging from one mode of thought- left to another- right.
They are thus naturally separated into camps by their most basic cultural and moral cues to identify with either the interpretations of the issues that others of their camp favor... or the personality with which those interpretations are lobbied. Meaning, essentially, that if someone talks like you do, they have your ear, if they agree with you, they have your support.
People who are blessedly and cursedly aware of this process are cast to the moderate margin, and are disaffected by the political process because it fails to identify with any of their core values. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, cited this process as one that concerned him deeply as a young man, and one that he believes is becoming more common in American politics, leading to a brain-drain in the political field.
Edit: And I think the essential point you should realize is that in the current world of politics, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have essentially divorced themselves from their literary meaning.
Right leaning people in fact favor a liberal approach to the economy, that is to say, that they believe generally in giving the economy a free hand in building itself, with the idea that lowered interest rates with cause a higher return to the economy at the lower rates with higher volume. This is a liberal idea in the literal sense, but it stems from the conservative approach to government, which holds that governments should govern as little as possible.
On the other hand "liberals" believe more prevalently in a conservative approach to the economy, in which economic growth and government spending are more closely controlled, and in which a balanced governmental budget is more likely to result. This is also part of a liberal, in the literary sense, approach to government, which holds that more government may be necessary in order to maintain stability.
The core of "liberal or conservative" is thus very difficult to gauge, and comes down to a very basic core appreciation for a particular style of thought. This is further complicated by a number of flat contradictions perpetrated by both sides of the aisle.
In my opinion, at least on the economic issue, we as logical beings should pay attention to the fact that liberal government has a vastly better track record in economic stability. There are drawbacks as always, but stability is key.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Is Ron Lambert a crank or a troll or is he real (before I respond to this post)?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He's real. But he's the kind of flipped-out fanatic who gives real conservatives a bad name.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ron, the very fact that you believe that "disagreement is proof of ignorance," is itself proof that the bible has not afforded you with an evolved sense of morality, and that you are, at least in this case, being disingenuous, intellectually lazy, and you know it.
Your three ridiculous reasons for rejecting homosexuality are based on poor information, and poor assumptions, with concomitantly poor analysis on your part. If the bible hasn't taught you how to effectively argue in favor of itself... then I wonder exactly what it has done for you or anyone. It's done you more harm that good, in my opinion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He's real. But he's the kind of flipped-out fanatic who gives real conservatives a bad name.
I guess I just don't have the imagination necessary to put myself in that place. I think it might require a complete restructuring of my neural pathways.
I have heard Dr. Drew talking about this phenomenon over the years, that in fact some differences of interpretation go so far into the basic wiring of the brain and the individual brain chemistry, that we have no hope of understanding someone who's development has been adversely affected by abuse,or drugs, and that we may never connect to a person raised in a very alien culture- which has always interested me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing that depresses me about this was that I (apparently charitably) figured the whole "conservatives tend to suffer from these specific, identifiable mental disorders" thing from a few years back was basically more crap research out of Berkeley, but Ron is doing his best to prove me wrong.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Conservatives are no more identical to each other than are liberals. Perhaps the conservatives are even more diverse. Just look at the 08 presidential roster.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm with ElJay on just ignoring Ron. Or, to misquote a pair of my favorite unicorns, "Shun the [crazy bad psychology] believer. Shhhunnn. Shhhhhuunnnnnnn."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I see that Dr. Price made his way into this thread.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I just want to say that I can't believe anyone still responds to Ron's posts, and now that he's flat-out said that he considers a good number of us insane I hope everyone will consider just ignoring him.
I said what I thought.
Once.
I have no plans of derailing his train of thought, such as it is, because nit isn't heading anywhere I want to go.
And because I don't think it is possible. If Christ appeared and told Ron he was wrong, Ron would probably call him a liberal and try and have his "condition" treated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Conservatives are no more identical to each other than are liberals. Perhaps the conservatives are even more diverse. Just look at the 08 presidential roster.
Meh, I think you're buying into the hype the media and the conservatives have been generating in the campaign. Diverse: changeable, changeable: New, new: not Bush.
And on the other side, liberals: all the same, same: old old: Bush.
Plus we have the media INSISTING at the top of its voice that the election is racial, when it's clearly not as big of an issue as they wish it to be. Still maybe an issue... but not really a relevant one.
Edit: I think it's quite ingenious of Barack to have ridden the hype of his campaign for so long before the actual primaries. It gave the states a lot of time to get used to the idea, and the media less of an opportunity to jump up and do a gut reaction: "is American really ready???" slog-fest of inanity.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem is that this can be dangerous. If the idea that people who don't agree with you must be insane is extremely egocentric. Ron honestly believes that he knows all the answers and that the world is so simplistic that anyone who disagrees with his answers must be insane.
The insane can be dealt with. They can be locked up, drugged into oblivion, and put to sleep, since no sane person would want to live "like that."
Once you begin dehumanizing people you can do anything you want to them.
Ron, please understand. Liberals, moderates, atheists, and Muslims are people too. Most of them are doing what they think is best. Most of them are not dumber than you, and quite a few of them are smarter, so before you write them off as insane, unworthy, and expendable, stop and open that mind of yours.
I wonder how many Israelites around the time of Jesus thought that all those Samaritan's were, "Crazy." "They must all be crazy. That leaned Rabbi said so."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Why is being a liberal such a bad thing? That I don't get.
Damn hippies. They want to save the world, but all they ever do is smoke pot and play frisbee.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I wonder how many Israelites around the time of Jesus thought that all those Samaritan's were, "Crazy." "They must all be crazy. That leaned Rabbi said so."
Er, most of the Israelites were Samaritans.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Thank you very much for your response, Orincoro! It helps indeedy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think one thing that has bothered me constantly about the liberal/conservative bipolarity is that each side of the aisle inevitably ends up betraying its ideology in favor of motives.
For instance, conservative government is supposed, by some, to believe that the mandating of personal freedoms should be kept to the absolute minimum. In the ideal conservative world, the church has a free hand to spread its particular morality, and requires only that the government protect religious freedom. Instead, inevitably, the government populated by subscribers of a religious system begin to allow the authority of the church to commingle with the authority of the state. This is not done directly by the church you see, but is carried out on a broad plane by people who believe they are serving the state by being morally correct. Instead, they corrupt the processes and place of the government in favor of their beliefs, and so those beliefs in turn are no longer protected by a separate state.
What had begun as a conservative approach to government control changes as morality becomes a subject of legislation, rather than a subject of, well, morality. The fact that the legislation is being introduced is evidence of the disparity between the beliefs of those who are attempting to pass it, and segments of the general population who are not subscribers to their beliefs. (ie, there are not bills being introduced to stop people from holding their breath, because no-one likes to do that, so it isn't a topic of legislation). Now the government is an active moral authority, while it still claims to want to allow people the freedom to pursue their own beliefs. Thus we have legislation banning or allowing doctor assisted suicide, abortion, and many other life-related issues. We have these debates because those introducing legislation are attempting to enforce their sense of morality on the public, and many in the public have a different view. Thus we have activist government which claims to be conservative. Amazing.
And, though I can't think of a better example for the liberal government becoming conservative, I no doubt that such an example exists. There are huge contradictions in the philosophies of government because there are contradictions in our own beliefs. We are taught that governments should not interfere in moral issues, and we are also taught, some or maybe all of us, that we must do anything to spread our particular sense of the world- these ideas are dissonant.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:As for me disagreeing with the majority view of the scientific establishment on the doctrine of origins, I do not disregard them. I listen to them, consider their evidence, compare it to contrary evidence, and recognize that the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of creationism. That is why I disagree.
quote: One, the Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexual behavior is condemned. Anyone who denies that betrays their ignorance.
Thank you Ron, for giving me the necessary tone with which to read your posts.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I wonder how many Israelites around the time of Jesus thought that all those Samaritan's were, "Crazy." "They must all be crazy. That leaned Rabbi said so."
Er, most of the Israelites were Samaritans.
Um...? How do you get that? The Samaritans were the Kusim, who were brought into the region by Assyria after they exiled the northern kingdom. They weren't Israelites.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Conservatives believe that by providing breaks for the wealthy and powerful they can help the rest of the nation as Good Things Trickle Down. This only works when the wealthy and powerful allow any Good Things to trickle anywhere.
Liberals believe that by providing breaks for the poor and powerless they can help the rest of the nation as the lower classes Pull Themselves Up the Economic Ladder and become Productive Citizens. This only works when the poor and powerless actually use the breaks and don't just spend their time finding ways to get more breaks without actually working.
And yup, that's horribly simplistic and rife with stereotypes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I wonder how many Israelites around the time of Jesus thought that all those Samaritan's were, "Crazy." "They must all be crazy. That leaned Rabbi said so."
Er, most of the Israelites were Samaritans.
Um...? How do you get that? The Samaritans were the Kusim, who were brought into the region by Assyria after they exiled the northern kingdom. They weren't Israelites.
Oops, sorry. I always get the English words mixed up.
Nevermind.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
From re-reading this entire thread, I think that we, as a community, can come to an almost unanimous conclusion.
Ron, this attempt to label Liberals as Insane is an insult.
The Liberals and Moderates on this board see this as an insult to left thinking people everywhere.
The Conservatives consider it an insult to those who suffer real mental illnesses. Even then, confusing Stupidity with Insanity is both Crazy and Dumb.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hear, hear! I agree.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Conservatives believe that by providing breaks for the wealthy and powerful they can help the rest of the nation as Good Things Trickle Down. This only works when the wealthy and powerful allow any Good Things to trickle anywhere.
Liberals believe that by providing breaks for the poor and powerless they can help the rest of the nation as the lower classes Pull Themselves Up the Economic Ladder and become Productive Citizens. This only works when the poor and powerless actually use the breaks and don't just spend their time finding ways to get more breaks without actually working.
And yup, that's horribly simplistic and rife with stereotypes.
There are conservatives who aren't like that, but what you describe is definitely out there, and dominant among self-styled conservatives.
What the two positions you painted have in common is that both think that giving perks here and there is a legitimate function of government. Frankly, I don't want the government to steal from me to give to the rich or the poor.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. I know I start some forgetful, silly threads, yet they're ignored.
Why was this one not?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The first sign that this article was hateful screed rather than actual psychological analysis was where it said liberal(Fascist).
Fascism, when it is being considered as a political philosophy and not merely an insult, is generally ranked as far right wing / highly conservative -- never leftist or liberal. To the extent that the political spectrum can be described as right(conservative) vs left (liberal) (which is admittedly a bad generalization), Fascism is more accurately and example of conservative thinking than liberal thinking.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tammy: I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. I know I start some forgetful, silly threads, yet they're ignored.
Why was this one not?
The purpose of this thread was to insult people. As far as I'm concerned it was a violation of the hatrack compact from the
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... And, though I can't think of a better example for the liberal government becoming conservative, I no doubt that such an example exists.
For the record, I'm not very fond of the "liberals ~= left-wing, conservatves ~= right-wing" thing. I find those things change too much from country to country (or in history for that matter) to be all that useful.
That said, you could certainly make the case that conservatives in the Chinese government are hard-line Communists (left-wing) and that Chinese reformers/"liberals" are conversely right-wing.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Ron, this attempt to label Liberals as Insane is an insult.
I just whistled the crap out of this thread. Some of the activity has been blatant hate speech. Blatant, hate-filled speech. I refuse to allow that to pass by.
To me, this is the equivalent to a KKK member showing up and trying to prove to me some anachronistic hate about black people or something. How often do people who hate so much try to "prove" their views on other people with questionable "research?"
This whole thread disgusts me, though I must give a shout out to those who showed reason and honesty. I won't make a list, but I think it pretty obvious who you are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The first sign that this article was hateful screed rather than actual psychological analysis was where it said liberal(Fascist).
Fascism, when it is being considered as a political philosophy and not merely an insult, is generally ranked as far right wing / highly conservative -- never leftist or liberal. To the extent that the political spectrum can be described as right(conservative) vs left (liberal) (which is admittedly a bad generalization), Fascism is more accurately and example of conservative thinking than liberal thinking.
Well, I don't know about that. Fascism is grossly misused in the vast majority of cases. Most people simply use it to mean "anyone who makes me do anything I don't want to".
The left-right dichotomy is really a lot less pertinent than the collectivist-individualist one. I think one of the reasons things are so often put in left-right terms is purely so that collectivists can play both sides of the debate and be guaranteed to win.
Modern liberalism and the kind of conservatism that was described earlier in this thread are both extremely collectivist views, and as such, I don't think a label of "fascist" would pertain to one more than the other.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Conservatives are no more identical to each other than are liberals. Perhaps the conservatives are even more diverse. Just look at the 08 presidential roster.
Meh, I think you're buying into the hype the media and the conservatives have been generating in the campaign. Diverse: changeable, changeable: New, new: not Bush.
And on the other side, liberals: all the same, same: old old: Bush.
Plus we have the media INSISTING at the top of its voice that the election is racial, when it's clearly not as big of an issue as they wish it to be. Still maybe an issue... but not really a relevant one.
Edit: I think it's quite ingenious of Barack to have ridden the hype of his campaign for so long before the actual primaries. It gave the states a lot of time to get used to the idea, and the media less of an opportunity to jump up and do a gut reaction: "is American really ready???" slog-fest of inanity.
That wasn't quite what I meant. I was speaking of the differences between Huckabee and McCain (and Romney and Thompson and even Gulliani) on the "conservative" side, where there is a lot of different stuff being pushed around that cause great disagreement among Republicans. On the liberal side, we have Obama and Hillary, who are very similar on the issues (though DEFINITELY not identical), but are very different; nearly polar opposites, in terms of personality and strategy.
I quite agree about Obama, and the way the media have pulled a "Is America ready for X?" early on, only to be answered with "yes" just as early.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There are many people in this forum who are unhealthily in love with arguing, and consider inventive slams (or not so inventive) to be good argument. Well-reasoned argument, even accurately understanding what was actually said, seem to be wholly absent from their diatribes. It is as if they lack the mental discipline needed to recognize what is logically valid. Or else they just want to be right by asserting that they already are; and are not willing to go through the more painful process of becoming right, by discovering where they have been wrong.
On the other hand, there are a few here (very few) who have put forth some well-reasoned arguments. I might still dispute many points they try to make. But in general, I am glad that some people here do seem to respect reason. May their species increase.
Because of the large number of argumentative types here, this does not seem to be a good forum for reasoned debate about emotional issues, such as creationism vs. evolutionism, the morality of homosexuality, and whether the liberal political mindset is the manifestation of a form of insanity, or just stupidity. (The former would actually be preferable, since you can recover from insanity.)
So probably it would be better just to comment on trivial things that nobody cares about that much, in the future.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: So probably it would be better just to comment on trivial things that nobody cares about that much, in the future.
Or you could, you know, leave. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:this does not seem to be a good forum for reasoned debate about emotional issues, such as creationism vs. evolutionism, the morality of homosexuality, and whether the liberal political mindset is the manifestation of a form of insanity, or just stupidity
I would argue that none of the above are technically emotional issues.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So where were your reasoned responses in this thread Ron? All I saw was a heaping helping of "appeal to authority", faux concern for the supposedly insane 10% of the population, and a lacking response to your disregard of science except when it agrees with you.
Perhaps you should stick with fluff.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"There are many people in this forum who are unhealthily in love with arguing, and consider inventive slams (or not so inventive) to be good argument."
Ron: Considering the thread we're on, and who started it, you're not one to talk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are many people in this forum who are unhealthily in love with arguing, and consider inventive slams (or not so inventive) to be good argument. Well-reasoned argument, even accurately understanding what was actually said, seem to be wholly absent from their diatribes.
I agree. Let's post some of the more egregious examples, that we can all learn from them and avoid repeating such mistakes in the future:
quote: It is as if they lack the mental discipline needed to recognize what is logically valid.
quote:whether the liberal political mindset is the manifestation of a form of insanity, or just stupidity. (The former would actually be preferable, since you can recover from insanity.)
quote:As for the psychology of the looney left
quote:Yes, I truly and seriously believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, etc.) are genuinely and clinically insane, and so is anyone else who sees the world in the same demented, schizophrenic way that they do. I did not need Dr. Rossiter to tell me that.
quote:it is logically obvious that if everyone were homosexual, the human species would become extinct, and giving general approval to homosexuality can be seen as encouraging that end--the ultimate destruction of humanity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because of the large number of argumentative types here, this does not seem to be a good forum for reasoned debate about emotional issues, such as creationism vs. evolutionism, the morality of homosexuality, and whether the liberal political mindset is the manifestation of a form of insanity, or just stupidity. (The former would actually be preferable, since you can recover from insanity.)
Well, let's consider what you're saying here, Ron. By your own words, this really isn't a very good community. It's got lots of social and economic liberals, who from your perspective are a bunch of (literal) crackpots.
Logically it doesn't make sense to argue with crazy people. You can't persuade someone not to be crazy, it would take some actual medical training, which you don't have.
So, either go get that training and come back and try to 'cure' a large portion of the Hatrack community, or do what you admit is the better thing, and don't comment on any serious matters.
Of course, all of what I just said is predicated on you being a straightforward, honest man who is posting what he means and is not in fact making an excuse or baiting people. Because that wouldn't be a very Christian thing to do, especially since if you're right, and liberals are crazy, you're basically baiting crazy people.
Perhaps when you're done with that, you can go taunt some lepers!
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Or you could, you know, leave.
Worth repeating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, but see the thing is, it's not going to happen. Better to hoist Ron on his own petard, as it were.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Or you could, you know, leave.
Worth repeating.
I don't think so. I find Ron's topics amusing, apalling and frustrating. I don't want him to leave.
Nor should you restrict yourself to fluff, Ron. I was just agreeing with you. Just try and have a more open mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't matter if everyone wants Ron to leave. It's not like he's going to.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thank you, Morbo--I guess.
Some thanks too, Rakeesh, to those who have had a part in helping me to develop a thicker skin. I'm sure the training will come in handy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why would you care what a bunch of crazy people say to you?
Why are you posturing like this, Ron? I very much doubt you really think you're fooling anybody.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, but see the thing is, it's not going to happen. Better to hoist Ron on his own petard, as it were.
Does anyone else here think the word "petard" is really really funny? Especially when combined with another funny word like "hoist".
"Fritter" is a funny word too.
What do you think?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, but see the thing is, it's not going to happen. Better to hoist Ron on his own petard, as it were.
Does anyone else here think the word "petard" is really really funny? Especially when combined with another funny word like "hoist".
"Fritter" is a funny word too.
What do you think?
Petard is a funny word. What IS a petard anyway? Reefer and Floozy are funnier.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A petard is a bomb.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There are many people in this forum who are unhealthily in love with arguing, and consider inventive slams (or not so inventive) to be good argument. Well-reasoned argument, even accurately understanding what was actually said, seem to be wholly absent from their diatribes.
When people give you well-reasoned argument, you ignore it, bypass it, or demonstrate a complete inability to understand it.
Usually when doing one of these three, you dismiss other people's valid arguments against your rhetoric, declaiming it as being nothing more than whining, grousing, brainwashed garble, emotional petulance, or ignorance of All Things Undeniably True Even When Facts Get In The Way
Besides, as Dagonee pointed out in an A+ demonstration of MASSIVE RON LAMBERT HYPOCRISY ALERT you are in no place to criticize others for that sort of stuff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like floozy, but I think reefer is boring. What about the word celibate? It ends too quickly for the luxury of its beginning, and it always makes me laugh a bit.
Also luxury. I like the sound the x makes in luxury, like someone secretly snuck in an s and an h after it and then made them invisible. Sleeper agent letters.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't get involved primarily to counter-act Ron. He generally discredits himself largely without any one else's help. This time, he started out with easily identifiable garbage.
However, I tried to do a detailed job of showing how this would not be regarded as legitimate in the field of psychology, to show that there are established rules that this guy would be violating if he advanced these things in a professional context, because, unlike Ron, false statements about the field of psychology are seen by many as credible.
I've tried to demonstrate that, while you are going to have people who behave irresponsibly in any profession, this is by no means an example of what is considered acceptible or responsible inside the field of psychology.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is as if they lack the mental discipline needed to recognize what is logically valid. Or else they just want to be right by asserting that they already are; and are not willing to go through the more painful process of becoming right, by discovering where they have been wrong.
The dripping, cloying, musty irony of this statement is so sweetly ringing, so effervescent, that it very nearly brings a tear of transcendent joy and vindication to my eye.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You forget, Orincoro. What if it's true!?!? Tune in at 10 o'clock for the Action News story.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I thought a Petard was captain of the Enterprise.
PS--A flashback:
Ron's arguments against homosexuality are just as valid if you replace homosexuality with lobster.
quote:As for why eating lobster is considered immoral in the first place--there are three reasons. One, the Bible is unmistakably clear that lobster eating behavior is condemned. Anyone who denies that betrays their ignorance. Second, the vast majority of people--even non-religious people--react toward a live lobster with instinctive repugnance. (they are ugly!) Third, it is logically obvious that if everyone were to eat lobsters, the lobster species would become extinct, and giving general approval to lobster eating can be seen as encouraging that end--the ultimate destruction of lobsters.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: PS--A flashback:
Ron's arguments against homosexuality are just as valid if you replace homosexuality with lobster.
quote:As for why eating lobster is considered immoral in the first place--there are three reasons. One, the Bible is unmistakably clear that lobster eating behavior is condemned. Anyone who denies that betrays their ignorance. Second, the vast majority of people--even non-religious people--react toward a live lobster with instinctive repugnance. (they are ugly!) Third, it is logically obvious that if everyone were to eat lobsters, the lobster species would become extinct, and giving general approval to lobster eating can be seen as encouraging that end--the ultimate destruction of lobsters.
Wow...
Well, since you put it that way, it does make sense. We should deny the rights of lobsters to get married.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can't believe that you would deny lobsters their civil rights. Next you'll be saying that we can't eat gay people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know it's amusing, but jokes based on the idea that food laws and laws concerning homosexuality are treated equally in the Christian Bible are based on a false premise. There is a distinct scriptural basis for Christians treating the Old Testament food laws differently from the Old Testament laws concerning sexual morality.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, you are right. If it was my argument for or against homosexuality, I have learned from you and others more learned on the intricacies of the Bible, that there is a difference.
However, this is Ron's argument, and if such an obvious flaw in one of Ron's arguments were presented to him I think that he would point out the line, "Anyone who denies that betrays their ignorance."
And you have to admit, the other two points are very important. I mean, Lobsters are UGLY.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Really? I find them rather aesthetically neutral.
They're significantly different from us that I find that my gut reaction is not "boy, is that ugly" but "boy, what IS that" (and then afterwards, "man, those things taste good")
What I do find ugly are things that are similar enough to us to be close to human, yet "corrupted" in some way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where does this leave gay lobsters?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
.
I think lobsters are kind of cute.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I detect no substantial differences when comparing my aesthetic reaction to normal lobsters and gay lobsters, partially because I do not believe that I know how to tell the differences between lobster genders in the first place, let alone lobster sexual orientations.
Its not like lobsters have musical theatre Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Where does this leave gay lobsters?
Woefully unrepresented in our political process?
Up a creek without a paddle?
Unlikely to have their marriages recognized in a court of law?
Likely to be smitten by the wrath of an angry deity, if they can make it that long before being boiled and eaten with melted butter?
In a tank with rubber bands around their claws with all the others, given a strict "don't ask, don't tell, it's a lobster, it wouldn't do you any good anyway, you idiot" policy?...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Has anyone ever noticed how much better book and movie titles are when you substitute the word "lobster"?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Lobsters! (Or Lobster of Secrets) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Lobsters Lord of the Lobsters Gone with the Lobster Slaughterhouse Lobsters Ender's Lobster Speaker for the Lobsters
...
What, you mean it's just me who finds it amusing? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What I do find ugly are things that are similar enough to us to be close to human, yet "corrupted" in some way.
Sorta, although thats specific to robotics which doesn't bother me too much.
What I mean is while I have no real aesthetic reaction to say a goat, a satan/devil type human with goat-horns would turn me off aesthetically. (I fully realise that this changes from person to person)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't get it. A lot of conservatives seem to believe in Trickle Down Economics which doesn't make logical sense to me, and yet liberals are insane?
Does supply side economics even work?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of things work "in theory" a hell of a lot better than they do when you take into account actual human activity.
Mucus -
What, you never saw The Little Mermaid or Bedknobs and Broomsticks? Clearely lobsters have musical theater, they just don't tell anyone but animators about it.
Eaque -
I thought it was funny, and spent a solid two minutes thinking up other titles to change to Lobster, much to my own delight.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Try two hours.
Of course, being stuck on a car trip doubled in time due to bad weather may have had something to do with how amusing it was (and still is).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You mean The Little Lobster and Bedknobs and Lobsters.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I know it's amusing, but jokes based on the idea that food laws and laws concerning homosexuality are treated equally in the Christian Bible are based on a false premise. There is a distinct scriptural basis for Christians treating the Old Testament food laws differently from the Old Testament laws concerning sexual morality.
Fair enough. So let's look at the other Old Testament laws on morality.
Verse 22 is the one that gets brought up in these discussions: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. For men to act womanly, anyway. Lesbians, have at it!
Have sex with a woman "that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her"? No probem, she won't be put to death, only scourged. He'll just have to make an offering. (19:20)
No tattoos, sorry. (19:28)
Hoever, he will be put to death if he curses his parents, commits adultery, has sex with an in-law, has sex with another man, or commits bestiality. Very clear, it's written. (20: 9-16) Interestingly enough woman are mentioned specifically about bestiality but, again, not about homosexuality. Lesbians are A-OK!
Have sex with a menstruating woman, you're cast out. (20:18) Have sex with the wife of a brother or uncle, you'll both "die childless." Not sure what that might mean for pre-existing children. (20:20-21)
Which slaves you can own, and how to treat them. How far from other people you have to go during your period. Under what circumstances you are req A priest's daughter who prostitutes herself has to be set on fire. (21:9)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I know it's amusing, but jokes based on the idea that food laws and laws concerning homosexuality are treated equally in the Christian Bible are based on a false premise. There is a distinct scriptural basis for Christians treating the Old Testament food laws differently from the Old Testament laws concerning sexual morality.
Fair enough. So let's look at the other Old Testament laws on morality.
Verse 22 is the one that gets brought up in these discussions: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. For men to act womanly, anyway. Lesbians, have at it!
Have sex with a woman "that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her"? No probem, she won't be put to death, only scourged. He'll just have to make an offering. (19:20)
No tattoos, sorry. (19:28)
Hoever, he will be put to death if he curses his parents, commits adultery, has sex with an in-law, has sex with another man, or commits bestiality. Very clear, it's written. (20: 9-16) Interestingly enough woman are mentioned specifically about bestiality but, again, not about homosexuality. Lesbians are A-OK!
Have sex with a menstruating woman, you're cast out. (20:18) Have sex with the wife of a brother or uncle, you'll both "die childless." Not sure what that might mean for pre-existing children. (20:20-21)
Which slaves you can own, and how to treat them. How far from other people you have to go during your period. Under what circumstances you are required to kill your neighbors. What to do with a priest's daughter who prostitutes herself (hint: you'll need a torch).
What I need is some explanation as to why the laws against homosexuality are to be observed when so many others have been set aside.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: You mean The Little Lobster and Bedknobs and Lobsters.
I was thinking The Lobster Mermaid and Lobsters and Broomsticks.
Mix and match Dan, mix and match.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I need is some explanation as to why the laws against homosexuality are to be observed when so many others have been set aside.
If I had any reason to think you were serious, I might reply. As it is, this topic has been covered to death and back on Hatrack, plus is readily available on the web if you are interested and aren't just snarking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if Chris is serious or not, but off the top of my head I can't think of a convincing answer to that question that I've heard on Hatrack.
I generally stay away from religion argument threads though so, that's probably why, if the answers are as prevelant as you say. But I've always been curious.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Harry Potter and the...
Philosopher's Lobster/Lobster's Stone Chamber of Lobsters/Lobster of Secrets Prisoner of Lobsters/Lobster of Azkaban Goblet of Lobsters/Lobster of Fire Order of the Lobster Half-Blood Lobster/Half-Lobster Prince/Lobster-Blood Prince Deathly Lobsters/Lobster Hallows
We (in the backseat of the car trip of terminal boredom) decided that the Harry Potter books were the most Lobster-friendly series in existence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh. LOTR works too.
The Fellowship of the Lobsters. The Lobster of the Rings.
The Lobster Towers. The Two Lobsters.
The Lobster of the King. The Return of the Lobster.
I think it would have been better had they done with the title that Tolkien originally wanted, which was the War of the Ring. So that'd be the War of the Lobster.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If I had any reason to think you were serious, I might reply. As it is, this topic has been covered to death and back on Hatrack, plus is readily available on the web if you are interested and aren't just snarking.
Nah. I've been in more than a few of those here, and were I serious about starting one up I'd have been less snarky. Just hate seeing mentions go by without throwing back a response.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Here, Michael Tomasky takes the book apart -- remember the book that started this thread? - in a detailed review.
quote:Isn't all this at once so broad and so qualified as to be meaningless? (Don't worry, my ellipses do not cut out anything inconvenient to my argument. See for yourself on page 327.) Hillary Clinton does not seek any of the goals that fascists have traditionally sought, but somehow she is like them. And so on. Whole Foods is obviously a pretty fascistic enterprise, especially its EnviroKidz cereal line, but "none of this is evil, and it is certainly well- meaning." Also, liberals "are not cartoonish Nazi villains," and "the danger they pose isn't existential or Orwellian." Lurking behind all these futile disclaimers may be Goldberg's well-founded fear that intelligent or knowledgeable readers might conclude that he is crazy.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)