posted
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.
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
“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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is homosexuality considered immoral in the first placE? Especially when there are things that are REALLY immoral that are totally ignored.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
