posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but see the thing is, it's not going to happen. Better to hoist Ron on his own petard, as it were.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe that you would deny lobsters their civil rights. Next you'll be saying that we can't eat gay people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
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? Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
