• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 j03

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -46
  • Location:...

Posted 17 November 2010 - 12:56 AM


http://www.freerepub...s/1994471/posts

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal 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 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 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 do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

a.. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
b.. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
c.. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
d.. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal 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 mind becomes painfully obvious."



  • dislike x 7
  • like x 3

#2 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 01:21 AM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.

Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#3 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 17 November 2010 - 03:27 AM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.

Posted Image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA


Is this just a manifestation of the South's disdain for the so-called Eastern and Northern establishment? The last gasp of the Dixiecrats? Or does it have a basis in in upper class---defined by wealth or achievement---envy? Something along the lines of Nixon's "Whittier Complex?" At the risk of provocation, I should probably tell you that I proudly have a portrait of William Tecumseh Sherman hanging on my apartment wall, and think very little of the reactionary elements in Georgia.

As for the correlation between liberal preferences and mental illness, there is no such relationship. Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere. But there is, however, a correlation between mental illness and philosophical preferences. More specifically, the correlation is between anxiety disorders and religious extremism, but remember, anxiety is a defining symptom of a number of neuropsychiatric disorders, from Alzheimer's to schizophrenia. Anyway, here's the study, I've only read executive summaries of the findings and methodology, but I'm definitely pleased: http://psycnet.apa.o...=2010-12776-011. Would you regard yourself as an anxious person? Judging by your pathological hysteria, I would probably say so....

In the meantime, I think I'll take a break with my latte sipping, liberal elitist friends that have French sounding names, and whom find your types a source of great amusement.

Edited by Rol82, 17 November 2010 - 03:35 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:00 AM

I proudly have a portrait of William Tecumseh Sherman hanging on my apartment wall

He's an ancestor of mine (srs) :D

#5 j03

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -46
  • Location:...

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:09 AM

Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere.  

In the meantime, I think I'll take a break with my latte sipping, liberal elitist friends that have French sounding names, and whom find your types a source of great amusement.

Lol none of your aspirations can be proven.  Libertarians and Conservatives are usually working class and upper class white males, basically the backbone of this economy.  The majority of the people that vote Liberal are women or minorities, for obvious reasons, and sheltered idealistic college students.  Even gay white males are switching to Conservatism (See: Pim Fortuyn and Jorg Haider)

http://www.tinyvital...rianism-and-iq/

"Dr. John Ray attacks the claim that the Leftism of college professors is the outcome of their high intelligence. He counters that Mensa, whose only membership requirement is an IQ in the top 2%, has a disproportionately Libertarian membership."

"The average member of the Libertarian Party is 2.1 times more wealthy than the average Democrat"

Here's some more for you:

Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals
http://freakonomics....berals-discuss/



"In 2004, 44 percent of respondents who said they were "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy," versus just 25 percent of people who called themselves "liberal" or "very liberal." (Note that this comparison uses unweighted data — when the data are weighted, the gap is 46 percent to 28 percent.)"

http://conservativec...es-or-liberals/

"Using Internal Revenue Service data on the percentage of household income given away in each state, we can see that the red states are more charitable than the blue states. "

"People living in conservative states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of the top five "Bush states" were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total hours each year. "

http://www.realclear...iberal_giv.html

"Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

You're just an out of touch Liberal.  The world doesn't revolve around your opinions and you cannot force your lifestyle onto others.  

You're modern day fascists and commies.  You want a world created in some idealistic model.  Freedom of speech is only permitted if it doesn't offend anyone.  Affirmative action is another thing (it's racist discrimination against whites), taxes (you think tax dollars that are extorted out of citizens pockets is something that can be spent frivolously on stupid social programs and sending overseas).  Allowing rampant immigration to the point it lowers the living standard of the native inhabitants just so one person can have a better life with hundreds pay for it.  <-- All liberal policies.  But the biggest control you exert is over the media by strong-arming people that criticize you or do anything non politically correct. 

The irony is you as a liberal are the first to be an elitist and look down upon others (as evident by your commentary) and you use the money from the working class to finance these pet social programs - just as long as it's not out of your pocket

You're a diluted, mentally ill hypocrite, and that's why you're a Liberal. 

Edited by k4t, 17 November 2010 - 04:18 AM.

  • dislike x 7
  • like x 4

#6 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:49 AM

I proudly have a portrait of William Tecumseh Sherman hanging on my apartment wall

He's an ancestor of mine (srs) :D


Really? But that doesn't change my thoughts, even if my caricature was crude, and designed mostly for my own amusement. If only I was with Sherman during his earth shaking March to the Sea, because I would've taken such delight in watching the output of slave sustained plantations being appropriately burned, and to force members of the Southern ruling hierarchy to suffer fitting indignities and punishments.


And I'm also tickled by k4t's pathetic attempt to compel me to acknowledge him, but it won't happen, of course. He, after all, always has a mirror that can entertain him.

Edited by Rol82, 17 November 2010 - 04:56 AM.


#7 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:36 AM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.

Posted Image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA


Is this just a manifestation of the South's disdain for the so-called Eastern and Northern establishment? The last gasp of the Dixiecrats? Or does it have a basis in in upper class---defined by wealth or achievement---envy? Something along the lines of Nixon's "Whittier Complex?" At the risk of provocation, I should probably tell you that I proudly have a portrait of William Tecumseh Sherman hanging on my apartment wall, and think very little of the reactionary elements in Georgia.

As for the correlation between liberal preferences and mental illness, there is no such relationship. Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere. But there is, however, a correlation between mental illness and philosophical preferences. More specifically, the correlation is between anxiety disorders and religious extremism, but remember, anxiety is a defining symptom of a number of neuropsychiatric disorders, from Alzheimer's to schizophrenia. Anyway, here's the study, I've only read executive summaries of the findings and methodology, but I'm definitely pleased: http://psycnet.apa.o...=2010-12776-011. Would you regard yourself as an anxious person? Judging by your pathological hysteria, I would probably say so....

In the meantime, I think I'll take a break with my latte sipping, liberal elitist friends that have French sounding names, and whom find your types a source of great amusement.

In hindsight, my comments were pretty nasty, even if meant mostly in jest----since I doubt anyone seriously interpreted my description to be an accurate reflection of my beliefs. But threads like these are highly problematic, and add nothing meaningful to discourse. And since the thread starter has decided to define his existence here as one related to spreading divisive falsehoods, those that choose to respond to his salvos may sometimes find themselves reduced to his level. In truth, I shouldn't allow myself to get sucked into such nonsense, but my combative personality may sometimes lead to a failure to choose my battles wisely. Anyway, I'll refrain from making ad-hominem attacks in the future, but I hope we can all at least try to be civil---however difficult that might be in the present political climate. As I've said repeatedly, controversial subjects are great, and I strongly encourage a discussion of such topics, but I think future topics should have a stronger evidentiary basis. Like, for example, Austrian economics would be an excellent topic, since there is certainly enough evidence to satisfactorily validate some of the claims of its adherents. But a topic about the US government's supposed role in spreading the HIV virus in African-American communities would be an example of a very bad topic. I imagine the occasional bad topic is inevitable, though, and I think the best approach would be to simply ignore it, rather than give it dignity.


  • like x 1

#8 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 November 2010 - 09:36 AM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.


So, what do you think of this: http://www.nationalr...vid-klinghoffer

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Savage is a top contributor to Brown’s campaign against conservative state senator Chuck Poochigian. His gift of $5,600, the maximum allowable under state law, was merited, Savage told the Chronicle after being outed. Why? Because “You have to make choices in an imperfect world.”

Undoubtedly so, but that’s hardly the red-faced extremist talking that Savage plays on the radio. So what explains the generosity?

There is much about him that would suggest, not an ideologue at all, but simply a performer. Then again, sometimes you get the feeling that a refugee from Air America (the failed experiment in liberal talk radio) has been writing scripts for him based on a lefty’s cartoon mental picture of a ranting right-wing caveman.


  • like x 1

#9 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 17 November 2010 - 09:46 AM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.


So, what do you think of this: http://www.nationalr...vid-klinghoffer

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Savage is a top contributor to Brown's campaign against conservative state senator Chuck Poochigian. His gift of $5,600, the maximum allowable under state law, was merited, Savage told the Chronicle after being outed. Why? Because "You have to make choices in an imperfect world."

Undoubtedly so, but that's hardly the red-faced extremist talking that Savage plays on the radio. So what explains the generosity?

There is much about him that would suggest, not an ideologue at all, but simply a performer. Then again, sometimes you get the feeling that a refugee from Air America (the failed experiment in liberal talk radio) has been writing scripts for him based on a lefty's cartoon mental picture of a ranting right-wing caveman.


I've always wondered about the extent of sensationalist showmanship that occurs on cable news and talk radio. And I don't think the right is guilty of this deception alone, but who's serious, and who's deceiving? Is the deception just simply an act of narcissism, or driven largely by material gain?

Edited by Rol82, 17 November 2010 - 09:48 AM.


#10 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 November 2010 - 12:22 PM

I've noticed that attacks of this sort often accuse the imagined "enemy" of those same traits one finds most disturbing in oneself: e.g., the most homophobic attacks come closeted homosexuals, and anti-immigration stalwarts invariably complain immigrants are dirty and unwashed. What is with that? Granted that manual laborers will show the effects of their labor, but one upstate-New York congressman proposed setting up camps where lessons in personal hygiene would be given. And of course "Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, they want to spend, spend, spend," unlike "budget conscious" Republicans. If you look at recent history, the exact opposite has been true of their respective administrations.

WRT to Sherman, years ago my then girlfriend from Georgia moved to New York, to an apartment with an address on Sherman Square. One of her relatives back in Georgia addressed a letter to her at "Dirty Name" Square. The post office delivered it to the correct address.
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#11 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:00 PM

Liberalism is a bunch of crazy bullshit, and Michael Savage is a flaming fucking Progressive idiot.
  • dislike x 4

#12 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:58 PM

Two can play that game - Liberals found more flexible in thinking and innovative :

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along."


Libertarians and Conservatives are usually working class and upper class white males, basically the backbone of this economy


"False consciousness" ? - Thomas Frank, "What's the matter with Kansas".

Even gay white males are switching to Conservatism (See: Pim Fortuyn and Jorg Haider)


Only that the former had some major un - conservative - "He also held liberal views, favouring the drug policy of the Netherlands, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and related positions", and un - libertarian moments - "favoured re-instating compulsory military service, giving youngsters the choice between military service and a new form of public service (in which they would help in hospitals or retirement homes, for example)"

As for Haider ( whom actually Fortuyn liked to distance himself from ) - he shook hands with Saddam, Quadafii and SS veterans, certainly great poster boy for the Conservative cause :-D

"Mensa, whose only membership requirement is an IQ in the top 2%, has a disproportionately Libertarian membership."


This study floates on the forum in a few places - according to it, Libertarians also show kinship with autists.

"The average member of the Libertarian Party is 2.1 times more wealthy than the average Democrat"


Wealthy people against taxes ? Nooo way !


Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals


Might have something to do with the belief in Friend In The Sky that's watching over them.
When you arbitrarily choose one value system ( like Christianity ) over all others as The Right One and go full hog, then yeah, I suppose it takes a lot off your mind to worry about.

Edited by chris w, 17 November 2010 - 05:27 PM.

  • like x 5

#13 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 17 November 2010 - 07:24 PM

Liberalism is a bunch of crazy bullshit, and Michael Savage is a flaming fucking Progressive idiot.


Yes, but I wonder what the outcome would be if he took advantage of the digital age to change his gender, age, and physical appearance? Surely he wouldn't have as much of an image problem.

#14 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:07 PM

I would've taken such delight in watching the output of slave sustained plantations being appropriately burned

What? You seem to be all for slavery. I don't understand why you make an exception there.

Edited by RighteousReason, 17 November 2010 - 11:24 PM.

  • dislike x 2

#15 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:11 PM

Ah, classic Michael Savage.


So, what do you think of this: http://www.nationalr...vid-klinghoffer

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Savage is a top contributor to Brown’s campaign against conservative state senator Chuck Poochigian. His gift of $5,600, the maximum allowable under state law, was merited, Savage told the Chronicle after being outed. Why? Because “You have to make choices in an imperfect world.”

Undoubtedly so, but that’s hardly the red-faced extremist talking that Savage plays on the radio. So what explains the generosity?

There is much about him that would suggest, not an ideologue at all, but simply a performer. Then again, sometimes you get the feeling that a refugee from Air America (the failed experiment in liberal talk radio) has been writing scripts for him based on a lefty’s cartoon mental picture of a ranting right-wing caveman.

If you think Savage is faking or hypocritical on points of principle then you are clueless and/or an idiot. I have no idea why he gave money to a liberal running for the California Attorney General. I don't really care.
  • dislike x 6

#16 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:12 PM

Michael Savage is a flaming fucking Progressive idiot.

lol wut

Edited by RighteousReason, 17 November 2010 - 11:16 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#17 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:16 PM

http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop

Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

(guess who does best)

Edited by RighteousReason, 17 November 2010 - 11:16 PM.

  • dislike x 1

#18 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:18 PM

Wealthy people against taxes ? Nooo way !

50% of the country thinks the amount of income taxes they pay is "about right".

50% of the country pays no income taxes or are net tax consumers.

Edited by RighteousReason, 17 November 2010 - 11:23 PM.


#19 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:27 PM

(guess who does best)

I don't even have to read it. Libertarians. They're practically the only people I ever encounter who know jack about economics.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#20 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:59 AM

Although I agree with a lot of points said here and although I have contributed political criticism several times before on this forum, I'm wondering if politics should be removed from Imminst. I like to talk about, I think it usually is related to issues of life extension (life extension is a form of freedom afterall - the fundamental freedom to live), I'm wondering if these threads do more harm than good. We should all be united behind the cause of improving health and saving lives. Political discussions tend to divide people.
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#21 firespin

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 50
  • Location:The Future

Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:37 PM

I'm wondering if politics should be removed from Imminst. I like to talk about, I think it usually is related to issues of life extension (life extension is a form of freedom afterall - the fundamental freedom to live), I'm wondering if these threads do more harm than good. We should all be united behind the cause of improving health and saving lives. Political discussions tend to divide people.

I thought about this too. This political forum divides more than anything else. I originally thought this forum was about politics and laws that can relate to immortality, but people here are using it instead as podium to express their political ideology and bashing others. Time show over and over again with movements of the past this in the long run will just separate people to go their own ways instead of working together for a desired goal.
Since immortalists, transhumanists, and singularitists(?) as whole is such a small group (hell, some people think we are a cult) I don't think we can afford division.

Edited by firespin, 18 November 2010 - 07:03 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#22 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:59 PM

Politics animates many of us here, and although we may grow weary from the strains of discourse, I think the removal of the politics sub-forum would deprive our community of critical energy that it can ill-afford to countenance. I imagine most members discover this website through the search results of contents of the sub-forums---be it supplements or politics---but because the notion of pursuing immortality is the most defining property of this messageboard, thread participants are more likely to attempt to become acquainted with this goal, and over time, may come to endorse it as a critical endeavor for the international society. So for this reason, the removal of the politics sub-forum would be ill-advised, because it has the effect of magnetically drawing additional community members. Instead, I think we should make a sincere effort to improve the standards of discourse through civility, the encouragement of using citations, and the avoidance of topics that a preponderance would deem to have little basis. The innate desire for survival is what binds many of us in this community, but we shouldn't disregard other fundamental desires, like the thirst for truth through the acquisition of knowledge, and the maximization of pleasure---the discussion of politics satiates the former desire.

#23 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 18 November 2010 - 11:22 PM

(guess who does best)

I don't even have to read it. Libertarians. They're practically the only people I ever encounter who know jack about economics.

yep, she's right. "very conservative" people came in a close second. "liberals" were not even on the same planet.

Edited by RighteousReason, 18 November 2010 - 11:35 PM.


#24 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 18 November 2010 - 11:25 PM

By the way, there is no reason that politics should divide people in non-political ways. What do you think is going to happen, just because someone has a political disagreement they are going to suddenly decide life isn't worth pursuing? Their problems have nothing to do with the politics forums of ImmInst.

Right vs. wrong in the realm of politics is relevant to immortalist goals and the lack of discussion is less useful than some discussion, ideological rhetoric or not.

Besides, this place is already moderated to all hell, trust me I've been suspended many times for calling someone an idiot or other some small "ad hominem" so it's not like this place is a totally unhinged flame war.

Edited by RighteousReason, 18 November 2010 - 11:31 PM.


#25 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 19 November 2010 - 02:21 AM

http://www.freerepub...s/1994471/posts

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal 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 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 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 do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

a.. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
b.. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
c.. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
d.. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal 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 mind becomes painfully obvious."




So are you a white guy with bad hair? A job in IT?

Made it from nothing? A fan of Heinlein??

Would you take some time off to participate in a study? Please fill in the boxes in the libertarian troll bingo card in the link below.

http://punkassblog.c...an-troll-bingo/

Edited by medicineman, 19 November 2010 - 02:22 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#26 hivemind

  • Guest
  • 417 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 November 2010 - 03:14 AM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994471/posts

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal 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 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 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 do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

a.. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
b.. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
c.. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
d.. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal 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 mind becomes painfully obvious."

This is not liberalism. Sounds like socialism to me. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism.

#27 firespin

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 50
  • Location:The Future

Posted 19 November 2010 - 05:12 AM

By the way, there is no reason that politics should divide people in non-political ways.

That would be ideal, but that is not how the world, (or human nature) appears to be. I have met people that will not do business with others who vote for a particular political group. Just look at how politics split ordinary Americans in everyday life, especially during voting time. Surely I can not be the only one who notice this? (which I doubt)


Politics animates many of us here, and although we may grow weary from the strains of discourse, I think the removal of the politics sub-forum would deprive our community of critical energy that it can ill-afford to countenance. I imagine most members discover this website through the search results of contents of the sub-forums---be it supplements or politics---but because the notion of pursuing immortality is the most defining property of this messageboard, thread participants are more likely to attempt to become acquainted with this goal, and over time, may come to endorse it as a critical endeavor for the international society. So for this reason, the removal of the politics sub-forum would be ill-advised, because it has the effect of magnetically drawing additional community members. Instead, I think we should make a sincere effort to improve the standards of discourse through civility, the encouragement of using citations, and the avoidance of topics that a preponderance would deem to have little basis. The innate desire for survival is what binds many of us in this community, but we shouldn't disregard other fundamental desires, like the thirst for truth through the acquisition of knowledge, and the maximization of pleasure---the discussion of politics satiates the former desire.

What do you think is going to happen, just because someone has a political disagreement they are going to suddenly decide life isn't worth pursuing? Their problems have nothing to do with the politics forums of ImmInst.

Right vs. wrong in the realm of politics is relevant to immortalist goals and the lack of discussion is less useful than some discussion, ideological rhetoric or not.

Besides, this place is already moderated to all hell, trust me I've been suspended many times for calling someone an idiot or other some small "ad hominem" so it's not like this place is a totally unhinged flame war.

No, I don't think people will stop wanting to live, but they may decide that they do not want to work with or need someone with a certain view or attitude. So they might split off and start their own group. This happened many times in past movements, and many young movements died because of it. This is probably also the reason why there is so many subgroups within religions. (Example christian beliefs: baptists, catholics, pentecostals, mormons) The present religions survived only because they have large numbers (and some used force to convert people) while smaller religions who suffered similar splits died off. Entire nations have been split off into separate new nations because of political differences, so I doubt immortalist groups are immune just because we want to live longer. Splitting off weakens a group, and can be the death of a small movement because lack of united numbers.

I am just saying small politcal arguements can ballon into something bigger... but if everyone feels fine about the politics forum though, then I won't say anything else about it.

Edited by firespin, 19 November 2010 - 05:45 AM.


#28 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 November 2010 - 09:21 AM

I'm wondering if politics should be removed from Imminst. I like to talk about, I think it usually is related to issues of life extension (life extension is a form of freedom afterall - the fundamental freedom to live), I'm wondering if these threads do more harm than good. We should all be united behind the cause of improving health and saving lives. Political discussions tend to divide people.

I thought about this too. This political forum divides more than anything else. I originally thought this forum was about politics and laws that can relate to immortality, but people here are using it instead as podium to express their political ideology and bashing others. Time show over and over again with movements of the past this in the long run will just separate people to go their own ways instead of working together for a desired goal.
Since immortalists, transhumanists, and singularitists(?) as whole is such a small group (hell, some people think we are a cult) I don't think we can afford division.


Yeh, I speculate this might be one of the reasons why Mind became less active on this forum...just speculation.

There are some cases we should talk about:

http://www.nature.co...ll/468148a.html

Very sad, the US is totally screwing itself as a country. Guess we need that money to fund another Mars rover mission, census, or pay people to destroy their automobiles and fill up landfills. Reflecting on one politican's comments from last week, "...The US is here to stay...", umm, not for long...

#29 chrono

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:31 PM

I added a subtitle to the thread making it clear we're discussing books, as there was concern expressed.

If you look at recent history, the exact opposite has been true of their respective administrations.

Right? My favorite quote from this thread: "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded." Given the policies of conservative administrations over the last 50 years, 'freedom' seems to be used here as a synonym for "white christian status quo."

This is a pretty transparent attempt to marginalize opposing viewpoints, and if it holds any validity whatsoever, it does so equally for American conservatives.
  • like x 3

#30 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,027 posts
  • 51
  • Location:Austria

Posted 19 November 2010 - 10:52 PM

First i want to say that it is not a good start in a discussion about politics to say that the other site is a bunch of lunatics, thats mainly done by people which have no other arguments.
Also it is not really wise to use straw man arguments from some fanatics which are only interessted in throwing stones and demoliting public property.

I see myself as a liberal with some conservative viewpoints, i think some things should not be touched by the state and left for the free market, other things should not be left unregulated or even given to a private business, like the fire department, or the police. Sometimes it is necesary to strictly controll things which are essential for a community to exist, like electric power (see california), thats why we have taxes, and if a state cant care for his citizens, than somethings wrong.
Other things which are seen as a disease of liberalism are cultural relativism, false ideas about the environment, and false tolerance and pacifism at the wrong time.
I think these things are not liberal ideas but the Product of closed minds and people which are unable to think things out.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users