• 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

#61 maxwatt

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

Posted 22 November 2010 - 04:00 PM

This topic has degenerated into name-calling with no serious give and take. As a venue to vent, I've moved it out of 'politics and law", since it has little to do with either at this point. And the ad hominem responses are worthy of suspensions. At this point it will seem rather random, but chromdynamicgirl has earned one several times over, and has the most complaints.

And everyone else remember the old saying: "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

Edited by maxwatt, 24 November 2010 - 11:23 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#62 mia22

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • 19
  • Location:California

Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:48 PM

*Ignores Mia for being an economically ignorant tard.*

LOL. You have a strange way of "ignoring" people. A bit self defeating wouldn't you say. :laugh:
Trust me honey, my ignorance knows no bounds. I'm quite proud of it.
My mantra is 'the most beautiful thing we can experience is ignorance'. :blink:
But go ahead. Keep your eyes closed, you got it all figured out. :laugh:
You're too clever by half.

Anyways, I never knew physicists had the market cornered on economics. :|?
Let me guess, you're theory of economics is wholly deterministic. :wacko:
No room for government/financial entanglement. Not even addressed......... does not fit world view therefore ignore :ph34r:
I think the bigger question is do markets obey the information theoretic version of entropy?
What say you? :-D

Oh I forgot, you never address the glaring inconsistencies in what you espouse. You just call other people names. Must be nice. :wub:

Edited by mia22, 22 November 2010 - 10:44 PM.

  • like x 1

#63 the thing

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 8
  • Location:Finland

Posted 23 November 2010 - 06:31 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

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

(guess who does best)


Your point being what? I am sure that the average libertarian is more educated on econ then the average liberal, but that doesnt really mean anything. The average liberal at least doesnt pretend to be an economist like the average libertarian. Even in the US conservatives and libertarins are a pretty small minority among economists.

Edited by the thing, 23 November 2010 - 06:32 PM.

  • dislike x 3
  • like x 3

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Pham Nuwen

  • Guest
  • 18 posts
  • 1

Posted 24 November 2010 - 08:05 AM

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....


There is also a well-established negative correlation between social conservatism, religiosity, and IQ.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#65 Loot Perish

  • Guest
  • 95 posts
  • -22

Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:51 PM

adherents/followers of the Democrat and GOP parties are ideological chattel, owned by the members of the parasitic elite. Their minds are owned. Their minds are basically created/molded by ideological propaganda disseminated by societal institutions created by the parasitic overclass. The dogma and ideological propaganda of both the GOP and Dem parties has been evolved to favor the interests of the parasitic overclass and to further degrade the political position of the american working class.

it is not a conspiracy. It is an ecosystem.

Edited by Reverend_X, 30 January 2011 - 12:51 PM.

  • like x 1

#66 maxwatt

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

Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:32 PM

adherents/followers of the Democrat and GOP parties are ideological chattel, owned by the members of the parasitic elite. Their minds are owned. Their minds are basically created/molded by ideological propaganda disseminated by societal institutions created by the parasitic overclass. The dogma and ideological propaganda of both the GOP and Dem parties has been evolved to favor the interests of the parasitic overclass and to further degrade the political position of the american working class.

it is not a conspiracy. It is an ecosystem.


This is perhaps the most accurate post in this thread.

#67 Loot Perish

  • Guest
  • 95 posts
  • -22

Posted 30 January 2011 - 06:31 PM

adherents/followers of the Democrat and GOP parties are ideological chattel, owned by the members of the parasitic elite. Their minds are owned. Their minds are basically created/molded by ideological propaganda disseminated by societal institutions created by the parasitic overclass. The dogma and ideological propaganda of both the GOP and Dem parties has been evolved to favor the interests of the parasitic overclass and to further degrade the political position of the american working class.

it is not a conspiracy. It is an ecosystem.


This is perhaps the most accurate post in this thread.




and the libertarian minds have been molded and captured by the propaganda of BOTH parties

#68 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:13 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.


So these people's lifestyle choices make them true conservatives (rather than just conforming conservatives)? I don't understand why this is always brought up by the liberal as if it were an irrefutable argument of the flaws in conservative reasoning. Not only, of course, is it an obvious high-school level fallacy to think that because undesirables support the ideology that therefore it is itself a reflection of their personalities, rather there are also undesirables who support a liberal agenda.

-----

Liberalism is part of today's morally despicable culture. It is the newest ideology used by the elite (intellectuals, the wealthy and the famous) to keep the average and/or the poor man down.

It fears clear argument, reacting hysterically, illogically and aggressively if you assertively challenge any of the principals that they hold holy (I use the word advisedly), seeking to extinguish as quickly as possible the broadcast of challenging ideas. Indeed, the left has always feared ideological challenge, communism is a great example of what a leftist likes to do to its detractors. So yeah, Rol's elitist tirade does in no way surprise me.

And I find it Ironic how it claims to support the rights of the victims it victimises. Without victims there would be no self-righteous platform from which a progressive liberal social campaigner could make self-important declarations. It's a well known fact that crime and other undesirable behaviour will expand to meet the number of social workers in a locale. And just anecdotally, many liberals I've spoken to about black people and how much they are victims and how we need to act preemptively so that they are brought into the workforce have then looked me in the eye and told me that they are indeed different when asked if they felt there was a genetic reason for the current social position of blacks as whole. Not a surprise once you understand the liberal mindset.

Oh and feel free to down grade this post. To me it only proves the first point I make rather cleanly.

#69 Rational Madman

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

Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:51 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.


So these people's lifestyle choices make them true conservatives (rather than just conforming conservatives)? I don't understand why this is always brought up by the liberal as if it were an irrefutable argument of the flaws in conservative reasoning. Not only, of course, is it an obvious high-school level fallacy to think that because undesirables support the ideology that therefore it is itself a reflection of their personalities, rather there are also undesirables who support a liberal agenda.

-----

Liberalism is part of today's morally despicable culture. It is the newest ideology used by the elite (intellectuals, the wealthy and the famous) to keep the average and/or the poor man down.

It fears clear argument, reacting hysterically, illogically and aggressively if you assertively challenge any of the principals that they hold holy (I use the word advisedly), seeking to extinguish as quickly as possible the broadcast of challenging ideas. Indeed, the left has always feared ideological challenge, communism is a great example of what a leftist likes to do to its detractors. So yeah, Rol's elitist tirade does in no way surprise me.

And I find it Ironic how it claims to support the rights of the victims it victimises. Without victims there would be no self-righteous platform from which a progressive liberal social campaigner could make self-important declarations. It's a well known fact that crime and other undesirable behaviour will expand to meet the number of social workers in a locale. And just anecdotally, many liberals I've spoken to about black people and how much they are victims and how we need to act preemptively so that they are brought into the workforce have then looked me in the eye and told me that they are indeed different when asked if they felt there was a genetic reason for the current social position of blacks as whole. Not a surprise once you understand the liberal mindset.

Oh and feel free to down grade this post. To me it only proves the first point I make rather cleanly.


Okay, leaving the objectionable content of your entry aside, did you bother to read the posts that followed the one that you took offense to, because I made it abundantly clear that I was intentionally making a gross caricature. Later on in the thread, I also apologized for the intemperateness of the generally uncharacteristic remarks that you cited, and explained that the baseless and inflammatory qualities of the thread starter's claims is what provoked my regrettable response. But really, I'm tired of taking part in very predictable and largely silly exchanges about the virtues and evils of the ideas and occupants of each hemisphere, so I don't really care to get lured into another ceaseless argument.

Additionally, I find it bit bizarre that both you and k4t find me to be unequivocally liberal, since many of my beliefs don't exactly endear me to most of the Birkenstock wearing, cappucino sipping, bourgeois-bohemian group that you clearly have deep rooted issues with.

Edited by Rol82, 31 January 2011 - 09:47 AM.


#70 chris w

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

Posted 01 February 2011 - 11:56 AM

Indeed, the left has always feared ideological challenge, communism is a great example of what a leftist likes to do to its detractors.


Umm, yeah, except the time when Left was the only challenge to every possible ideological status quo. And really, guilt by association is a very weak argument. So what ? Pinochet and other anti - Left South American caudillos somehow stain modern day Conservatism ?


And just anecdotally, many liberals I've spoken to about black people and how much they are victims and how we need to act preemptively so that they are brought into the workforce have then looked me in the eye and told me that they are indeed different when asked if they felt there was a genetic reason for the current social position of blacks as whole. Not a surprise once you understand the liberal mindset.


Actually, it is the Conservative mindset that's troubling here. At one time you will hear from them that Affirmative Action is detrimental, because it singles Blacks as somehow handicapped, at another you will hear that Affirmative Action is doomed to fail, because Blacks indeed are different.
You do realise that it's exactly the Cons who should be praying that the reason of Black underachievemnt isn't biological ? Because if it was, then a full blown XXI century Af Action would have the best possible leg to stand - objective science, and no Conservative would be able to oppose it, because now that would be like opposing special parking lots for disabled people.

Edited by chris w, 01 February 2011 - 12:03 PM.


#71 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 05 February 2011 - 01:45 PM

...did you bother to read the posts that followed the one that you took offense to, because I made it abundantly clear that I was intentionally making a gross caricature. Later on in the thread, I also apologized for the intemperateness of the generally uncharacteristic remarks that you cited, and explained that the baseless and inflammatory qualities of the thread starter's claims is what provoked my regrettable response.

Shucks, no I didn't to be honest. I just saw that post and then replied :(. In my defense though, it's not the first time that you've expressed a similar sentiment, also, the tone of the particular response is one that I think the left uses a lot, so I wanted to critisise that mainly and express a few opinions that were related to it.


But really, I'm tired of taking part in very predictable and largely silly exchanges about the virtues and evils of the ideas and occupants of each hemisphere, so I don't really care to get lured into another ceaseless argument.

I'd save your energy for good arguments that you think will actually lead somewhere. Like I do (mostly).


Additionally, I find it bit bizarre that both you and k4t find me to be unequivocally liberal, since many of my beliefs don't exactly endear me to most of the Birkenstock wearing, cappucino sipping, bourgeois-bohemian group that you clearly have deep rooted issues with.

I never called you "unequivocally liberal;" your other assertion deserves no other response than this one.

(emphasis mine)

#72 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 05 February 2011 - 02:03 PM

Oh and in Re to Op, I've never read these books but you might like to have a look at:

"The New Vichy Syndrome" - By Theodore Dalrymple.

Just finished reading it. If anything it's worth the read just to be exposed to the man's prose style. Honestly, if I ever write like he does I will consider myself to have reached the peak of prose prowess.

The book though is about the modern European intellectual and why they surrender to what Dalrymple calls barbarism, or, specifically, non-moderate islam and the influence of other uncivilized ideologies and cultures. I really like the chapters on the lack of transcendence that the modern European sees in his life and the amateur epistemology of said.

Edit: He mentions that what he writes about could equally apply to America and that although a more religious country, the religion is could be said to be more "Dale Carnegie" and like an "AA meeting" than anything deeper. Better than nothing though I suppose.

Edited by Ben - Aus, 05 February 2011 - 02:17 PM.


#73 Rational Madman

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

Posted 05 February 2011 - 09:34 PM

...did you bother to read the posts that followed the one that you took offense to, because I made it abundantly clear that I was intentionally making a gross caricature. Later on in the thread, I also apologized for the intemperateness of the generally uncharacteristic remarks that you cited, and explained that the baseless and inflammatory qualities of the thread starter's claims is what provoked my regrettable response.

Shucks, no I didn't to be honest. I just saw that post and then replied :(. In my defense though, it's not the first time that you've expressed a similar sentiment, also, the tone of the particular response is one that I think the left uses a lot, so I wanted to critisise that mainly and express a few opinions that were related to it.


But really, I'm tired of taking part in very predictable and largely silly exchanges about the virtues and evils of the ideas and occupants of each hemisphere, so I don't really care to get lured into another ceaseless argument.

I'd save your energy for good arguments that you think will actually lead somewhere. Like I do (mostly).


Additionally, I find it bit bizarre that both you and k4t find me to be unequivocally liberal, since many of my beliefs don't exactly endear me to most of the Birkenstock wearing, cappucino sipping, bourgeois-bohemian group that you clearly have deep rooted issues with.

I never called you "unequivocally liberal;" your other assertion deserves no other response than this one.

(emphasis mine)

Oh that's right, I remember taking issue with your celebration of Geert Wilders and Ronald Reagan. For the former, my sentiments are unchanged, but for the latter, I've come to appreciate some of his qualities---like his role in instilling confidence in a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness. But I think too often we fail to separate the public persona from reality, and in our analysis of policymaking, attribute all actions to a single policymaker---whom usually acts as an ambassador and mediator between an amalgam of voices.

Edited by Rol82, 05 February 2011 - 09:36 PM.

  • like x 1

#74 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 February 2011 - 06:59 AM

a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness

Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.

#75 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 06 February 2011 - 01:56 PM

a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness

Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.


+1, would definitely make for an extremely interesting blog post like your other analyses.

#76 Rational Madman

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

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:12 PM

a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness

Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.


+1, would definitely make for an extremely interesting blog post like your other analyses.


Yeah, it's a good topic to expound on at some point.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users