or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is being 'right-wing' a mental disorder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is being 'right-wing' a mental disorder? - Page 2

post #41 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

When science has proved something then those who stubbornly refuse to accept the proof asre irrational.

If they not only refuse to accept the proof but organize to 'disprove' the Science then under those circumstances I believe a case could be made that they are suffering from a psychological imbalance.

Fair enough. When you have an example of that, then we can talk. I don't know of any examples in your posts that fit that description.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 139
Segovius: Fair enough, so the right exhibit sociopathic tendencies... but what can we call the affliction that infests the so-called "left" in the US? Wannabe sociopaths? :P

The "left" are in competition to see how far towards the right they can go and still maintain an impression of "opposition". The "left" has closed ranks.. both in the political and media circles, by actively protecting previous administration members from prosecution as regards cnumerous high profile incidents in the previous 10 years... and the "left" have also consistently refused to listen to the people that elected them into the Senate and Congress since 2006. And the president? He may be a liberal, but by his demeanor, he's plainly a very frightened individual, shackled and powerless, destined to be a one-term (or less) president.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #43 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

When science has proved something then those who stubbornly refuse to accept the proof asre irrational.

If they not only refuse to accept the proof but organize to 'disprove' the Science then under those circumstances I believe a case could be made that they are suffering from a psychological imbalance.

Or that they are stubborn asses...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #44 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fair enough. When you have an example of that, then we can talk. I don't know of any examples in your posts that fit that description.

Ok...I guess you missed the bit about the earth being 10,000 years old...strange as it was the crux of the issue but as you missed it:

60% of Republicans seem to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

That's my example. Let's talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Segovius: Fair enough, so the right exhibit sociopathic tendencies... but what can we call the affliction that infests the so-called "left" in the US? Wannabe sociopaths? :P

The "left" are in competition to see how far towards the right they can go and still maintain an impression of "opposition". The "left" has closed ranks.. both in the political and media circles, by actively protecting previous administration members from prosecution as regards cnumerous high profile incidents in the previous 10 years... and the "left" have also consistently refused to listen to the people that elected them into the Senate and Congress since 2006. And the president? He may be a liberal, but by his demeanor, he's plainly a very frightened individual, shackled and powerless, destined to be a one-term (or less) president.

It's the same Sammi...the insanity is 'going Right'....the Left used to be sane, that is clearly known...now they are demonstrably insane in many respects - also widely known.

The thing is that this swing to insanity is exactly paralleled with the Left's swing to the Right.

As for Obama...could possibly even be more Right-wing than Bush. I see his admin as not just a continuation of the Bush ideology but an amplification and extension of it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #45 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fair enough. When you have an example of that, then we can talk. I don't know of any examples in your posts that fit that description.

LOL you're kidding, right? 7000 year-old Earth is not an example?

EDIT: Seg beat me to it.
post #46 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Ok...I guess you missed the bit about the earth being 10,000 years old...strange as it was the crux of the issue but as you missed it:

60% of Republicans seem to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

That's my example. Let's talk.

I wasn't aware that a poll is scientific proof. Perhaps those who think the earth is young are being taught by those that think polls are proof.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I wasn't aware that a poll is scientific proof. Perhaps those who think the earth is young are being taught by those that think polls are proof.

OMG

Can someone else deal with this one? I need to lie down....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #48 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

OMG

Can someone else deal with this one? I need to lie down....

I'll take it for you Seg. I know this character well and will put him in his proper place.

Listen here Trumptman, as if we really believe you play the trumpet, Seg here wants you to understand that in social science, a poll can be proof. Sure it is a poll about beliefs related to natural sciences being use to try to draw a completely random point but still a rather interesting, though unfunny point was trying to be made. Seg was using the antipositivism view of thought within the social sciences which means he isn't quite into the empirical nor even using the scientific method in any form.

Now sure you might note this is not in any form or fashion a reasoning high ground when the people being ridiculed are being done so for their lack of desire to embrace natural sciences and ironically you might even note that part of Seg's antipositivism stance involves rejecting empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social theory and research but then you would be noting that Seg appears to be using a lack of willingness to embrace empiricism as a means of proof within a field that also rejects empiricism.

This would make him look very bad, make his head hurt and make him want to go take a nap.

SO PLEASE STOP IT AND LET HIM JUST HAVE HIS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Ok...I guess you missed the bit about the earth being 10,000 years old...strange as it was the crux of the issue but as you missed it:

60% of Republicans seem to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

That's my example. Let's talk.



It's the same Sammi...the insanity is 'going Right'....the Left used to be sane, that is clearly known...now they are demonstrably insane in many respects - also widely known.

The thing is that this swing to insanity is exactly paralleled with the Left's swing to the Right.

As for Obama...could possibly even be more Right-wing than Bush. I see his admin as not just a continuation of the Bush ideology but an amplification and extension of it.

99.99%_+ human beings, regardless of political leaning, have feelings... concepts as ethics, common decency, humanitarianism, the need for community, feelings of guilt etc. etc. etc. The political right have been pushing the "corporate personhood" issue very hard as a way of imposing sociopathic and even psychopathic political decisions by proxy. Corporations have all (if not more than) the rights of individuals, but are not burdened with the responsibilities that individuals are expected to bear..... and those pesky issues we human beings have... such as guilt, remorse, do not even enter the picture. What a brilliant way of delegating that "bad stuff" without having to confront, or answer for, the results. Whether this has happened as a course of natural events, or it has been deliberate, or some combination thereof...is anyone's guess, but that's academic. We all have to live in a system where the major decisions are taken by politicians who only answer to faceless, dehumanized corporate entities.

On a parallel, the right is extremely skilled at coopting certain areas of life, especially around spirituality/religious beliefs, distorting/censoring/altering the original teachings to conform to their own philosophical leanings.... examples being the Taliban in Islam, and the "Religious Right" in Christianity.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #50 of 139
60% of Republicans seem to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

This is completely correct. Proof: Sarah Palin
Evolution has obviously failed her and her tribe (She is a tribeswoman you know).

God has also sped up the light of stars which are millions of light years away in order to confuse us. He really is a prankster the dude. To show your loyalty to him you must cut off parts of your penis. Dinosaur bones were aged by him to confuse us some more. He put whale bones into the desert because he thought we weren't confused enough. He eroded granite rocks with his teeth, or was it his balls, I am not sure. He punched massive craters into the earth with his left little finger, again to confuse us. He also decided that the human brain should not have any ideas about electricity and medicine for a 9,900 years because that would be wrong.
What a guy, this god.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #51 of 139
Seg this thread is awful if I may say so.

I am a Christian and I don't believe Darwin had it right but I am no pass giver to bad policy be it rolled out by republicans or democrats. The title of your thread as well as titles of other threads by some on the right which paint such in-human stories has got to stop already. I can't see how any rational person can come into this forum and read over threads like some of these and not shake their head with disbelief at the level of (us vs/ them) crud which has seemingly filled this place to the brim.

Your thread is pure trash.

Not much different for example than many that Trumptman starts with similar dismissive (hate on the other side) divisive nonproductive waste.

Do better.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #52 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Looking at those numbers, I'm horrified by the response of the Democrats and Independents as well. Should the question be, "Is being American prone to mental disorder?"

Ohh look. Start a trash heap thread and look what it attracts.

Trash replies..

Nice work.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #53 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It is strange to see something very odd in action here...

If a poster posts something denigrating to the Right then hordes of right-wingers crawl out of the woodwork to defend themselves.... always the same faces. The one notable rational exception who does not need to 'man the barricades' seems to be SDW....

This can only be that they feel themselves so identified with the caricature (this is in itself of great concern - none of them deny the rabidness of their views..they just object to people pointing it out from the Left) that it undermines their stability.

Look at it from the other point of view: every day here 'the Left' are lambasted in a series of absurd and reductionist non sequiturs and other superficial nonsensical assessments.

Hardly ever do any of 'the Left' feel the need to rush to panic stations and mount a defence.

From my pov - and I would say I do hold the somewhat extreme left-wing view in some regards - I just laugh.....I never feel the need to defend 'the Left' or take any of it as a personal attack....it's just what wingers do...it's their thing. It can even be hilarious and uplifting at times. One would worry if they were not sniping.

So why is this? Why are they so insecure?

Surely such insecurity IS by definition a mental imbalance? I'm not trying to attack anyone...I just want to understand the mechanism...it's fascinating....

Or is it just that those of us on the Left are super-balanced and of above normal in terms of psychological integration?

Well for me at least I am not laughing when I am put down for being a Christian and / or not buying into Darwin's evolution.

It is not a matter of defense or laughing something off.

I look at these threads from the right (Trumptman) and then your thread here and I am sickened by the irrational dismissal of those who are different or hold a differing viewpoint.

It is not wise, mature, productive or helpful to put up these kinds of Trash Threads.

We all here have quite a bit of liberty and speak our minds and the best we can come up with is to act like a five year old school yard bully on the playground and dehumanize those around us who we don't like or don't agree with?

Really??

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #54 of 139
This is great,

we are producing an up-to-date list of outright wingers, closet wingers, and wingers in denial.

It seems odd though that after it was made 'obvious' that having an adverse 'reaction' to this thread - obviously meant you were mentally ill ....- they still flock....

All we need now is Wilbur to poke us with his ontological flagellum
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #55 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Well for me at least I am not laughing when I am put down for being a Christian and / or not buying into Darwin's evolution.

It is not a matter of defense or laughing something off.

I look at these threads from the right (Trumptman) and then your thread here and I am sickened by the irrational dismissal of those who are different or hold a differing viewpoint.

It is not wise, mature, productive or helpful to put up these kinds of Trash Threads.

We all here have quite a bit of liberty and speak our minds and the best we can come up with is to act like a five year old school yard bully on the playground and dehumanize those around us who we don't like or don't agree with?

Really??

Fellows

Seems a bit strong Fellows....

The first thing I would say here is that the threads are what we - that is the posters - make them. Many of Trupmpt's threads start of crap (understandably!) but contain much of use and much good debate and interesting points. Mostly from the Left obviously but it's there.

So that's the first thing: you do Trumpt (and me) and every other poster who contributes a disservice by judging their input by the thread title, premise or poster intent. That's the first problem.

In short: maybe I (or Trumpt) start questionable threads but if the content is interesting or makes debate - and YOU as a contributor are part of that process (or not) then what does it matter?

Second point: the level of debate here is really, really poor. Maybe I contribute to that, maybe Trumpt does - but you know what? I would guess that both of us could raise our game if necessary. Unfortunately it seldom is.

Third point: I don't see you contributing much these days... I don't mean in terms of volume but more in terms of actual substance. You used to be a lot better...what happened? It's down to us all to make this a better place to debate - if that's what it's about (it is for me) so I don't think anyone is covering themselves with glory here...

Fourth Point: you are objecting to my style of pointing things out. Fair enough - people don't like it, I understand that.

What I don't get though is this: that it's not about that - it's about the points I am trying to make NOT how I make them. The real problem is that my MO gives people an excuse not to address them....but I'm not that hopeful of debate either way so it's a moot point.

I could do the fence-sitting even-handed thing like you do Fellows but it's not really my style. I would have thought (hoped) you would see through my schtick but I guess not...

Fifth Point: I don't really want to pander to people's sensitivities as I think they are ridiculous...as it happens I believe in God myself and also in a form of non-Darwinian evolution.

If some atheist (say) wants to slag me off for that then you know what? I really don't care....not only that, I can't imagine how one would...so when I trample on your sensibilities for being Christian or whatever then it's not personal..it's just that I cannot understand how anyone could possibly be offended.

Sixth point: again, we just do not address the issues. It is EXACTLY like:

I don't like this fact - I am going to ignore it.

If you like we can abandon this thread and I can start another one - a nicey-nice one - called "Do you think the earth is 10,000 years old and do people who do think this hold an intellectually valid position?'

But you know as well as I do that regardless of that, it wouldn't make any difference at all.

Seventh point: and this is by no means my last possible point but I will make it so...

I actually DO believe that "Right-wing thought" (btw, you do realize I have ALWAYS been talking about an ideological position don't you?) is in a way a form of mental disorder.

I truly believe that. I believe that other things are too...I even suffer from some of them. We could discuss what they are. We could discuss whether it's possible....we could discuss....

Oh, wait...no, we couldn't..... we couldn't even start.......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #56 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignis fatuus View Post

This is great,

we are producing an up-to-date list of outright wingers, closet wingers, and wingers in denial.

It seems odd though that after it was made 'obvious' that having an adverse 'reaction' to this thread - obviously meant you were mentally ill ....- they still flock....

All we need now is Wilbur to poke us with his ontological flagellum

Say what you like about DMZ but at least he could fight his corner, had actually done some reading of sorts and could laugh at things without taking it all ultra-personal and deflecting...

The lack of quality on this board has plummeted in tandem with the disappearance of certain posters..
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #57 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Say what you like about DMZ but at least he could fight his corner, had actually done some reading of sorts and could laugh at things without taking it all ultra-personal and deflecting...

The lack of quality on this board has plummeted in tandem with the disappearance of certain posters..



perhaps though, we should recognise that 2003 passed along time ago...though the picture of him 'missing' the rapture was very funny...
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #58 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignis fatuus View Post



perhaps though, we should recognise that 2003 passed along time ago...though the picture of him 'missing' the rapture was very funny...

Yeah...classic

Who was that other guy who used to wind him up Mark someone or other????
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #59 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Yeah...classic

Who was that other guy who used to wind him up Mark someone or other????

dont know for sure, but like you said, the quality of the board plummetted with the disappearance of some posters.
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #60 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignis fatuus View Post

dont know for sure, but like you said, the quality of the board plummetted with the disappearance of some posters.

Heheh....yeah...

Meanwhile we're stuck with this crop...and they STILL cannot debate, address or defend the issue at hand.

They must love my threads...gives them a blank cheque to ignore the facts every time
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #61 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Heheh....yeah...

Meanwhile we're stuck with this crop...and they STILL cannot debate, address or defend the issue at hand.

They must love my threads...gives them a blank cheque to ignore the facts every time

perhaps though, this crop are the people who have got stuck.

Sometimes I feel sorry for my old AI 'sparring partners' who want to endlessly kick along in the gutter with Trumptman - perhaps this is the sane conclusion of the insane board that will play out to infinity and never change. Thats why I cant be bothered. You only live once.

Maybe you should learn to drive, or how is that C coming along?
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Recedite, plebes. Obesa cantavit![/CENTER]
Reply
post #62 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignis fatuus View Post

perhaps though, this crop are the people who have got stuck.

Sometimes I feel sorry for my old AI 'sparring partners' who want to endlessly kick along in the gutter with Trumptman - perhaps this is the sane conclusion of the insane board that will play out to infinity and never change. Thats why I cant be bothered. You only live once.

Maybe you should learn to drive, or how is that C coming along?

I personally feel sorry for people who clearly were permabanned, come back under a different handle and feel like they are the solution to the problem instead of the cause of it.

I also like how the posters "disappeared" as opposed to being banned for being unwilling to deal with the very moderation they called for. They can't be bothered. The fat lady has supposedly sung yet here they are, still trying to get that last word in.

In the future they will probably be the ones fighting the "injustice" of how they are treated the very same health care program they declared had to be passed no matter the outcome. It will be someone else's fault then too. It always is in their minds.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormhole View Post

60% of republicans seem to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

This is completely correct. Proof: Sarah palin
evolution has obviously failed her and her tribe (she is a tribeswoman you know).

God has also sped up the light of stars which are millions of light years away in order to confuse us. He really is a prankster the dude. To show your loyalty to him you must cut off parts of your penis. Dinosaur bones were aged by him to confuse us some more. He put whale bones into the desert because he thought we weren't confused enough. He eroded granite rocks with his teeth, or was it his balls, i am not sure. He punched massive craters into the earth with his left little finger, again to confuse us. He also decided that the human brain should not have any ideas about electricity and medicine for a 9,900 years because that would be wrong.
What a guy, this god.

.

.
post #64 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Seems a bit strong Fellows....

The first thing I would say here is that....

Thanks for your reply as it does give me a little more to work with.

First of all I want to express that I appreciate the diversity of this bunch. I never intend to suggest that any of us change who we are or our style. I very much like you and Nick all these years despite my gap of not being here for a bit of time. I quite like to see things from different points of view. I like vigorous debate that gets the mind thinking. I owe you and Nick an apology for calling each of you out directly regarding your threads and scolding you guys. I am sorry and don't plan to continue to call anyone out for what I deem to be a crazy thread title or opening post.

I think the only direction I was coming from is the frustration I see when people dismiss entire groups of people. I think such views risk civility and only serve to get groups entrenched into their corners ready to throw stones so to speak. I would rather see / participate in a proactive healthy debate or discussion where the mind can be broadened based on truly profound realization / discovery or inspiration to investigage a matter if it is new and not fully understood. But to just cast labels over entire groups of the population in order to get them on the defensive and entrenched into the rock throwing positions seems fruitless to me if not entirely desctructive by design.

Is there no worthy subject to be discussed / debated without the influx and use of rudeness, accusation, condemnation if not flat out hatred? I mean I see that some of this is style and cartoonish style theatrics but in the end where is the fruit?

I am not suggesting that one will not find a nuget of gold in the dumpster of some of these threads. But is this method truly how any of us want to discover useful information or the inspiration to broaden our mind / thinking process? Must we be sprayed with verbal sewage in order to hopefully discover a golden nuget of positive contribution within a thread?

Again I think you and Nick are extremely intelligent and very smart individuals but it seems at times the gold is lost through the language and framing of a topic or framing of a group of people and instead of gold being found we all walk away with a stench of crusty, rotten sewage..

Again I know you and Nick to be better as people than these tactics. I am not trying to scold with this feedback as I am talking to myself included.

In all honesty,

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #65 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

As for Obama...could possibly even be more Right-wing than Bush. I see his admin as not just a continuation of the Bush ideology but an amplification and extension of it.

I don't know about Obama being "more right-wing", but clearly the Democrats have adopted nearly every thing they cursed and swore to change about Republicans and they have somehow managed to not even bat an eye at the irony.

Both parties are servants to their masters: Oil, the military industrial complex, bankers, oh, the list goes on.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #66 of 139
Obama right wing? What? He's somewhere between F. Castro and H. Chavez.

As far as Dems, seems there's a new scandal or ethics investigation every week.
post #67 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I don't know about Obama being "more right-wing", but clearly the Democrats have adopted nearly every thing they cursed and swore to change about Republicans and they have somehow managed to not even bat an eye at the irony.

Both parties are servants to their masters: Oil, the military industrial complex, bankers, oh, the list goes on.

Indeed and the real clever trick is to have the general population hate one another left vs right or right vs left etc. staying all wound up at one another while these elite power players manipulate us even further via high paid media personalities etc. who tell us how we want the patriot act or torture or gitmo etc. Now we just see another side of the coin to focus on like health care and carbon taxes etc.


This is why I don't care a whole lot for ANY media.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #68 of 139
The problem with your "research" is that you are seeking a conclusion based on the position someone has taken (i.e. right or conservative side vs. left) as opposed to the reasoning behind the position and whether or not that reasoning is consistent with reality. The test of mental instability is whether or not one's views are consistent with what is real, and you haven't demonstrated how a "right wing" position is not consistent with what is real. It doesn't matter who is concerned, it matters why they are concerned and whether or not there is evidence to support the concern.

Your example of religion does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that a person in total is "mentally ill". People can be irrational in certain aspects of their life while completely rational in others. The fact that someone may believe something isn't necessarily proof of mental instability or irrationality as it may simply be explainable by ignorance. One can be deemed mentally unstable or irrational once one has been presented with knowledge or facts to the contrary of their beliefs but still refuse give up on that belief (what some call "evasion").

So no, being identified as "right wing" is not enough to suggest or demonstrate that one has a mental disorder.

My very generalized take on "right" and "left" is this;

A right winger tends to support more financial freedom and less social freedom.

A left winger tends to support more social freedom and less financial freedom.

I support social and financial freedom. For instance, as far as I care, if two guys want to get married, have at it. That in NO WAY affects the sanctity or legitimacy of my marriage. On the other hand, someone else's needs do not give them any rights to what I have earned.
post #69 of 139
The scary part is that 40% of independents and 38% of democrats believe in creationism and the Earth is 10000 years old.
So what this means is the majority of Americans are loons, and the looniest of them are the republicans.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #70 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Thanks for your reply as it does give me a little more to work with.

First of all I want to express that I appreciate the diversity of this bunch. I never intend to suggest that any of us change who we are or our style. I very much like you and Nick all these years despite my gap of not being here for a bit of time. I quite like to see things from different points of view. I like vigorous debate that gets the mind thinking. I owe you and Nick an apology for calling each of you out directly regarding your threads and scolding you guys. I am sorry and don't plan to continue to call anyone out for what I deem to be a crazy thread title or opening post.

I think the only direction I was coming from is the frustration I see when people dismiss entire groups of people. I think such views risk civility and only serve to get groups entrenched into their corners ready to throw stones so to speak. I would rather see / participate in a proactive healthy debate or discussion where the mind can be broadened based on truly profound realization / discovery or inspiration to investigage a matter if it is new and not fully understood. But to just cast labels over entire groups of the population in order to get them on the defensive and entrenched into the rock throwing positions seems fruitless to me if not entirely desctructive by design.

Is there no worthy subject to be discussed / debated without the influx and use of rudeness, accusation, condemnation if not flat out hatred? I mean I see that some of this is style and cartoonish style theatrics but in the end where is the fruit?

I am not suggesting that one will not find a nuget of gold in the dumpster of some of these threads. But is this method truly how any of us want to discover useful information or the inspiration to broaden our mind / thinking process? Must we be sprayed with verbal sewage in order to hopefully discover a golden nuget of positive contribution within a thread?

Again I think you and Nick are extremely intelligent and very smart individuals but it seems at times the gold is lost through the language and framing of a topic or framing of a group of people and instead of gold being found we all walk away with a stench of crusty, rotten sewage..

Again I know you and Nick to be better as people than these tactics. I am not trying to scold with this feedback as I am talking to myself included.

In all honesty,

Fellows

Hi Fellows

thanks for the reply...I would also like to say that I am not railing against any individual - not even Trumpt! - and I'd respect and support anyone's right to believe or say what they like (even me to frame things the way I do hahah).

What I am opposing though is 'non-thinking'. ANd yes, I think that I do have the right to call it...and more than that we all do....and WE MUST....because the ship is going down. ANd we can stop it...maybe.

Look at it this way:

If someone believes the world is 10,000 years old and has read all the literature, is educated on the issue and can argue a position about WHY they think this, supporting their arguments then this person is - imho - someone who is rational.

Their belief may not be but the PROCESS is. It won't make me believe them but we use the same process.

Oth, if someone believes the world is 10,000 years old and refuses to look at the science, knows nothing of the method but 'just believes' because some authority figure told them then this is irrational imo.

I believe some things that people feel are insane as I said...for example I believe a polar opposite of the '10,000 year issue' in way; that humanity is far, far older than science currently accepts and that we have perhaps reached our current level of technology (or near it) many times over millions of years. But I don't 'just believe' it and I am prepared to abandon it....

The key thing should be 'finding out what it true' rather than just maintaining your belief system...that's what science is. And this applies to politics and religion too...

With religion I make an exception though as, imo, this is not necessarily something that can be assessed within the realm of science. But thats another thread. Or maybe better not...

Finally I'd like to justify my 'Right-wing lunacy' stance a bit in more measured tones.

I am using 'right-wing' to encompass its worst aspects:

Selfishness, greed, violence, prejudice, racism, the elevation of the individual over the collective, elitism etc...

Now before we get sidetracked I KNOW these qualities are not inherently and specifically Right-wing, that they are human proclivities and can also appear in the Left.

BUT, there is no doubt that sections of the Right have 'made these their own' and have no shame about them.

The 'greed is good' mantra is a Right-wing one - the Left are also greedy but the Right justify it whereas the Left are aware that it is not the best approach.

Violence: the Left use it but they nominally oppose it. Carl Rove claims he is proud of waterboarding.

The Left and Right may do the same things - but the Right are very often actually proud of it and defend it. They are not in the least founded on a premise that these things are wrong.

That is why I say that Right-wing thought - in its current state - is a degenerate ailment. Because these things are anti-human and signal no conscience.

That's what happened to the Right - its not political - they just lost their conscience...and that's why I call it an illness of sorts.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #71 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Obama right wing? What? He's somewhere between F. Castro and H. Chavez.

As far as Dems, seems there's a new scandal or ethics investigation every week.

uh-oh..do yo know anything about the politics of Castro and Chavez? Or is it just Obama you don't understand?

Just because you hate Obama and hate Socialists does not mean they are the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

The test of mental instability is whether or not one's views are consistent with what is real, and you haven't demonstrated how a "right wing" position is not consistent with what is real.

We still haven't dealt with the 10,000 year old earth. There are other examples but we need to get this one wrapped up first....I would say it is an 'un-real' position.

What's your take?

Quote:
My very generalized take on "right" and "left" is this;

A right winger tends to support more financial freedom and less social freedom.

A left winger tends to support more social freedom and less financial freedom.

Seems strange to me.

When I think of Left or Right money does not come into it. I certainly do not use the terms in the sense you mean and I certainly don't agree with your argument there even as a working hypothesis.

I am postulating a 'Right' that is a conglomeration and support of the following:

Nationalism, an upholding of the established Social structure/class system, Patriotism, Militarisation, Corporatisation, a Conservative 'Moral' position, the subjugation of the individual to an established Conservative 'norm' - even if this norm is labelled 'freedom' or 'individualism' and finally - and perhaps most significantly - seeing everything through a financial filter.

To me - being a rabid Leftie - the Left is virtually the antithesis of the above.

Quote:
I support social and financial freedom. For instance, as far as I care, if two guys want to get married, have at it. That in NO WAY affects the sanctity or legitimacy of my marriage. On the other hand, someone else's needs do not give them any rights to what I have earned.

The first part is not a common Right-wing position....in that survey in the initial post I think there were figures on Right-wing views on Gay marriage...it was pretty shockingly high in terms of opposition to it.

I agree with you on this - why would it affect you? The fact we are in agreement is also indicative of it not being a Right-wing position hahah.

This last part - other's rights to your earnings - seems quite odd to me. Perhaps this is a US-specific position? Why would it even be an issue?

The Government seems to have rights to your earnings via the Tax system.... it is a plank of Left-wing thought where I come from that this is 'a bad thing' and to be opposed....particularly given what they do with our money when they have stolen it this way.

But my point is that if you agree that the Government has rights to your earnings (as I say, a 'Right' position in terms of upholding the status quo) then it is the Government that would distribute their/your cash to those in society who need it.

So your argument is invalid there as you (presumably) support the tax regimen if even just wanting it to be as low as possible.

Or is that you don't want the Government to help the least well off in society? Could be - that IS a Right-wing position admittedly and Socialist Governments do tend to help such people so maybe you are right (in both senses) after all...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #72 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

...for example I believe a polar opposite of the '10,000 year issue' in way; that humanity is far, far older than science currently accepts and that we have perhaps reached our current level of technology (or near it) many times over millions of years. But I don't 'just believe' it and I am prepared to abandon it.....

What is the basis for this belief? It's not sufficient to say it is a rational belief just because you are prepared to abandon it, there must be some evidence for you to have considered in the first place that would lead you to that belief. If not, it's merely arbitrary and believing in the arbitrary is not rational. We shouldn't put periods in our mind where there should still be question marks.

With that in mind.... you say;

Quote:
Their belief may not be but the PROCESS is

So what process lead you to this belief (as it appears the belief itself is not rational)?
post #73 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

What is the basis for this belief? It's not sufficient to say it is a rational belief just because you are prepared to abandon it, there must be some evidence for you to have considered in the first place that would lead you to that belief. If not, it's merely arbitrary and believing in the arbitrary is not rational. We shouldn't put periods in our mind where there should still be question marks.

Well...not to get into a specific discussion of the data (maybe in another thread) I think that one starts from a position of having an open-mind....

For example; if a Scientist was testing, say, ESP then if they went into the experiments with the idea that it could not exist (or conversely, that it DID exist) then they would not be open-minded and therefore any conclusions they came to could not be rational.

Imo, two people could hold the same position and one be rational and the other not depending on how they arrived there and, more importantly, why they stay in that position or whether they can develop it.

In my case I took a degree in archaeology as an undergraduate and was interested in this area. In the course of my studies I thought about certain anomalous things and was not necessarily satisfied with the explanations so dug deeper and found more anomalies - again with no explanations.

So my position is sort of a working hypothesis. If explanations are forthcoming then I am prepared to abandon it and accept the explanations....

This is different than the 10,000 year belief as far as I can see.

Another example; I am not an atheist and have certain problems with Darwinian evolution (I could incline to Lamarck but again...) so in a way am disposed to 'alternate explanations' - however, no Creationist has ever provided a rational one. To accept their position is to reject science - they have structured it that way...that's irrational.

It's merely a variant on the Church's opposition to Galileo.

Quote:
So what process lead you to this belief (as it appears the belief itself is not rational)?

Reading. Thinking about questions..I may not have the correct answer but that's not important. What's important is the correct question.

In this case the question is How old is humanity - the answer I have may be wrong but it is an attempted answer to the question.

In the case of the 10,000 year old earth the correct question is: how old is the earth but the answer the Creationists have (10,000 years) is not an answer to that question....they are answering another question of their own devising which is only relevant to them...that's why it's irrational.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #74 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

We still haven't dealt with the 10,000 year old earth. ....
What's your take?

I don't have a take on it. I don't know how old the earth is. Frankly, it is of little interest to me so as I said above, I try not to put period in my mind where a question mark should be.

Quote:
Seems strange to me.

Not to be rude, but it does not seem strange to me nor was I soliciting your agreement.

Pertaining to money; the left tend to more fervently support social programs that involve taking money from one some people to give it to other people. Granted in recent years, the right is becoming more like this as well.

The right tends to (or has in the past) let people do with their money what they will, and more or less expects people to make their own way rather than depend on the government to provide them their life.

Pertaining to social freedom; the left tends to say, let's not legislate morality - don't tell me I can't put whatever I want to in my body - don't tell me I can't have an abortion.

The right tends more to want to legislate morality - no you can't smoke that, and no you can't have an abortion.

I know these are simple examples, but they can be extrapolated into other areas of related issues.

Quote:
The Government seems to have rights to your earnings via the Tax system

Well, then we have to get into what kind of rights we are talking about. Yes, the government has the legal right to take money from me (or anyone) because, well, it's the law. What comes into question is whether or not the government has a moral right to take money from me. I would assert that it does not. But that's democracy for you... 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Quote:
But my point is that if you agree that the Government has rights to your earnings

From a moral perspective, I do not agree.

Quote:
So your argument is invalid there as you (presumably) support the tax regimen if even just wanting it to be as low as possible.

Thereby illustrating the deficiency of presumption. What I want and what I can realistically have two different things. The victim doesn't 'support' the robber just because he hands over the wallet when the gun is in his face. I don't support the US tax system, but I pay my taxes so the government won't take my home or put me in jail. Instead, a philosophical/political shift of this kind requires a long term dialog with people.

Quote:
Or is that you don't want the Government to help the least well off in society?

All I want the government to do is prevent one person (or persons) from violating the rights of any other person (or persons). Now, it's another whole conversation about what those rights would be, but put simply, I hold that a right is a "freedom to act", but not a freedom to have things provided for you. One has a right to their life, but they do not have a right to have that life provided for them at someone else's expense. So it's not that I don't want the government to help the least well off of society, it's that I don't think it's proper for the government to provide financially for ANYBODY. I hold that it is an individual's responsibility to support themself, and that any assistance they get be provided by people who willingly and voluntarily offer that assistance. That is why I think the only morally proper way to fund a government would be by voluntary funding from its citizenry.

Now, the reason why I don't all guns-ablazing in revolt is because it is not realistic to expect such a paradigm shift from the way it is now to the way I think it should be within my life time. The reality is, I have to deal with the way things are, not they way I think they should be. That being the case, I still think the US offers me the best opportunity to live my life even with all of the issues that I do not agree with about how its run.
post #75 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well...not to get into a specific discussion of the data (maybe in another thread)

Hmmm.... okay.

Quote:
I think that one starts from a position of having an open-mind

"Open-mind" is a dubious term. The way many people mean it is that one has to be "open" to consider any arbitrary assertion regardless of the lack of supporting evidence. Given that I have a life expectancy of perhaps 65-70 years (at a guess), I don't really have time for that. What does "open mind" mean to you?

Quote:
'alternate explanations'

This begs the question; why be disposed to any answer when there is a lack of sufficient data to adequately support any of them? How does this further or fulfill your life?

Quote:
I may not have the correct answer but that's not important. What's important is the correct question.

Here's where I disagree. Both are equally important, the correct answer and the correct question. But yes, sometimes the answer cannot be known.

On a simple and obvious level, I need the correct answer to the question "If I step out in front of this car doing 40 MPH, will I get hurt?" I have (perhaps) asked the right question, but if I get the wrong answer (No), it works against my interest of remaining alive and in good health. I do acknowledge that on the surface, it would appear that some answers have far less devastating effects on one's life.
post #76 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

"Open-mind" is a dubious term. The way many people mean it is that one has to be "open" to consider any arbitrary assertion regardless of the lack of supporting evidence. Given that I have a life expectancy of perhaps 65-70 years (at a guess), I don't really have time for that. What does "open mind" mean to you?

To me it means detaching from pre-conceived notions and assessing a thing in terms of itself rather than what I have heard about it from others or what I might like it to be.

65-70 years is more than enough really. When you consider that there are very many things you will not be interested in (and why should you?) then that limits the field....also many people label themselves so they do not really need assessing.

In the present case if someone identifies themselves as 'right-wing' say then I do not need to do further testing to see if they agree or not with anarcho-syndicalist demolition of the State and are a fully paid -up member of the Obama fan club.

Likewise if someone tells me they are a Christian I do not need to spend much time researching whether they are a follower of the Islamic Hanafi School of jurisprudence or sacrifice chickens to the Goat of Mendes (though most Christians of my acquaintance would benefit greatly from doing either).

So there's plenty of time...most people label themselves very helpfully and once you've taken the boring things out of your research plan there's almost too much time.. I don't know what to do with myself some days there's so much of it. That's why I'm on here I suppose.

Quote:
This begs the question; why be disposed to any answer when there is a lack of sufficient data to adequately support any of them? How does this further or fulfill your life?

Only you can answer that. Why did Picasso bother to paint? Why does anyone do anything? This is a philosophical question and unique to every one. There is no over-riding answer - except for Fundies or others who try to 'convert' people or otherwise impose their own answer on everyone.

Quote:
Here's where I disagree. Both are equally important, the correct answer and the correct question. But yes, sometimes the answer cannot be known.

The two are linked for sure...but some questions cannot be answered can they? And one must be sure that one is speaking of the same thing.

Quote:
On a simple and obvious level, I need the correct answer to the question "If I step out in front of this car doing 40 MPH, will I get hurt?" I have (perhaps) asked the right question, but if I get the wrong answer (No), it works against my interest of remaining alive and in good health. I do acknowledge that on the surface, it would appear that some answers have far less devastating effects on one's life.

Good example.

A Fundie might ask a very different question - perhaps "If I step out in front of this car doing 40 MPH, will I get to heaven?" or even "If I step out in front of this car doing 40 MPH, will God save me?"

Just because you ask the right questions it does not mean everyone does. Nor does it make them 'wrong' or 'bad'....they just see things differently.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #77 of 139
Not going to argue with you on this one Fellows. We've had this discussion before in less civilized times, and you're well aware of where my faith lies as well as I am of where does yours.
post #78 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

To me it means detaching from pre-conceived notions and assessing a thing in terms of itself rather than what I have heard about it from others or what I might like it to be.

This sounds more like what I consider being objective. There is a connotation that comes with the term "open-mind" that I prefer to avoid. The connotation I refer to is the idea that "anything is possible". Well, actually there is not evidence to support the notion that "anything is possible" and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
65-70 years is more than enough really.

Well, it's not worth my time to illustrate why I think you are wrong because I can start coming up with all kinds of arbitrary assertions for you to consider if you are "open-minded". But then, the issue of limited time pops up it's ugly head again so I won't bother. That and I don't think the board moderators would appreciate it either.

Quote:
In the present case if someone identifies themselves as 'right-wing' say then I do not need to do further testing to see if they agree or not with anarcho-syndicalist demolition of the State and are a fully paid -up member of the Obama fan club.

Assuming a number of things of course; you both have similar operating definitions of the term "right wing" being first and foremost. Labels are nice for quick assessments sure, but they are often grossly inaccurate and leave too much of an unknown. For example, (and I warn in advance the following link has graphic material in it) Pat Robertson and Scott Roeder identify themselves as Christians but there is a world of difference between them.

Quote:
Only you can answer that

Although that question appeared rhetorical, I did not intend it that way. I was specifically asking you that question. Why are you disposed to "alternate explanations" when there is a lack of sufficient data to adequately support any explanation? If you respond "I don't know, I just do" then you need to refer back to all those things you mentioned at the beginning of this thread regarding being mentally ill. But then, you've already stated the answer isn't important...

Quote:
Nor does it make them 'wrong' or 'bad'....they just see things differently.

Perhaps I'm taking what you are saying here wrong, but I think your statement requires more context. Scott Roeder sees things differently. The problem with seeing things differently is that it is sometimes causally linked to doing things differently. Charles Manson saw things differently and I'm going to assert that that mad him wrong AND bad because of the actions he took in furtherance of how he saw things.

And for what it's worth, I am an Atheist, though perhaps according to a definition less commonly used or acknowledged; a-theist - not a theist. I consider based on the evidence available to me that the assertion of the existence of a god is arbitrary. I won't give consideration as to the legitimacy of the existence of a god until such time as evidence is presented to me that I should consider such existence. Considering that the cornerstone of the predominate god-oriented religions is faith, I don't see that forthcoming.
post #79 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

This sounds more like what I consider being objective. There is a connotation that comes with the term "open-mind" that I prefer to avoid. The connotation I refer to is the idea that "anything is possible". Well, actually there is not evidence to support the notion that "anything is possible" and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

True..objective is better.

Quote:
Well, it's not worth my time to illustrate why I think you are wrong because I can start coming up with all kinds of arbitrary assertions for you to consider if you are "open-minded". But then, the issue of limited time pops up it's ugly head again so I won't bother. That and I don't think the board moderators would appreciate it either.

Very wise...No-one would appreciate it!

Quote:
Assuming a number of things of course; you both have similar operating definitions of the term "right wing" being first and foremost. Labels are nice for quick assessments sure, but they are often grossly inaccurate and leave too much of an unknown. For example, (and I warn in advance the following link has graphic material in it) Pat Robertson and Scott Roeder identify themselves as Christians but there is a world of difference between them.

True...but then it is incumbent on the person who claims they are a Christian to distance themselves from those who they regard as not being.

In Islam it happens all the time....whenever an Islamist Fundie attack occurs you hear from Muslims who support it and Muslims who claim that this is not Islam.

When Robertson spouts off you never hear Christians saying that this is not what Christianity is. This is easily testable by a trawl through the archives...whenever he erupts it gets posted here and no Christian here - as far as I am aware - has yet stood up to say he is not acting in the spirit of Christ.

You get a lot of bashing of the posters who draw attention to his outrageous and a lot of messengers get shot but that's about it.

So my point is; until they distance themselves then they are by default in the same basket.

If I go to the Hitler Youth meetings and don't start denouncing them you have the right to call me a Nazi (far too long here without a Godwin).

Quote:
Although that question appeared rhetorical, I did not intend it that way. I was specifically asking you that question. Why are you disposed to "alternate explanations" when there is a lack of sufficient data to adequately support any explanation? If you respond "I don't know, I just do" then you need to refer back to all those things you mentioned at the beginning of this thread regarding being mentally ill. But then, you've already stated the answer isn't important...

The reason I am attracted to alternate history and revisionist memes is because I don't really find the world as it is a suitable place for my personal expression, I am a radical of course and want some sort of revolution - it doesn't look like the sheep will go for that, the moment has passed so a historical/psychological one is a substitute. Also I hate the status quo and don't really believe anything they say.

That about covers it.

Quote:
Perhaps I'm taking what you are saying here wrong, but I think your statement requires more context. Scott Roeder sees things differently. The problem with seeing things differently is that it is sometimes causally linked to doing things differently. Charles Manson saw things differently and I'm going to assert that that mad him wrong AND bad because of the actions he took in furtherance of how he saw things.

Charles Manson is a bad example...he was both mad and Right-wing......

You can see things differently and be a genius or be a lunatic. It's where you start from imo...hence the legitimacy of the initial question over the answer.

it's kind of a metaphysical garbage in/garbage out

Quote:
And for what it's worth, I am an Atheist, though perhaps according to a definition less commonly used or acknowledged; a-theist - not a theist. I consider based on the evidence available to me that the assertion of the existence of a god is arbitrary. I won't give consideration as to the legitimacy of the existence of a god until such time as evidence is presented to me that I should consider such existence. Considering that the cornerstone of the predominate god-oriented religions is faith, I don't see that forthcoming.

I agree with that. Is a logical and sane position.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #80 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Hi Fellows

thanks for the reply...I would also like to say that I am not railing against any individual - not even Trumpt! - and I'd respect and support anyone's right to believe or say what they like (even me to frame things the way I do hahah).

What I am opposing though is 'non-thinking'. ANd yes, I think that I do have the right to call it...and more than that we all do....and WE MUST....because the ship is going down. ANd we can stop it...maybe.

Look at it this way:

If someone believes the world is 10,000 years old and has read all the literature, is educated on the issue and can argue a position about WHY they think this, supporting their arguments then this person is - imho - someone who is rational.

Their belief may not be but the PROCESS is. It won't make me believe them but we use the same process.

Oth, if someone believes the world is 10,000 years old and refuses to look at the science, knows nothing of the method but 'just believes' because some authority figure told them then this is irrational imo.

I believe some things that people feel are insane as I said...for example I believe a polar opposite of the '10,000 year issue' in way; that humanity is far, far older than science currently accepts and that we have perhaps reached our current level of technology (or near it) many times over millions of years. But I don't 'just believe' it and I am prepared to abandon it....

The key thing should be 'finding out what it true' rather than just maintaining your belief system...that's what science is. And this applies to politics and religion too...

With religion I make an exception though as, imo, this is not necessarily something that can be assessed within the realm of science. But thats another thread. Or maybe better not...

Finally I'd like to justify my 'Right-wing lunacy' stance a bit in more measured tones.

I am using 'right-wing' to encompass its worst aspects:

Selfishness, greed, violence, prejudice, racism, the elevation of the individual over the collective, elitism etc...

Now before we get sidetracked I KNOW these qualities are not inherently and specifically Right-wing, that they are human proclivities and can also appear in the Left.

BUT, there is no doubt that sections of the Right have 'made these their own' and have no shame about them.

The 'greed is good' mantra is a Right-wing one - the Left are also greedy but the Right justify it whereas the Left are aware that it is not the best approach.

Violence: the Left use it but they nominally oppose it. Carl Rove claims he is proud of waterboarding.

The Left and Right may do the same things - but the Right are very often actually proud of it and defend it. They are not in the least founded on a premise that these things are wrong.

That is why I say that Right-wing thought - in its current state - is a degenerate ailment. Because these things are anti-human and signal no conscience.

That's what happened to the Right - its not political - they just lost their conscience...and that's why I call it an illness of sorts.

I agree with some of what you have said here. I am glad to see your provision for it to be ok to have faith without the "requirement" for human scientific proof or justification as to be able to hold a religious viewpoint.

Only in a controlled environment would that not be "ok".

As for some extreme right wing elements being less than good I agree completely. I think the contemporary conservative movement with Rove, Bush, Fox News, Beck and many others has served to rob conservative mindsets of anything positive and replace it with hate filled justification to further rob society of concern for others, rob society of free thought to question 911 for example. Rob society of the free will to question our actions in Iraq. Rob society of conscience or thought or for that matter concern.

Now I must say as bad as this is and it is this bad I would argue the "left" is just the other side of the same coin as I see it personally. People that think they can trust the climate gate players are no better than the conservative sheeple who listen to every thing Dick Cheney and Rove tell them via Hannity, Rush and Beck.

The only difference with the Left is that they use other tools to put out their message of the "left side of the coin" MSNBC, CNN and others use media personalities like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, George Soros, etc.

The right sells us wrongheaded foreign policy ideas and justification while the left sells us abortion on demand, climate change and the need to tax the hell out of us when we end up like California or Greece.

From BOTH sides we are being lied to and screwed quite frankly.

I think it is arrogant of the right to think they own and know their way around foreign policy like they are some kind of master of the subject. I too think it is arrogant of the left to think they are some kind of guru of the climate change of the world. And in each case the media of each respective corner feeds the sheeples of the world what they want to hear to justify their political tastes. All the while questioning this from one vantage point or another is viewed as either you are (with the terrorists) or (you fail to grasp the science) if you don't buy Al Gore's Global Warming ALARM!!!!

Both parties have special vested interests just as ready as ever to profit from a government issue contract of one flavor or another. Be it Halliburton or General Electric (MSNBC) (CNBC) to benefit from some war or some climate field day at tax payers expense.

What is freaky is to see where these players converge from both left and right. Like Enron at one point being positioned to issue the carbon offsets market. I thought Enron was a Bush era partner in crime?

I think that when one digs deeper they find that these partners in crime wear no particular party stripe. They work with political sellouts of both parties and then use the media to brainwash the masses as to how to view these actions they take.

I don't buy ANY of it.

Many of us here buy one side of a coin and ridicule, attack 24/7 the other side.

I just don't buy the crap society and political figureheads are pushing so easily. I think it is ok to question.

As for the selfish nature of some of the Ayn Rand sort is nothing more than more anti-Christ mentality. No regard for your neighbor.

The left has its ills as well. Abortion for example.

We all need to become more selfless. Myself included.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is being 'right-wing' a mental disorder?