Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Stupid pointless flame wars (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   From Horgan & Johnson (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6951)

AemJeff 08-07-2011 12:08 PM

From Horgan & Johnson
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220587)
Oh really? so when did psychiatrists stop practicing psychoanalysis? They just push pills now?

Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 12:19 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220588)
Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

But you never addressed my point, which speaks volumes.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 12:23 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220589)
But you never addressed my point, which speaks volumes.

You really didn't have one to address. An engineer might pick up a screwdriver every once in a while, but that doesn't mean that what he does is the same as what a mechanic does. And psychoanalysis is not a standard tool for psychiatrists, in any case.

sugarkang 08-07-2011 12:28 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220590)
And psychoanalysis is not a standard tool for psychiatrists, in any case.

What is the standard tool for psychiatrists?

AemJeff 08-07-2011 12:32 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220591)
What is the standard tool for psychiatrists?

Answered two posts ago. (err, three posts...)

sugarkang 08-07-2011 12:39 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220592)
Answered two posts ago. (err, three posts...)

This post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220585)
They're pretty much are mutually exclusive. One requires an MD and the other doesn't. A psychiatrist can prescribe medication, a psychoanalyst can't. Psychoanalysts engage in talk therapy ("the couch") and group therapy, and other behavioral modalities. Psychiatrists engage in the practice of a medical specialty (just like cardiologists, rheumatologists neurologists, and every other medical specialty.) There's really very little in common between them.

You ruled out scripts as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
You ruled out talk therapy as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
We're left with "the practice of a medical specialty."
Could you explain that?

AemJeff 08-07-2011 12:55 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220594)
This post?



You ruled out scripts as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
You ruled out talk therapy as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
We're left with "the practice of a medical specialty."
Could you explain that?

Psychiatrists might receive training in psychotherapy - to varying degrees - and there are certainnly psychiatrists who engage in psychotherapy; but their primary training is medical. (What is I "ruled out scripts" supposed to mean?) Psychotherapists are limited to "therapeutic communication techniques" and aren't qualified to make medical decisions, precribe, formally diagnose, or otherwise act as an MD. Psychotherapy and related modalities are the primary tools of a psychoanalist. That's not the case for psychiatry.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 01:00 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220597)
Psychiatrists might receive training in psychotherapy - to varying degrees - and there are certainnly psychiatrists who engage in psychotherapy; but their primary training is medical.

Just as I said, psychotherapy and psychiatry are not mutually exclusive.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 01:06 PM

Re: John has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220600)
Just as I said, psychotherapy and psychiatry are not mutually exclusive.

That's what I mean. "Not mutually exclusive" and "nearly identical" don't mean the same thing. You're abusing logic and language to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 01:11 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220601)
That's what I mean. "Not mutually exclusive" and "nearly identical" don't mean the same thing. You're abusing logic and language to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

I never said that psychiatry and psychoanalysis were nearly identical. I happen to know all of the things that you pointed out. I even know a real live psychiatrist personally and I've even talked to him about his profession. He used really small words and easy concepts so that I would understand.

Jeff, sometimes I lose all respect for you.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 01:40 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220602)
I never said that psychiatry and psychoanalysis were nearly identical. I happen to know all of the things that you pointed out. I even know a real live psychiatrist personally and I've even talked to him about his profession. He used really small words and easy concepts so that I would understand.

Jeff, sometimes I lose all respect for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220587)
Oh really? so when did psychiatrists stop practicing psychoanalysis? They just push pills now?

By your assertion if they're not practicing psychoanalysis, then they're "just push[ing] pills." That reads like a statement of close congruence to me!

badhatharry 08-07-2011 01:46 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220604)
By your assertion if they're not practicing psychoanalysis, then they're "just push[ing] pills."

I don't see how what you are citing follows, but...
that was a flippant answer to your insulting post. In fact, for some reason, you always seem to feel free to insult me. However, I was demonstrating that I do know the difference between the pharmacological and psychoanalytical sides of psychiatry. And that I do know that psychiatrists are doctors and can prescribe meds while psychologists are not allowed that.(all of those things you were unneccesarily and snarkily informing me of) I assert that the average psychiatrist uses both methods and probably more if they are warranted.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 02:11 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220605)
That was a flippant answer to your insulting post. In fact, for some reason, you always seem to feel free to insult me. However, I was demonstrating that I do know the difference between the pharmacological and psychoanalytical sides of psychiatry. I assert that the average psychiatrist uses both if both are warranted.

I think I'm generally pretty careful about not insulting you harry, though I'm not entirely innocent of it (and that goes both ways, kiddo.) I think you're trying hard here to escape the underlying premise of what you asserted above, which seemed to me to be more about trying to needle Ocean than about any serious point in regard to the profession.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 02:36 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220608)
I think you're trying hard here to escape the underlying premise of what you asserted above, which seemed to me to be more about trying to needle Ocean than about any serious point in regard to the profession.

You are wrong about this. I am absolutely serious about the first assertion I made regarding psychoanalysis and her assertion that if someone is a current patient that means they are satisfied.

And I really don't like it when you tell me what it is that I'm trying to do. It's presumptuous and leads to the kind of animosity that has been evident in this exchange.

graz 08-07-2011 02:59 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220610)
You are wrong about this. I am absolutely serious about the first assertion I made regarding psychoanalysis and her assertion that if someone is a current patient that means they are satisfied.

And I really don't like it when you tell me what it is that I'm trying to do. It's presumptuous and leads to the kind of animosity that has been evident in this exchange.

Here's what you said to Ocean's general comment about patient satisfaction:
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220555)
This is defintely not true. While people may think that the time spent on the couch is a waste of time and that it's not helping, there is a strange psychology that tells them that their dissatisfaction may be (and probably is) resistance to therapy and that they should stick with it. It's a win-win for the practitioner.

Where is your evidence or proof for this strange comment about strange psychology?

badhatharry 08-07-2011 03:21 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220614)
Here's what you said to Ocean's general comment about patient satisfaction:

Where is your evidence or proof for this strange comment about strange psychology?

Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.

look 08-07-2011 04:08 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220615)
Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.

Like any other line of work there are good practioners and bad. Lawyers, remodeling contractors, etc.

Yes, the situation you raise may be fairly common, but I think the wise therapist will establish ground rules at the beginning of treatment to specify that it's possible there will not be a good fit between therapist and patient (and that either may terminate the treatment), how long therapy is expected to last, etc.

I would wager that a bigger problem than mentally/emotionally coerced continuation of therapy is the abandonment of therapy by patients who are reluctant to 'do the work.'

graz 08-07-2011 04:18 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220615)
Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...

Why apply free market principles to this issue? Does everything in life reduce to this for you?

Quote:

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.
Here you're focusing on the subjectivity of psychoanalysis. So, duh?

Quote:

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.
The dilemma is restricted to limited applications. Your larger point is lost beyond that realm. Depression or schizophrenia are not easily reduced to market calculations. The complexity requires deeper examination. Even if the doctor/patient dynamic is asymmetrical are there any realistic alternatives? Are you in the do nothing camp ... just as you are regarding most government action?

sugarkang 08-07-2011 04:34 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Discussion - Psychiatry vs. Psychoanalysis

Ocean: psychiatry and psychoanalysis are different fields/disciplines.

Harry: There could be some overlap between the two?

Jeff: No, there’s virtually no overlap in disciplines. Psychiatrists can write prescriptions; psychotherapists cannot. There’s very little in common between them.

Harry: So, the only difference is the ability to write prescriptions? [substantive question]

Jeff: You have poor logic, low self-esteem and you speak nonsense. [ad hominem]

Harry: Address the point. [repeat substantive question]

Jeff: There’s nothing to address. [dismissal based on prior ad hominem]
Jeff's metaphor translated: Psychiatrists and psychotherapists may both engage in couch talk, but their jobs may not be similar.

* Analysis: Here, Jeff subtly changes his adamant "virtually no difference" to a "possibly no difference" and matches Harry's original question. Harry's original wording approximates "jobs are not mutually exclusive"; Jeff's original wording approximates "doesn't mean they do the same." However, Jeff created a metaphor for job roles (engineer/mechanic) when Harry's original question was about job description.

Me: Then what’s the standard tool for psychiatrists?

Jeff: I answered this very clearly already.

Me: Can you explain again?

Jeff: Psychiatrists are MDs, which allows for legal drug dispensing powers; psychotherapists cannot deal drugs.

* Analysis: Jeff's answer now matches Harry’s assumption that primary difference in job description is M.D.'s legal power to write prescriptions. Note, Harry was berated for having poor logic.

Harry: That's exactly what I said. [Seems so]

Jeff: No, you said they’re nearly identical. You are abusing the English language. [Jeff commits fraud while accusing Harry of fraud]

-------

No, Harry. You're not insane. But, I do question your sanity for putting up with this abuse for so long. That seems like masochism.

Here's the problem. Jeff has Nazi logic.

I pointed this out before during the racism debate. He's substantially toned down his rage toward me since then. And it's in my cynical nature to believe that it's because he knows that I can see through him, even if he knows his own in-group members cannot see. But, I could be wrong. Let me digress.

Let's talk a moment about how actual genocides happen. Why do people always take away the wrong moral lessons? Why do we repeat history? Because humans are hardwired into making in-groups and out-groups. This propensity is particularly strong in liberals, but it's not an exclusively liberal failing. It's just human nature. And when thinking about real WWII Nazis, the reaction is always, "OMG, they're evil. Good people could not have done that." But that's fundamental attribution error. What?

Think about it. Do you think that millions of Germans just OK'ed the systematic extermination of Jews because Germans wanted to do evil? No. They wanted to do good. Getting rid of Republicans, I mean Jews, is for the moral good. The Tea Partiers are terrorists with no regard for anyone. They are inhuman. -- And with that? An out-group person is slandered, beaten, abused, ridiculed, but the in-group members turn a blind eye. This happens all the time on this board, particularly with Gang of 12 members. Those not in the Gang of 12 seem far less prone to this behavior.

Why do liberals always fail to grasp the fundamental pre-requisites for Nazism. It's not a coincidence that the long form name for Nazis is the National Socialist Party. These people did not wake up each morning to say, "What evil can I do today?" No, they said, "How many Tea Partiers (Jews) can I kill to make the world a better place?" Evil in such magnitude can only come from an overriding moral purpose; this propensity to do good, no matter the cost.

Right? No? You doubt me?

Then another explanation is that Germans are genetically evil. What? But that's racist! Yes, it is. So, it's okay to engage in racism as long as we're limiting it to Nazis? No, of course not, for fuck's sake.

Then what?

Evil happens whenever an in-group decides that the out-group is evil. Evil is a self fulfilling prophecy. Evil happens when you declare another person is evil. Evil happens when you believe that you're so adamantly right that you need to shut the other person up. It's when you feel that we'd all be better off if we just wiped the "others" out, tuned "them" out, didn't have to listen to them, shut them the fuck up, put them on an ignore list. You ever wonder why so many libertarians are into philosophy? Because if you have basic respect for people as individuals and not groups, it would never get to genocide.

The liberals on this board, in their zeal to protect the abstract, imagined victims of their mind then engage in bullying against the non-abstract and very real "enemies" on this board. Genocide can only happen when the in-group believes in a moral purpose. This purpose has the effect of de-humanizing the out-group. It cannot be done another way.

Am I accusing Jeff of having genocidal ambitions? No. Gang of 12? No. They are not inherently evil. Then again, neither were the actual Nazis of WWII. Nazis were evil precisely because they believed that their purpose was for doing good. Life would be better without those greedy Republicans. Substitute Republicans for Jews. This is Human Failings 101. To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 04:37 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220624)
Why apply free market principles to this issue? Does everything in life reduce to this for you?


Here you're focusing on the subjectivity of psychoanalysis. So, duh?


The dilemma is restricted to limited applications. Your larger point is lost beyond that realm. Depression or schizophrenia are not easily reduced to market calculations. The complexity requires deeper examination. Even if the doctor/patient dynamic is asymmetrical are there any realistic alternatives? Are you in the do nothing camp ... just as you are regarding most government action?

I have nothing but disdain for your reply. You asked me what I meant and I told you.

I said nothing about most of the things you are mentioning. Your stupdiity is incredibly predictable

badhatharry 08-07-2011 04:45 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 220622)
Like any other line of work there are good practioners and bad. Lawyers, remodeling contractors, etc.

Yes, the situation you raise may be fairly common, but I think the wise therapist will establish ground rules at the beginning of treatment to specify that it's possible there will not be a good fit between therapist and patient (and that either may terminate the treatment), how long therapy is expected to last, etc.

I would wager that a bigger problem than mentally/emotionally coerced continuation of therapy is the abandonment of therapy by patients who are reluctant to 'do the work.'

All of what you say could be true. But what I was narrowly responding to was Ocean's assertion that if a person is still being treated, that person is probably satisfied. I just think the psychoanalytic process can't really be described that way, considering the participants and for the reasons I described. This doesn't reflect any opinion I may have about the benefits of mental health practices, only the dilemma it embodies.

Just consider the power of the placebo effect.

badhatharry 08-07-2011 04:46 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220627)
Discussion - Psychiatry vs. Psychoanalysis

OMG!!That was a hell of a lot of work! what a litigator

graz 08-07-2011 04:46 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220627)
Am I accusing Jeff of having genocidal ambitions? No. Gang of 12? No. They are not inherently evil. Then again, neither were the actual Nazis of WWII.

Hey Koch King, does that mean we're gonna get to the part where we can annihilate the most prolific poster (you in the last two months -- sound and fury signifying nothing)?

Is your promise of being too busy to participate regularly coming soon?
Because then we can call off the forum holy-cost!

graz 08-07-2011 04:49 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220628)
I have nothing but disdain for your reply. You asked me what I meant and I told you.

That doesn't make it logical or valuable.
Quote:

I said nothing about most of the things you are mentioning. Your stupdiity is incredibly predictable
They're your words not mine.

Wonderment 08-07-2011 05:01 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 05:06 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 220633)
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

It's not his fault, people can't ever seem to control their crushes. I've tried to tell him I like him as a friend; but... <sigh> I guess these things just need to play themselves out.

Ocean 08-07-2011 05:14 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 220633)
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

In addition to his lack of honesty in representing how this piece of the discussion started: an antagonistic comment from badhat which is unrelated to the main topic of discussion. I tried to clarify that the topic is about the practice of psychiatry (in this thread we are discussing only the medication aspect) and not psychoanalysis. But that wasn't enough. It went off on a tangent from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220555)
This is defintely not true. While people may think that the time spent on the couch is a waste of time and that it's not helping, there is a strange psychology that tells them that their dissatisfaction may be (and probably is) resistance to therapy and that they should stick with it. It's a win-win for the practitioner.


And what's his obsession with the Gang of 12?

Doesn't he notice that some of the members are spam, others have disappeared from the forum, some are lefties while others are on the right? There's no significance to the group in this forum, what's the big deal?

Come on guys, this is a science thread, not a political battlefield.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 05:17 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 220635)
...
And what's his obsession with the Gang of 12?

Doesn't he notice that some of the members are spam, others have disappeared from the forum, some are lefties while others are on the right? There's no significance to the group in this forum, what's the big deal?

...

Not too mention that it's an obvious joke related to something stupid Mickey once said.

Cripes.

sugarkang 08-07-2011 05:25 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 220633)
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

Do you really want to engage in selective reading? I prefaced the Nazi portion with "let me digress." I finished with absolving your Gang of any genocidal tendencies. The in-group and out-group is clear. I did not try and hide any of it in obtuse language.

I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis. I was clear about that. But your group thinks like Nazis, and that's just a basic human failing.

look 08-07-2011 05:28 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 220629)
All of what you say could be true. But what I was narrowly responding to was Ocean's assertion that if a person is still being treated, that person is probably satisfied. I just think the psychoanalytic process can't really be described that way, considering the participants and for the reasons I described. This doesn't reflect any opinion I may have about the benefits of mental health practices, only the dilemma it embodies.

Just consider the power of the placebo effect.

Gotcha. The key word is probably, and it would be hard to measure, and hard rely on the accuracy of any measurement (bias, etc.)

As far as actual psychoanalysis (as opposed to other treatment modalities, such as cognitive therapy), I suppose it may have a higher incidence of abuse related to extended contact over time, trust in the therapist, reluctance to disappoint, etc.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 05:29 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220637)
Do you really want to engage in selective reading? I prefaced the Nazi portion with "let me digress." I finished with absolving your Gang of any genocidal tendencies. The in-group and out-group is clear. I did not try and hide any of it in obtuse language.

I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis. I was clear about that. But your group thinks like Nazis, and that's just a basic human failing.

Hey, we've been absolved of having genocidal tendencies! Yeah!

But we have the basic human failing of thinking like Nazis. Boo!

I think SK needs more irony in his diet.

Wonderment 08-07-2011 05:39 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220637)

I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis.

Contrition acknowledged; apology accepted.

Quote:

But your group thinks like Nazis...
Insult gratuitously repeated; lesson not learned.

sugarkang 08-07-2011 05:41 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220639)
Hey, we've been absolved of having genocidal tendencies! Yeah!

But we have the basic human failing of thinking like Nazis. Boo!

I think SK needs more irony in his diet.

I didn't expect you to take it well. Self-reflection is hard to do. Your rationality is but an illusion. Your irrational emotions are the puppetmasters behind all of your rationality. This is the reason why you can't limit yourself to one donut, no matter how hard you try!

sugarkang 08-07-2011 05:51 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 220642)
Insult gratuitously repeated; lesson not learned.

What was the truncated portion, Wonderment? "It's a basic human failing." Why would you leave that out?

I'm pointing it out as a basic human failing that we all have. We're all capable of being Nazis, because the essence is in-group and out-group identities. You all think of yourselves as wanting to live moral lives and defending the weak. Right? But have you ever thought what it would be like to be in Harry's shoes? Just from the sheer numbers of all of you against her. Forget who's right or who's wrong for just a moment or who threw the first stone. There are just so many of you versus her. Doesn't that give you pause?

The cruelty that you all engage in goes unnoticed amongst you. But I notice it. Almost everyday. And it honestly makes me ashamed to be a liberal. Because then I have to wonder if my real life liberal friends are like this, too. And I really hate having to doubt the integrity of my real life friends.

look 08-07-2011 05:58 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220627)
-------

No, Harry. You're not insane. But, I do question your sanity for putting up with this abuse for so long. That seems like masochism.

Jeff has a history of making statements he tries to back up with confused double-talk. E.G., in the what's wrong with being sexy thread.

As far as your Nazi comparison, I understand your point: Liberals here tend to think they're doing God's Work by attacking conservatives with insults and name-calling. Also, they seem to think that Godwin's Rule is a scientific principle, or something.

Sulla said something yesterday to Jeff:

Quote:

My objections to your statements are a window into my "inadequacy". Just like the politics of critics of the President are windows into their "psychosis". Totalitarians used to do this about fifty years ago, deviancy from political orthodoxy was a sign of mental illness.

When I was younger, I saw this happen in real life. Some men would hit on a woman, and if she rejected him, he would say to his friends that she was a lesbian. After all, what other possible reason could there be for their dialogue not to go his way?
Read the whole exchange between them, if you haven't already. Jeff tries to laugh off things he said earlier, but couldn't or wouldn't defend.

AemJeff 08-07-2011 06:09 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 220649)
Jeff has a history of making statements he tries to back up with confused double-talk. E.G., in the what's wrong with being sexy thread.

As far as your Nazi comparison, I understand your point: Liberals here tend to think they're doing God's Work by attacking conservatives with insults and name-calling. Also, they seem to think that Godwin's Rule is a scientific principle, or something.

Sulla said something yesterday to Jeff:

Read the whole exchange between them, if you haven't already. Jeff tries to laugh off things he said earlier, but couldn't or wouldn't defend.

If I have a problem (and I do!) it has to do with unwillingness to let things go and stop defending what I've said until long after it's become clear that there's neither good faith nor good will to be had from some of my interlocutors. Simply pointing to a conversation and applying an adjective isn't an argument. In fact, have you ever offered a detailed argument, as opposed to catty insinuations and muddled retorts that ignore whichever parts of your interlocutors' arguments you either don't understand or don't find convenient?

graz 08-07-2011 06:58 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220645)
But have you ever thought what it would be like to be in Harry's shoes? Just from the sheer numbers of all of you against her.

Yes I have. That is to say, incessant posting of all and anything to derail, deride and undermine any liberal premise used in furtherance of an argument.

It cuts both ways Koch King. Everyone is aware, if not proud of the terms of engagement. You could remedy it by changing your style as well. But of course you are above reproach, as well as deluded:

Quote:

And it honestly makes me ashamed to be a liberal. Because then I have to wonder if my real life liberal friends are like this, too. And I really hate having to doubt the integrity of my real life friends.
Honestly?

sugarkang 08-07-2011 11:25 PM

Re: Jeff has gone off the deep end
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 220662)
Yes I have. That is to say, incessant posting of all and anything to derail, deride and undermine any liberal premise used in furtherance of an argument.

You're pointing out something we're all guilty of and trying to wield it as a weapon as if you weren't guilty of using the same tactics. Do you think your shit don't stink? People have different conceptions of what is morally right and wrong. You guys are the empathy party, but I see little of it outside of your own group. The GOP is the self-reliance party, so I don't hold them to the empathy standard. That's also my answer to...

Quote:

Honestly?
At Match.com

"Conservatives are far more open to reaching out to someone with a different point of view than a liberal is." That is, when it comes to looking for love, conservatives are more open-minded than liberals."

There are very cynical ways to interpret this -- and I don't think anything definitive can be said with just this vague piece of information -- but to be totally accurate, it does confirm my existing bias about liberals, i.e., their egotistical bias tends to be stronger than those of conservatives.

bjkeefe 08-08-2011 09:30 AM

Re: From Horgan & Johnson
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 220588)
Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

After all the poison spewed by badhat in the Horgan/Johnson thread, not to mention practically every other one she participates in, it is nothing short of amazing that the above is what was seen by the PTB as the starting point of the problem.

Aryeh 08-08-2011 04:07 PM

Re: From Horgan & Johnson
 
As stated previously, the first post to be moved to "the dungeon" is not necessarily the first post that crosses the line. We have to make the slice somewhere, and it's usually not 100% clear-cut.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.