|Stupid pointless flame wars Flame wars from diavlog threads are dumped here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)
All hope abandon, ye who enter in.
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
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.
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.
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Last edited by sugarkang; 08-07-2011 at 04:40 PM..
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|