Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Liberalism a mental disorder, says top psychiatrist

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

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

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Posted by: cammerfe

Well, I can't get the smilies to work. Imagine you got the smiley with thumbs up.
KS

Posted by: MonsterMark

Water is Wet

Posted by: Marcus

"When the modern [right-wing] mind whines about imaginary victims [Christians, the wealthy], rages against imaginary villains [the media, gays, the courts] and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives [the afore-mentioned gays, women seeking an abortion], the neurosis of the [right-wing] mind becomes painfully obvious."

There, I corrected it.

Seriously, are we supposed to take what this crank says as even remotely objective?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

"When the modern [right-wing] mind whines about imaginary victims [Christians, the wealthy], rages against imaginary villains [the media, gays, the courts] and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives [the afore-mentioned gays, women seeking an abortion], the neurosis of the [right-wing] mind becomes painfully obvious."

There, I corrected it.

Seriously, are we supposed to take what this crank says as even remotely objective?

Yes, because he is a highly respected and non-partisan psychiatrist. Or didn't you read the article?

Here, lazy, let me do it for you:

Quote:

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum [like Marcus/TommyB] have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Your "NO U!" response is rather lame.

Posted by: aztecknight

First let me disclose that I am a Liberal.

But, this is as legit as the letter from someone who knows Sarah Palin. Isn't this article from a conservative news site?

Please show me legitimacy. Where are the peer reviews? American Journal of Medicine/Psychology.

The fact that an article from a partisan website states he isn't partisan and highly respected just won't cut it.

http://www.intellectualconservative....tical-madness/

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Yes, because he is a highly respected and non-partisan psychiatrist. Or didn't you read the article?

I highly doubt he is non-partisan I would like to hear his thoughts on the far right.

IMHO anybody who thinks a pipeline is gods will has some issues.

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

Or that war is gods plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

Posted by: fossten

Nice going, fellas, you're using ad hominem attacks. Never mind examining the merits of his argument, let's just try to discredit the man himself.

Laughable, as is the protests coming from the left. As the old saying goes, throw a stick down a dark alley, and the dog that yelps is the one you hit.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

You're off topic.

But I'll correct your falsehoods anyway.

Those clips are edited to smear Palin. You've fallen into the trap the Associated Press set for you.

So let me clear it up.

Yawn: The AP smears Palin over prayer for troops in Iraq

posted at 10:11 pm on September 4, 2008 by Allahpundit

I mentioned this in Tuesday’s convention thread but now that the smear’s broken big it deserves fuller attention. It’s come to this, kids: The Huffington Post, Arianna’s playpen, is actually fairer to Palin than the Associated Press. Watch the clip at the link; the money part runs from about 5:30 to 6:15. HuffPo quotes her, accurately:

Quote:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Here’s what the AP turns it into:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”…

“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

What’s missing from the AP’s version? Right — the beginning of what she said, the part that makes clear she’s not asserting that we’re doing God’s will but simply praying that we are. It’s the difference between me saying “McCain will win” and “I pray McCain will win.” The first is an assertion of fact/secret knowledge, the second is an expression of desire/hope.

The AP actually stoops to picking up the quote mid-sentence to make it better fit the stereotype of the holy-roller yokel claiming divine inspiration for Bush’s Crusade. And the punchline? Just two days before HuffPo’s post, the meme du jour circulating among the nutroots was that Palin is some sort of Iraq war skeptic who thinks we’re fighting to some extent over oil we don’t need given that we’re stocked to the gills with domestic energy in Alaska. “Nonsensical” she called it — and then 48 hours we’re to believe she thinks it’s providentially ordained. Square that circle if you can.

Update: Would you believe the YouTube version of the clip is bowdlerized in precisely the same place? It’s so unlike the left to resort to those tactics.

Can you stay on topic, please, and post about Palin in the Palin threads? Kthxbai...

Posted by: aztecknight

Actually I'm not certain how that saying goes, but close enough I hope

. So here goes:

[edit] Inverse ad hominem
An inverse ad hominem argument praises a person in order to add support for that person's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this:

"That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him"
As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following:

"Ludmila has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth."
Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Ludmila's argument, but her testimony. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her.

Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument.

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic called a fallacy. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.

We can probably do this all day. Though I would argue that my statements were not meant to discredit the man, but rather your argument:

[Qoute]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
"When the modern [right-wing] mind whines about imaginary victims [Christians, the wealthy], rages against imaginary villains [the media, gays, the courts] and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives [the afore-mentioned gays, women seeking an abortion], the neurosis of the [right-wing] mind becomes painfully obvious."

There, I corrected it.

Seriously, are we supposed to take what this crank says as even remotely objective?
Yes, because he is a highly respected and non-partisan psychiatrist. Or didn't you read the article?

[\Qoute]

And as you can tell, I don't know how to quote others post in my own. I'll learn later. As for debating the merits of the argument, did you read the link I posted? Here it is again:

http://www.intellectualconservative....tical-madness/

Posted by: fossten

Yeah, I read your link. Did you read the comments?

As for the rest of your post, it's too difficult to read based on your quote issues. It looks like you attributed a Marcus quote to me.

Posted by: aztecknight

Did read the comments. Nothing of substance. The comments don't debate the merits of the article, rather they make attacks.

As for the quote I attributed to you:

Quote:

September 7th, 2008 09:31 AM
fossten
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
"When the modern [right-wing] mind whines about imaginary victims [Christians, the wealthy], rages against imaginary villains [the media, gays, the courts] and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives [the afore-mentioned gays, women seeking an abortion], the neurosis of the [right-wing] mind becomes painfully obvious."

There, I corrected it.

Seriously, are we supposed to take what this crank says as even remotely objective?

Yes, because he is a highly respected and non-partisan psychiatrist. Or didn't you read the article?

Here, lazy, let me do it for you:

Quote:
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum [like Marcus/TommyB] have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Your "NO U!" response is rather lame.

In this post, Post #5 of this thread, you claim that we should consider this guy as legit because he is highly respected and a non-partisan psychiatrist according to the article.

The article is guilty of the same.