I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

[Rambunctious]

Maybe if a lot of the right wingers on here would start making decent arguments and stop insulting.....

Don't blame us if you don't have the facts on your side....

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

If there was ever a time for a modulator to shut a thread down, this has to be it

 

[Seymour Flops]

If there was ever a time for a modulator to shut a thread down, this has to be it

I disagree.

I think forkup is nearing a breakthrough. The longer pauses between responses indicate that he is using think time, instead of a knee jerk reaction to blurt out, "that's not it!" In my business, that is a huge step on the road to improvement.

At some point, he may well stop responding altogether. That will indicate that he has internalized my advice and may be seeking help. That would be great news for him.

 

[forkup]

Sorry, it took a day. Had absolutely no time yesterday.
I will only respond to this.

The above exchange was exemplary of my experiences with people with mental illness. They make assumptions in their own minds about the meanings of things and then attack those who don't read their minds to know what assumptions they are making. Not as in faking anger or using insults to win an argument, but genuine frustration at someone not "knowing" something they see as an obvious truth.

This is wrong on different levels.
First, it is wrong because you are using fallacies. Plural. The first fallacy is that only one statement was something you had to infer. I STATED that I was 17 you didn't need to do anything but read. So by presenting it as me asking you to make terrible leaps you are presenting a strawman. The second fallacy is that instead of attacking the argument you are attacking me, my mental health no less. Even if me wanting you to present what I said correctly is a mental health issue. You still wouldn't have gotten any closer in proving the premise that I didn't say I was cured or 17 as you stated and I objected to, leading to this problem.

Second, you are wrong on the content. DEMONSTRABLY wrong, yet again.

you've misrepresented me before. I get that happens sometimes when reading someone who might not make his point perfectly clear.

This is me in post 134 acknowledging to possibility of being misunderstood, THE EXACT thing you claim I'm incapable of.

Third and most important. It is wrong a a human level. This is now the second time you tried to use my acknowledgment that I had mental health issues in the past against me. I let it slide the first time, because I acknowledged that the moment I inserted myself into the conversation I took that chance, although you posed the question of mental health, I was dumb enough to think you would treat my answer with respect. So I let it go as low a blow as it was. I will not let it stand now. Not only did I take myself out of the discussion the very next post. But you are trying to use it as a weapon to try to put me on the defensive. Something that's wrong as a human and damn near unforgivable as a mental health professional. Which you claim to be, and you gave me reason to doubt.

I'll be damned if I will stand for a guy on the internet doing some 2-bit psychoanalysis based on a wrong premise if he can't even pay close enough attention to what I write to not make demonstrably wrong claims about me. Especially not if it's done so he doesn't have to say that he was wrong about something inconsequential. Something you could have done at any time without losing any respect in my eyes. In fact you would have gained it.

So this is what I'll do. Either you show enough introspection to acknowledge and take responsibilty for what you just did. Something I have no high hopes for. Or you don't. Only one of those things will lead to me continuing this conversation, in which I will gladly try to counter every good argument you think you have.

 

[forkup]

If there was ever a time for a modulator to shut a thread down, this has to be it

I don't think so. Let him show his ass some more.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry, it took a day. Had absolutely no time yesterday.
I will only respond to this.


This is wrong on different levels.
First, it is wrong because you are using fallacies. Plural. The first fallacy is that only one statement was something you had to infer. I STATED that I was 17 you didn't need to do anything but read. So by presenting it as me asking you to make terrible leaps you are presenting a strawman. The second fallacy is that instead of attacking the argument you are attacking me, my mental health no less. Even if me wanting you to present what I said correctly is a mental health issue. You still wouldn't have gotten any closer in proving the premise that I didn't say I was cured or 17 as you stated and I objected to, leading to this problem.

Second, you are wrong on the content. DEMONSTRABLY wrong, yet again.

This is me in post 134 acknowledging to possibility of being misunderstood, THE EXACT thing you claim I'm incapable of.

Third and most important. It is wrong a a human level. This is now the second time you tried to use my acknowledgment that I had mental health issues in the past against me. I let it slide the first time, because I acknowledged that the moment I inserted myself into the conversation I took that chance, although you posed the question of mental health, I was dumb enough to think you would treat my answer with respect. So I let it go as low a blow as it was. I will not let it stand now. Not only did I take myself out of the discussion the very next post. But you are trying to use it as a weapon to try to put me on the defensive. Something that's wrong as a human and damn near unforgivable as a mental health professional. Which you claim to be, and you gave me reason to doubt.

I'll be damned if I will stand for a guy on the internet doing some 2-bit psychoanalysis based on a wrong premise if he can't even pay close enough attention to what I write to not make demonstrably wrong claims about me. Especially not if it's done so he doesn't have to say that he was wrong about something inconsequential. Something you could have done at any time without losing any respect in my eyes. In fact you would have gained it.

I'm not a psychologist, or any mental health professional, and never claimed to be. I am a campus behavior teacher who works with psychologists and counselors, who advise me. I also took the time to study psychology at the master's level, which is as high as many of the school psychologists I work with have gone.

You say you had the mental illness of depression and are now cured. But then you describe deep feelings of sadness that were alleviated with time. That is not the mental illness of depression, that is the normal grieving process. If yours took longer due to your age, and to your closeness to the person you grieved for, that is very normal also.

Most of the psychologists with whom I work are dedicated professionals. But the field does have more than its fair share of charlatans. If you had a psychologist or counselor who told you that you had depression and then that you were cured, you have unfortunately met one.

So this is what I'll do. Either you show enough introspection to acknowledge and take responsibilty for what you just did. Something I have no high hopes for. Or you don't. Only one of those things will lead to me continuing this conversation, in which I will gladly try to counter every good argument you think you have.

It is more than ironic that you are suggesting that you will punish me by ending this conversation, when I have as much as recommended that you either end it yourself, or get it back on the topic of aborting humans. You realize that since you made the thread about you, you have barely acknowledged my comments about that, and when you have, your answers have been non-responsive?

The abortion issue was what I'm interested in, when I asked what you would say to Shelley Thornton, AKA Baby Roe. Instead, you began a rather disjointed narrative of your life story. I warned you more than once before giving you my honest take on your story, that you would not like what I had to say. You insisted that you would welcome it.

My advice - again - is that you abandon this thread. I did like the way you were debating before you inserted your own story to make a purported point about abortion. So, if I see you on another thread, and I disagree with what you say, I may offer a counter.

I will bring up your personal story on no other thread but this one, unless you do.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ego-Pumping by Pathetic Losers

Libretardians take "the virtue of selfishness" to the point of treason. And if they ever took over, they would establish a police state, "to protect rugged individualists from mob rule."

Exactly right. They think the militia and police are for shooting down uppity proles who refuse to starve to death quietly when there is no current employment for them; that's what open borders are for, replacing those workers too stupid to steal and then died.

 

[DudleySmith]

An unborn baby is absolutely a human and a separate human from its mother and father. Do you doubt the science of DNA? An unborn baby has unique DNA, and it is the one and only human with that DNA, unless he or she happens to have an identical twin in the womb with it.

Thank you.

If we used the definition preferred by 'rationalists', abortions could be 'rationalized' for year after birth as 'not viable life'.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

These assclowns originally suggested abortions up to the age of two as 'consistent with the science'.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thank you.

If we used the definition preferred by 'rationalists', abortions could be 'rationalized' for year after birth as 'not viable life'.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

These assclowns originally suggested abortions up to the age of two as 'consistent with the science'.

Exactly right. By their "viability" logic, a baby can be aborted until it is old enough to fend for itself.

 

[Friends]

Liberals used to value free discussion. Now they frequently try, and too often succeed, in suppressing the discussion of the connection between genes, intelligence, crime and race. Restrictions on what is called "hate speech" are used to suppress the assertions of men like Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton. Liberals complain about banned books. Most would try to fire a high school teacher who assigned his class to read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior."

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

This would even be true if the teacher took no stand on the issue, and encouraged his students to agree or disagree with it.

During the school year of 1966 - 67 I had a high school teacher who encouraged his students to debate the War in Vietnam, but he never told us what he thought about the war himself. He was the most memorable teacher I had in K-12, and he was more memorable than most of the professors I had in college.

 

[MarathonMike]

Liberals used to value free discussion. Now they frequently try, and too often succeed, in suppressing the discussion of the connection between genes, intelligence, crime and race. Restrictions on what is called "hate speech" are used to suppress the assertions of men like Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton. Liberals complain about banned books. Most would try to fire a high school teacher who assigned his class to read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior."

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

This would even be true if the teacher took no stand on the issue, and encouraged his students to agree or disagree with it.

During the school year of 1966 - 67 I had a high school teacher who encouraged his students to debate the War in Vietnam, but he never told us what he thought about the war himself. He was the most memorable teacher I had in K-12, and he was more memorable than most of the professors I had in college.

Good post! I recall some of the most interesting discussions I ever participated in was in Community College in the late 70s also discussing the Viet Nam war. What really made it interesting was we had both Nam Vets and anti-War types and neutrals like me in the class The philosophy professor just moderated and took no side either way. The discourse never got out of hand and was absolutely fascinating. I wish we had recorded them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Liberals used to value free discussion. Now they frequently try, and too often succeed, in suppressing the discussion of the connection between genes, intelligence, crime and race. Restrictions on what is called "hate speech" are used to suppress the assertions of men like Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton. Liberals complain about banned books. Most would try to fire a high school teacher who assigned his class to read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior."

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

This would even be true if the teacher took no stand on the issue, and encouraged his students to agree or disagree with it.

During the school year of 1966 - 67 I had a high school teacher who encouraged his students to debate the War in Vietnam, but he never told us what he thought about the war himself. He was the most memorable teacher I had in K-12, and he was more memorable than most of the professors I had in college.

I always make the distinction between liberal and leftist, myself. Liberals are those with egalitarian views of the world and who take principled positions that derive from egalitarianism.Free speech is one of those principles that flows naturally from such egalitarianism.

Leftists, today, are among the least liberal portion of the population. They are elitist rather than egalitarian, seek to minimize individual liberty rather than expand it and are extremely intolerant of any views orher than their own - so much so that they try to absolutely ruin those who think for themselves or ever question the leftist orthodoxy.

IMO - continuing to call these people liberal only clouds the discussion as it fails to address what they really are.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I always make the distinction between liberal and leftist, myself. Liberals are those with egalitarian views of the world and who take principled positions that derive from egalitarianism.Free speech is one of those principles that flows naturally from such egalitarianism.

Leftists, today, are among the least liberal portion of the population. They are elitist rather than egalitarian, seek to minimize individual liberty rather than expand it and are extremely intolerant of any views orher than their own - so much so that they try to absolutely ruin those who think for themselves or ever question the leftist orthodoxy.

IMO - continuing to call these people liberal only clouds the discussion as it fails to address what they really are.

/——-/ We have the same problem distinguishing Conservative from Republican.

 

[Friends]

I always make the distinction between liberal and leftist, myself. Liberals are those with egalitarian views of the world and who take principled positions that derive from egalitarianism.Free speech is one of those principles that flows naturally from such egalitarianism.

Leftists, today, are among the least liberal portion of the population. They are elitist rather than egalitarian, seek to minimize individual liberty rather than expand it and are extremely intolerant of any views orher than their own - so much so that they try to absolutely ruin those who think for themselves or ever question the leftist orthodoxy.

IMO - continuing to call these people liberal only clouds the discussion as it fails to address what they really are.

I think of myself as a New Deal Democrat. Over the years I have almost become a Southern Democrat of the old school. With the exception of Medicare and environmental protection, I regret directions the Democrat Party has moved in since the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963.

I think the civil rights legislation, the War on Poverty, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 were well intended mistakes that have increased rates of crime and illegitimacy, and contributed - caused, really - the political polarization that has made it difficult for the government to address problems that would have been manipulable before 1964.

I believe that it would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation. I would like to weaken it as much as possible.

 

[Friends]

I think of myself as a New Deal Democrat. Over the years I have almost become a Southern Democrat of the old school. With the exception of Medicare and environmental protection, I regret directions the Democrat Party has moved in since the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963.

I think the civil rights legislation, the War on Poverty, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 were well intended mistakes that have increased rates of crime and illegitimacy, and contributed - caused, really - the political polarization that has made it difficult for the government to address problems that would have been manipulable before 1964.

I believe that it would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation. I would like to weaken it as much as possible.

"Manipulable" should be "manageable."

A country with a large black population faces an unpleasant moral dilemma. If it denies blacks equal rights it will deny them to the minority of blacks who behave and perform as well as most whites. If it gives blacks equal rights it will suffer the social problems we have suffered, beginning in 1964.

At the very least we should have a candid discussion of these social problems. For too long there have been too many taboos and sanctions against criticizing Negroes.

Recently I read an article in Scientific American about The Bell Curve. The author agreed with the factual assertions made in The Bell Curve. He said that the book is still evil, because it can be used to harm blacks. I would say rather that ignoring the assertions of The Bell Curve has harmed whites.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Manipulable" should be "manageable."

A country with a large black population faces an unpleasant moral dilemma. If it denies blacks equal rights it will deny them to the minority of blacks who behave and perform as well as most whites. If it gives blacks equal rights it will suffer the social problems we have suffered, beginning in 1964.

At the very least we should have a candid discussion of these social problems. For too long there have been too many taboos and sanctions against criticizing Negroes.

Recently I read an article in Scientific American about The Bell Curve. The author agreed with the factual assertions made in The Bell Curve. He said that the book is still evil, because it can be used to harm blacks. I would say rather that ignoring the assertions of The Bell Curve has harmed whites.

Your use of that term illustrates your deep-seated racism!

 

[Friends]

Your use of that term illustrates your deep-seated racism!

What have I ever said about Negroes that is not true? Post it. Let's discuss it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What have I ever said about Negroes that is not true? Post it. Let's discuss it.

Who uses the term "Negroes"?

Racist bastards!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Who uses the term "Negroes"?

Racist bastards!

Need I remind you that the proper term is now "progeny of birthing persons produced outside traditional patriarchal bonding rituals?

 

[Friends]

Who uses the term "Negroes"?

Racist bastards!

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the word "Negro" fifteen times in his "I have a dream" speech,