Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill

[Diuretic]

Fair enough, but liberalism = socialism = cradle to grave steady hand of government taking care of its constituents. Conservatives strive for just the opposite. I don't see how you could argue that conservatives "can't tolerate ambiguity", at least when it comes to economics.

I'll go with the economics one first. And I have to make the point that all this is extreme generalisation but that's in keeping with the topic so I'm not at all embarrassed about it.

I read a lot about "risk-taking" in those economies with at least some aspects of the free market in them. That's fine but risk-taking doesn't equate with recklessness, I think the risks are analysed, considered and treated in line with the ordinary risk-management process. Now let me bring ambiguity and uncertainty into it. I don't see too much tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in the economic process as described above. I do see a lot of prediction though - market analysis and the rest of it.

Socialism cradle to grave. I see it as a sort of safety net, not a smothering blanket. I do think the basics for human existence should be available to people regardless of income. I'm not talking about luxury here, just the basics. So if those basics are guaranteed for the individual from cradle to grave then I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with policy built on envy and I'm not okay with policy that restricts an individual's rights, based on their abilities, to improve their material lot. If someone wants to go through life with the basics because they're not able or too lazy to improve their situation then they can do so. I think a society should give everyone the chance - through free education for example - to achieve their own potential but society can't do anything about the character flaws that keep some people from doing so.

 

[glockmail]

I'll go with the economics one first. And I have to make the point that all this is extreme generalisation but that's in keeping with the topic so I'm not at all embarrassed about it.

I read a lot about "risk-taking" in those economies with at least some aspects of the free market in them. That's fine but risk-taking doesn't equate with recklessness, I think the risks are analysed, considered and treated in line with the ordinary risk-management process. Now let me bring ambiguity and uncertainty into it. I don't see too much tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in the economic process as described above. I do see a lot of prediction though - market analysis and the rest of it.

Socialism cradle to grave. I see it as a sort of safety net, not a smothering blanket. I do think the basics for human existence should be available to people regardless of income. I'm not talking about luxury here, just the basics. So if those basics are guaranteed for the individual from cradle to grave then I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with policy built on envy and I'm not okay with policy that restricts an individual's rights, based on their abilities, to improve their material lot. If someone wants to go through life with the basics because they're not able or too lazy to improve their situation then they can do so. I think a society should give everyone the chance - through free education for example - to achieve their own potential but society can't do anything about the character flaws that keep some people from doing so.

There you go right there. When you supply not simply a safety net but a security blanket, a much larger portion of society will do just as you described. These liberals are content to simply exist and suck off the teet of society.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want the safety net set so that it truly sucks to be there. This ambiguity encourages those on the lowest rung to better themselves, and most, of course, do. Some in fact become wildly successful.

 

[Diuretic]

There you go right there. When you supply not simply a safety net but a security blanket, a much larger portion of society will do just as you described. These liberals are content to simply exist and suck off the teet of society.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want the safety net set so that it truly sucks to be there. This ambiguity encourages those on the lowest rung to better themselves, and most, of course, do. Some in fact become wildly successful.

This is much better than that crap Rossiter was peddling.

Now, where was I? Oh yes - I'm not in favour of a stifling security blanket. Yet nor am I in favour of a safety net that's stretched above a bed of nails. I have a reason for that. If the safety net was so low that it was untenable then I think a lot of people would say, "fuck this, I'm going to be a criminal, it pays better."

 

[glockmail]

This is much better than that crap Rossiter was peddling.

Now, where was I? Oh yes - I'm not in favour of a stifling security blanket. Yet nor am I in favour of a safety net that's stretched above a bed of nails. I have a reason for that. If the safety net was so low that it was untenable then I think a lot of people would say, "fuck this, I'm going to be a criminal, it pays better."

Being a criminal will always pay better. With your rationale, we should pay them all to drive Escalades.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dr. Lyle Rossiter is the hack, folks.

A professional psychiatrist doesn't proclaim an entire group of people she's never met mentally ill based on some vague notion about what she assumes they might believe.

Yet some did EXACTLY that to Conservatives and you did not mind one bit. Go Figure.

 

[Diuretic]

Being a criminal will always pay better. With your rationale, we should pay them all to drive Escalades.

I think you missed my point.

 

[Diuretic]

Yet some did EXACTLY that to Conservatives and you did not mind one bit. Go Figure.

That's because the analysis was correct

 

[Cecilie1200]

WND - may as well be from Huffington post or the National Enquirer or Focus on the Family's Citizen link. All are pretty worthless.

So you're saying . . . what, exactly? WND is lying about him writing the book? They're lying about what he said in the book? In what way, exactly, does WHO is reporting on the story automatically invalidate the story here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yet he didn't advance a medically recognized diagnosis?

Interesting.

One "advances a medically recognized diagnosis" when one is talking about one specific patient. It's a bit different when what one is discussing is a mindset generalized over a group of people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is a funny sort of irony and paradox in a psychiatrist whose life is premised on the idea that people need help coming up with a theory that helping people is a mental illness. One wonders if he sits on couch and talks to himself often.

Seems to me he's advancing the theory that HARMING people while thinking you're helping them is a mental illness. Perhaps you should stop assuming that everyone agrees with you that liberalism is good and helpful behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bzzzzzzzzzz... wrong answer RGS. The Court said it's legal and Constitutional.

Let me know when you have a new decision that says otherwise and we'll talk.

Yes, and it's COMPLETELY sane to assume that a bunch of lawyers in black robes, usurping powers not actually assigned to them by any written law, are the REAL authority on what's Constitutional, instead of the actual words of the Constitution itself. And it's completely sane for you to trust what they TELL you the words mean more than you trust your own ability to read and comprehend English . . . Oh, wait. I forgot who I was talking to. I wouldn't trust your reading comprehension, either. Never mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dr. Lyle Rossiter is the hack, folks.

A professional psychiatrist doesn't proclaim an entire group of people she's never met mentally ill based on some vague notion about what she assumes they might believe.

While I would have to bow to your superior firsthand experience of psychiatrists, I am sure, you're mistaken about whether or not professional psychiatrists can and do offer opinions on whether certain group mindsets are mentally ill. Also, it is disingenuous in the extreme for you to say that Dr. Rossiter is diagnosing specific people, because we both know he isn't.

On the other hand, I have to wonder about anyone who thinks the name "Lyle" is female.

 

[editec]

One "advances a medically recognized diagnosis" when one is talking about one specific patient. It's a bit different when what one is discussing is a mindset generalized over a group of people.

Damned right it is.

One event is a recognized medical diagnosis and the other is just so much political claptrap.

To attempt to turn this sows ear into a silk purse by noting that a psychiatrist is saying it is just so much political theater.

IF this psychiatrist tried to pass that off as a medical diagnosis before a board of psychitrists that pop-pyschiatry would be a quick path to losing her board medical certification as a psychiatrist.

 

[glockmail]

I think you missed my point.

I don't see how. We both want a safety net. I want it to real low so that people strive to get out. You appear to want it to be a comfy couch so that someone wouldn't be inclined to leave, otherwise 'they'd just go out and steal something'.

I'm trying to figure out your position on this.

 

[chloe]

I always think of Psychiatrists as mentally ill for some reason

 

[editec]

I always think of Psychiatrists as mentally ill for some reason

Astute observation, perhaps?

A firm grasp of the glaringly obvious?

I know psychiatrist who isn't entirely insane.

She's given up the profession and is raising Llamas.

Apparently my particular brand of crazy was the straw that broke her ruminant's back.

She has yet to thank me, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Damned right it is.

One event is a recognized medical diagnosis and the other is just so much political claptrap.

Wrong. Things like "mob mentality" are completely legitimate, recognized psychiatric phenomena, easily recognized and diagnosed without speaking to any of the members of the mob personally. For that matter, the science of criminal profiling is more direct and individual and doesn't require any personal contact with the person being diagnosed, either. There's more to legitimate psychiatry than simply listening to some guy on a couch whining about his potty-training.

To attempt to turn this sows ear into a silk purse by noting that a psychiatrist is saying it is just so much political theater.

To attempt to discredit it without ever addressing any of the points raised is just so much diversion and avoidance. Methinks you simply can't refute him.

IF this psychiatrist tried to pass that off as a medical diagnosis before a board of psychitrists that pop-pyschiatry would be a quick path to losing her board medical certification as a psychiatrist.

As I said, I'm sure you have more firsthand experience with psychiatry than I ever will. But I really have my doubts that you know jack about actually BEING one.

 

[chloe]

ha ha cecilie your funny

 

[editec]

Wrong. Things like "mob mentality" are completely legitimate, recognized psychiatric phenomena, easily recognized and diagnosed without speaking to any of the members of the mob personally.

I looked and looked but I cannot find any social psychiatritrists in the book.

Social psychology is a field I'm familiar with but social psychiatry?

Sorry hon, you lose.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't see how. We both want a safety net. I want it to real low so that people strive to get out. You appear to want it to be a comfy couch so that someone wouldn't be inclined to leave, otherwise 'they'd just go out and steal something'.

I'm trying to figure out your position on this.

Okay.

I want a safety net. I don't want a big blanket. I want a safety net that sits alongside policies that encourage and facilitate people doing better for themselves. I don't want that safety net to be so comfortable that people get complacent but - and this is the important part - nor do I want it so tough that people would turn to crime to meet their material needs. Now I know crooks are crooks, I've dealt with enough over the years to know that some people are just shitbags through to the core, I'm not referring to them. I think there's a point at which, if the safety net is so tough, that some people will think "fuck it, may as well turn to crime". Finding that point is difficult but not impossible.

I think it's important not to breed complacency, a sort of welfare mentality, that's not good policy. So, I emphasise, along with the safety net there should be some programmes which encourage people to get out of the safety net and start developing themselves so they don't have to rely on it. I admit there will be those who are quite happy to live in the safety net, but then those people are probably beyond help anyway. I've seen families that had three generations of bludgers and you just know the fourth generation is growing up the same way. I have no idea what to do about them.