START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Half the Republicans You Know Are Insane -- William Rivers Pitt


Society & Culture  (tags: activists, americans, culture, dishonesty, education, ethics, freedoms, government, law, media, politics, religion, rights, safety, society, women )

Kit
- 301 days ago - truth-out.org
In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (277)
Thursday October 3, 2013, 8:35 pm
Photo Credit: Facebook



If I may, I would like to go over some figures with you regarding the current situation in America. I know numbers are boring and often perplexing in the main - I was an English Major, so if you put a pistol to my head and demanded I do long division, the pistol would have a better chance of coming up with the right answer before you painted the wall with my literature degree - but these numbers, I think, speak volumes, and have an unfortunately dramatic bearing on the state of modern American politics.

Public Policy Polling did a survey on the preponderance of belief in conspiracy theories among American voters, and the results are telling. For example, a question was posed about whether the respondents believe the Obama administration is coming to take their guns away, and 62% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means three of them believe this, and a fourth has doubts. This, despite the fact that no gun legislation of any impact whatsoever has shadowed the president's desk since he took office.

When asked if they believe that Mr. Obama is secretly plotting to remain in office when his term expires, 44% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means two of them believe this, and a third is halfway convinced. This, despite any supporting evidence whatsoever, and the fact that the man will be arrested and detained if he tries to enter the White House again after the inauguration in January of 2017.

When asked if Muslims are working to implement Sharia Law in America - the harshly medieval seventh-century Islamic code best represented by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahabists in the ranks of al Qaeda and (shhhh) a significant portion of the rebels in Syria - 44% of Republicans said it was true. If you know five Republicans, once again, two of them believe this, and a third is halfway convinced. Um...how? Where? In what way? Because women can now get free contraception and gay people have the same rights as you do? You think the Taliban is down with that?

Is the US government secretly staging "false flag" mass shootings all across the country in order to blame others and distract the country from their gun-grabbing, office-staying, Sharia-implementing ways? A full 26% of Republicans believe this, so if you know five of them, one is convinced of this, and another is well on his way. I'm sure all the left-leaning folks who believe that 9/11 was a Cheney-orchestrated "inside job" are thrilled to know their gospel has been co-opted by people who think 26 children were massacred in Connecticut so Mr. Obama could give everyone's guns to the Syrians, because that makes sense, too, apparently. Or something.

In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to. That's not a majority, but it is pretty much half the crowd, and is a definite majority every time the crazy two convince the third to go their way, you know, just in case.

The thing is, those two-and-a-half Republicans you know are energetic voters, and they throw enormous weight in American politics. Thanks to the Republican gerrymandering process of 2010 and the berserk anti-information "news" bubble dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, WorldNetDaily and the ceaseless gibberish machine that is Fox News, Republicans in general who even occasionally look to these outlets for information have been in an enforced state of flat-out derangement for years and years and years. The ones who go to the "liberal" news media for "information" are in a slightly leavened version of the same state, but vote Republican anyway out of habit and allegiance.

Why do these people swing so much weight in American politics? That's easy: maybe 55% of the voters in America turn out for presidential elections, and maybe 30% turn out for the midterm elections, y'know, the incredibly important elections where a third of the Senate and all 435 seats in the House are up for a vote. That means, come November of 2014, less than a third of the country will choose all 435 members of the House, and a sizeable percentage of those voters are flat-out loons in gerrymandered districts where their impact on Congress is amplified by orders of magnitude.

Make no mistake about it: these people will vote in 2014, because they always vote. If it is raining live, ravening, man-eating jaguars outside, they turn out with strong umbrellas and cast their ballots for the pro-gun anti-Sharia Jesus-and-fetuses candidate. Because guns, and Sharia, and they believe everything they've heard and read from their beloved bedlam news sources.

Why is the government shut down? Because a lot of people don't vote, but these people did in 2010, like they always do, and the crazy will elect the crazy every single time and twice on Sunday, amen.

That's why the government is shut down, and a disastrous default looms, in case you were wondering.
****

By: William Rivers Pitt | Op Ed | Truthout |

 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 3, 2013, 8:51 pm
Definition of insanity (n)

Bing Dictionary
in·san·i·ty
[ in sánnətee ]

lack of reason or good sense: extreme foolishness, or an act that demonstrates such foolishness
psychiatric condition affecting legal circumstances: legal incompetence or irresponsibility that results from a psychiatric disorder

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Insanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Insanity (disambiguation).
"Crazy" and "Insane" redirect here. For other uses, see Crazy (disambiguation) and Insane (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
Engraving of the eighth print of William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress depicting Inmates at Bedlam Asylum

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.[2]

In English, the word "sane" derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning "healthy". The phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" is often translated to mean a "healthy mind in a healthy body". From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning. Another Latin phrase related to our current concept of sanity is "compos mentis" (lit. "of composed mind"), and a euphemistic term for insanity is "non compos mentis". In law, mens rea means having had criminal intent, or a guilty mind, when the act (actus reus) was committed.

A more informal use of the term insanity is to denote something considered highly unique, passionate or extreme, including in a positive sense. A notable example has been the use of the phrase 'insanely great' in the launch of the Apple Macintosh, subsequently also used to describe one of its developers.[3][4] The term may also be used as an attempt to discredit or criticise particular ideas, beliefs, principals, desires, personal feelings, attitudes, or their proponents, such as in politics and religion.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity
in·san·i·ty
noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\

: severe mental illness : the condition of being insane

: something that is very foolish or unreasonable
plural in·san·i·ties
Full Definition of INSANITY
1
: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2
: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3
a : extreme folly or unreasonableness
b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
See insanity defined for English-language learners »
See insanity defined for kids »
Examples of INSANITY

She was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
His friends thought his decision to quit his job was pure insanity.
Please, no more violence. It's time to stop this insanity.
the insanities of modern life

First Known Use of INSANITY
1590


World English Dictionary
insanity (ɪnˈsænɪtɪ)

— n , pl -ties
1. relatively permanent disorder of the mind; state or condition of being insane
2. law a defect of reason as a result of mental illness, such that a defendant does not know what he or she is doing or that it is wrong
3. utter folly; stupidity

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

---------------------
Research showing why his use of the term fits.
 

Esther Z. (101)
Thursday October 3, 2013, 9:24 pm
Insane and right down cruel!
 

Abdessalam Diab (153)
Friday October 4, 2013, 6:24 am
" The crazy will elect the crazy every single time and twice on Sunday, amen."
These few words say it all. Thanks Kit for this post.
 

Ben Oscarsito (355)
Friday October 4, 2013, 8:06 am
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
(Albert Einstein)

 

Franck R. (51)
Friday October 4, 2013, 3:57 pm
Thanks for the post
 

Micheael Kirkbym (83)
Friday October 4, 2013, 3:58 pm
Wouldn't surprise me.
 

Terrie Williams (763)
Friday October 4, 2013, 4:28 pm
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup! That's my crazy-a$$ed neighbors, townsfolk and statesmen......they all fit the definitions. Soooooooooooooooooo, what is a half-way sane person to dew........MOVE. Tryin' to get that wish checked off my bucket list...except my loan is in a holding pattern and circling the House of Congress......Bastages.
 

Ros G. (88)
Friday October 4, 2013, 4:31 pm
Thanks Kit, Thanks JL A or maybe there is a huge out-break of Syphilis among those believers. LOL
 

Bill C. (354)
Friday October 4, 2013, 4:46 pm
Crazy people have enough stigma without making them republicans
 

Yvonne White (231)
Friday October 4, 2013, 6:36 pm
RepubliCONs have NO Idea that THEY are the ones trying to pass Sharia Laws! But most insane people don't believe THEY are the nut-puppies, it's always the other guy..;) I know, my voices told me so!
 

GGmaSheila D. (134)
Friday October 4, 2013, 9:01 pm
WRP forgot the third Biggie out there these rabid voters are against - LGBT anything. There seems to be a belief that Obama is waiting for the"Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Homosexual Classroom Act" to cross his desk, as soon as the Democrats can get them passed.

Yes, my dear sweet, mother, the second out of five of those rabid GOP voers out there, truly believes that "the homosexuals and perverts want to take over our children's education..." She doesn't care whether there are guns in classrooms, and nuts may get a hold of those guns, or the teachers are the nuts with the guns.

Then there's the prayer meetings of honest, law-abiding Christians, that have been raided because the Aethists want to get rid of Christianity, especially any belief in a God...this from a woman who only went to church for weddings, funerals, and my confirmation while I was growing up. She didn't seem to get religion until she moved to TN - Bible Belt Central. Now she's outraged that Creationism isn't taught to children and the Aethists ar taking over our Military...Hypocrisy, in my family. I get to talk, rather listen, to her Saturday...
 

Betsy Bee (1045)
Friday October 4, 2013, 9:48 pm
Sort. of true.....I am TOO SANE to know any Republicans personally. Not too many of those types of persons hang around the hallowed Bluest of Blue states, Vermont.
 

Dimitris Dallis (2)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 1:21 am
Most of the politicians we know are insane :) All around the world...
 

. (0)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 7:14 am
They sure are. Thanks for sharing, Kit.
 

Tom Tree (255)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 7:21 am
ABSOLUTELY
 

Winn Adams (190)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 12:39 pm
Please, this is absolutely NO surprise to ANYONE.
 

Kathleen R. (138)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 12:58 pm
Thanks Kit .... great article.
 

Robert O. (12)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 1:07 pm
Half of them are insane and the other half are without realizing it. Thanks Kit.
 

Angelika R. (146)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 2:00 pm
Great words of truth-probably one of his best pieces there! Thx Kit!
 

Birgit W. (140)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 2:12 pm
Most politicians are on an ego overdrive (Or you might call it insane). They only know one right which is theirs.
 

marie tc (166)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 4:17 pm
Thanks Kit
 

Nelson Baker (0)
Saturday October 5, 2013, 4:43 pm
Only half?
 

Terrie Williams (763)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 3:14 am
Lucky you, Betsy!
 

Shanti S. (0)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 7:24 am
Thank you.
 

ewoud k. (73)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 8:44 am
Insane, but smart enough to convince voters that they're sane.

What's more, extremists are more likely to go voting than more moderate citizens.

Combine these two lines, and you get a lot of non-moderate reps elected........

Thanks for posting Kit!
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 8:45 am
The conspiracy-theories mentioned are not as crazy as they sound.

After Obama's Fast & Furious fiasco, reported in Republican-affiliated media and mostly ignored by liberals, the "False flag" thing us still pretty nuts, bit more believable as the Obama administration did take a supporting role in it. It sounds even more in line with crazy Republican conspiracy theories after the murder of border-guards, using guns which the administration had ordered be supplied to Mexican rebels without the tracking that had accompanied previous similar operation were abused as a means to promote gun-control.. Then there are the nearly endless problems with the ATF that would be pretty much unknown to anybody who does not deal with guns. An executive-branch agency really could pull all sorts of horrible stuff even without the administration's orders. IT comes down mostly to a question of who reads what news.

As for Muslims and Sharia, in general they do not want it in the U.S. However, there are some organizations actively working to promote it. Strictly speaking, Muslims do want Sharia in the U.S., just not all Muslims want it, or even a majority. However, using the Common Law tradition of using agreed traditional rules to arbitrate disputes and enforce such arbitration through law, there is actually a system built into the U.S. justice-system by which it can be hijacked in precisely the way described in the question. In some immigrant communities, women are traditionally subservient or illiterate, and have been effectively coerced into following traditional law (agreeing to arbitration by it for legal purposes).

Then are the rest of the results of the study behind the article:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_1002.pdf
 

Kit B. (277)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 9:02 am

And that malarkey relates to the topic of this thread in what way? A real conspiracy will not be known about until years after the fact, if at all -- ergo - conspiracy.
 

Kathleen R. (203)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:16 am
Only half. I think that is to conservative, no pun intended! lol.
 

David Menard (43)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 1:39 pm
Try 99.99% Actually
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 2:49 pm
Hi Kit :)

The problem is that a lot of these things aren't so much conspiracies as combinations of very public acts and statements. They're not theorizing the existence of some secret conspiracy by a small and powerful cabal so much as perceiving the existence of popular movements with the objectives described in the questions on the questionnaire..

Here's an example: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/cair-member-sues-oklahoma-over-sharia-ban
followed by http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/justice/oklahoma-sharia/index.html

There is nothing secretive about it. There was a public initiative by at least one highly politically active Islamic group to support the use of Sharia rather than standard local law in this case, and people appropriately know about it. The question is whether CAIR there promoted the use of Sharia as a way of respecting the family's wishes, or as part of a larger campaign to promote its use in the place of local law wherever possible. The "conspiracy theory" in this case is a matter of perceiving a pattern wherein such initiatives are promoted as often as possible and the question is not even whether they happen, but whether the events suggest such a pattern. It is not crazy to think that they do.

Also, many conspiracies have failed due to discovery, or even carried on despite discovery. That does not make them any less conspiracies.
 

Barbara K. (87)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:15 pm
I know several and they are not only insane, they are crazy and mean bullies. They care hot a crap about the people they should be serving. They are in it for their own gain, and what they can bleed out of the government, and absolutely nothing else. They have done nothing to help us, only to hurt us every way they can. It is a shame that their voters haven't caught on to who it is they are voting for and what they will do to the voters, not for the voters.The maddening part is that we are also stuck with the idiots that other idiots send to congress.
 

JL A. (272)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:15 pm
Definition of conspiracy (n)

Bing Dictionary
con·spir·a·cy
[ kən spírrəssee ]

plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act
making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act
group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act

----------------
It is not a conspiracy if it isn't illegal--fast and furious was not illegal thus not a conspiracy. Apply the basic rules of logic to all the others (e.g., Sharia law, etc.) and most also will not deserve the term because they do not meet the definition.
 

JL A. (272)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 5:18 pm
From Merriam Webster:
conspiracy theory
noun

: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups
Full Definition of CONSPIRACY THEORY
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

 

Twyla Sparks (208)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 6:09 pm
Thanks so much
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:22 pm
"In short, and not to put too fine a point on it: if you know five Republicans, two of them are around-the-bend crazy, and a third needs a stern talking-to. That's not a majority, but it is pretty much half the crowd, and is a definite majority every time the crazy two convince the third to go their way, you know, just in case."

Yep...you know, just in case. Insanity and craziness is embedded certainly in Repubs but also in most other members of congress at this point in time. If it weren't so seriois, it would almost make me want to laugh.

Thanks Kit.

~L.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:23 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last day.

*stars galore* :-))
 

Roseann D. (178)
Sunday October 6, 2013, 10:54 pm
Only half???
 

Karen Chestney (103)
Monday October 7, 2013, 2:54 am
Thank-you for this very well written article. I enjoyed reading it. We all know Republicans do not live in reality. They love manipulating their constituents with fear....and....those sheeple aren't too terribly bright (or educated) too begin with---( which just goes to point out why we need to invest a lot more in better Education)our HOPE is 2014. BE SURE you are registered (correctly)---checking your states vetoing laws--- AND----VOTE DEM.---State & Federal !!!
 

Irene S. (59)
Monday October 7, 2013, 3:04 am
Could be funny if it wasn´t so sad. But it´s a good reason why they try to ruin the country now, instead of letting the government do their jobs, they are elected for.
 

Phil R. (29)
Monday October 7, 2013, 5:57 am
"Make no mistake about it: these people will vote in 2014, because they always vote. If it is raining live, ravening, man-eating jaguars outside, they turn out with strong umbrellas and cast their ballots..."

This is exactly true. What worries me are the Progressives that don't vote because they are hyper-critical of Democrats and Progressive Independents (like Bernie Sanders). They expect all their prayers and desires to be answered immediately and for the President, in particular, to overturn and undo every Republican-sponsored legislation...past and present. This unrealistic expectation leads to the "they're all the same" syndrome. The erroneous belief that both parties are the same and working to subvert the American people.

Crazy conspiracy theories and fruitcake speculations abound on the Left as well as the Right, i'm afraid....and many Progressives see abstaining from voting as a means of protest. This is exactly what Republicans and Libertarians want....and they fuel the fire by giving Progressives more craziness to dwell on. Most of the conspiracy theories we see are products of Ultra Conservatives and so called Libertarians, which some Progressives buy into. It's a tactic that works.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday October 7, 2013, 7:14 am
Hi JLA :)

Providing arms to rebel forces fighting against an allied state is pretty seriously subversive. I'm pretty sure it violates at least one or two treaties too. Fast & Furious was both illegal and subversive, and definitely secretive.

The suspected secret regarding CAIR is not one of effective acts committed by groups, but of intentions: again, the question is whether the acts committed are part of a pattern of protecting individual rights as claimed, or of a subversive and consistently denied one working against integration of minorities and against the use of the standard legal system. That difference is important because the primary potential dangers posed by some of their acts revolve around the legal precedents that they set, and while one pattern would suggest that the precedents would never become an issue, the other would suggest that the danger will be realized if CAIR is allowed to continue.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday October 7, 2013, 7:17 am
Hi Phil :)

I wouldn't worry about the hard-left turnouts: Democrat party support is solid in the areas where most of them live, so the question is only of the margin by which the party's candidates win there. Over a whole state, I understand the direct voting-effect of the hard left tends to be tiny anyways, affecting turnout probably less than the weather on the day of the election.
 

JL A. (272)
Monday October 7, 2013, 7:26 am
Not illegal--it was legal since it was done by law enforcement just like the prior one under the Bush administration---not wise perhaps, but no law was broken --anyone doing their homework would be unable to find a law, that some want to claim without evidence, was broken.

 

Gloria picchetti (287)
Monday October 7, 2013, 7:30 am
They are like nazies.
 

Joanne Dixon (37)
Monday October 7, 2013, 8:32 am
Yvonne, you made me chuckle, not easy when I am surrounded by Republicans.
Please, EVERYONE, pay attention to Phil R. When 33% vote in an election, it tends to go to the crazy candidate. The only exception would be in an area where there aren't enough crazies to get their candidate elected (but oh, how they will whine). That means the 22%, which is 40% of those voting in Presidential years, are the MODERATES. Who are sane.

Polls are showing we have a chance to pick up between 17 and 19 House seats handily in 2014. But not if 40% of voters don't vote.
 

Tim L. (86)
Monday October 7, 2013, 10:30 am
Only half of the repubs are crazy? I thought the number would be much higher. You have to hand it to the rethugs though. They are so very good at at making lies stick. There are two types of people who vote for the repubs: Greedy rich people and the terminally ignorant.
 

Kit B. (277)
Monday October 7, 2013, 11:28 am

In the specific area of Physics, Stephen I am interested in your accumulated knowledge. In discussions about politics without exception I find your input to be exiguous at best.

**An added note, though I personally find the policy of fast and furious to be injudicious, it is a continuation of a legal if ill advised policy from the Bush administration
.
 

John Wesen (0)
Monday October 7, 2013, 4:21 pm
I pretty much think all pollies are nuts.
 

SJ J. (116)
Monday October 7, 2013, 6:00 pm
Just half? I thought it's more than that!

Thanks so much Kit for good fun. I really like your sense of humor: intelligent humor.
 

Phil R. (29)
Tuesday October 8, 2013, 8:32 am
"Democrat party support is solid in the areas where most of them live" A condition Republicans have been able to lessen through "creative" redistricting.

I agree with KIt. Most of the sins of Democrats are a carryover from the Republican administrations that preceded them (in these cases, both Bush administrations). Policies, laws and wars cannot often just be swept away when a new administration takes over...there are consequences and priorities to consider.

As far as the far Left is concerned, my observation has been that they're as critical of the President as Conservatives are. When they don't get their way immediately (the Public Option...Syria) they join the chorus of detractors making his attempts at change, reconstruction and diplomacy all the more difficult.
 

JL A. (272)
Tuesday October 8, 2013, 9:00 am
Excellent points Phil. Relatedly, this administration kept more agency appointees from the last administration compared to most party changes in the White House--understandable given the fillibustering of appointments in the Senate, yet historians may find the biggest mistakes made were not changing enough or certain of those players so malfeasance was discovered and addressed before whistleblowers or other sources led the actions being in the public arena.
 

Daniel Partlow (189)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 6:43 am
I don't understand how they are still getting their salaries while they deny so many others theirs! Impeach the loser idiots!
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 8:03 am
Hi JLA :)

Having something done by law-enforcement officials certainly does not make it legal, unless you're talking about suddenly changing stances on police brutality and such. The U.S. executive branch is bound by treaties which the government has ratified and certainly not permitted to commit acts of war against neighbours with which the country is at peace without a declaration of war from Congress. Arming rebels which do not hold reasonable claim to statehood (control of territory and legitimate belligerent status) rebels is legally an act of war. Even taking action specifically to avoid enforcement of local laws against such provision of arms is legally an act of war. The difference under Bush was that the program ran when the rebels had not yet begun to find the GPS devices in the guns. There was not even any attempt to track the guns under Obama.

Hi Kit :)
You may find my comments exogenous, but others evidently do not. My inbox is getting cluttered with Green Stars for them.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 8:45 am
Sorry about the typo earlier: The second "rebels" was an error.

Also, regarding the specific law broken:
A quick Wikipedia search turned this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression#The_Convention_for_the_Definition_of_Aggression
I didn't go to the original text because there were two complimentary conventions and I really don't have time to sift through both right now. If you want to do so, go ahead.

That impacts U.S. law according to this (found with a quick Wiki search, followed by a Google search for a source cited):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf
(See " TREATIES UNDER U.S. LAW ".)
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:02 am

Stephen - two very different words - exogenous - that relates to external factors while exiguous is when you chose to call something meager.

I'm very happy you have a group of Green Stars, that by no means improves either the quality or knowledge within your exiguous comments.

I do not judge my comments by the flattery of green stars, but whether or not I actually know what I am discussing.
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:03 am

And... Stephen I am not referring to length of your comments as being meager, by no means could you ever be accused of being succinct.
 

JL A. (272)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:28 am
Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. If it were even a remote possibility of any part or individual's action in fast and furious being illegal, Issa's committee's investigation would have found it (like with their baseball investigation) since their bias was that direction--and they came up empty and so the argument of illegality is apparently without merit or any foundation beyond wishful thinking--or as Kit so aptly noted exiguous.
 

JL A. (272)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:29 am
PS--I lost count of how many stars I got for my comments here days ago and they keep rolling in--LOL
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 9:47 am

Another Green star coming your way, J L as soon as the hour is up from the last one.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 11:56 am
Hi Kit and JL,

My point still stands. You may consider my contributions meager, but others consider it worthwhile to send me indications that they appreciate what I write. As for whether I know what I am writing about, I recommend that you check the links which I provided above and the one in this post. I'm pretty sure I understand the matters at hand better than almost anybody else I have ever seen on Care2. I verify my beliefs regarding issues here with professionals in appropriate fields and, in issues regarding war, people who would have been arrested had they misunderstood the matters.

Also, regarding whether ISsa's committee found anything illegal:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/06/will-fast-and-furious-justice-finally-befall-eric-holder/
"Despite the fact that our attorney general has been indicted for contempt of Congress on both felony and civil charges" Apparently it did not come up empty at all and has even indicted Eric Holder directly.

Also, how does "Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal" apply here? My previous post was about standing treaties and their treatment under U.S. law, not about anybody's preference for anything in particular.
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 12:09 pm

@ Stephen - " I'm pretty sure I understand the matters at hand better than almost anybody else I have ever seen on Care2."

That is exactly the problem. You suffer from delusions of grandeur. Many people are well versed on various issues. They do not find it necessary to attempt to force feed and repeat how they are correct and others are not. Most of us do read and use the Internet to learn facts. Some of us are very well read, even without agreeing with very morsel that passes as self contrived fact from you.

Your long winded and endless blathering on virtually all topics presented is so boring most can not be bothered to read what you have to say. Strange that people drop in only to send you a green star, in fact so strange as to be not believable. Carry on Stephen, I do not suffer fools well so I assure you, I will not be reading any further concoctions or droppings from you.
 

JL A. (272)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 1:31 pm
Grandiosity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with grandiose delusions.

"Grandiosity refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority - a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior - as well as to a sense of uniqueness: the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people."
---------------------------------------------------------
A type of "insanity" that is the core of the content on this thread in more ways than one.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 3:25 pm
Hi Kit,

Before dismissing something as a delusion, let's look at questions of factual basis and self-consistency.

Just in this thread:
The central premise of the article, that half of Republicans are insane, as you should be able to tell from your experience teaching, clearly contradicts reality. Consider that roughly half of the U.S. supports the Republican party at election-time. Half of that would be close to a quarter of the population. Now imagine in your classrooms what would happen if a quarter of the class were insane. Now imagine that level of disorder on the scale of the entire U.S. If that were the case, the country would cease to function entirely, not just Congress. If the numbers even came close to what nearly every poster on this thread seems to believe, the U.S. economy would have already practically disappeared in a total collapse of social order. Has that happened? No? Then the central premise of the article is dead wrong. The consensus here does not decide whether the article is right or wrong. The numbers do, and they disagree w with the bulk of the posters on this thread. In fact, many posters here seem to believe that the country could somehow function with nearly half of its population being insane., Imagine if half of your class actually fit the descriptions given to Republicans on this site, scale that up to a country, and consider that that half possesses the bulk of the country's weapons and includes the bulk of its armed forces. Does the phrase "total breakdown of social order would already have occurred" mean anything to you? Your daily life disproves what most posters on this site say. Who, exactly is delusional here?

Also in this thread, JL, who is one of the best-informed major posters on Care2, wrote "anyone doing their homework would be unable to find a law, that some want to claim without evidence, was broken". I then posted a reference to such a law with full explanation, from the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, and how it applies to the case. Finding it took me about 4-5 minutes. I timed myself.

Your depiction of me as "delusional" does not look good.

It gets worse: You then presumed that the people sending me stars are not posters on the threads. They generally are, as Dan and Tina, for example, know. Your claim to the contrary was, as you put it, a "self contrived fact from you".
 

JL A. (272)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 3:53 pm
The article was based on factual research data which dismissing because it disagrees with personal perspective is very much like what is used in textbooks as examples of grandiosity. An unsupported claim that it must not be reality does not pass muster. Gradiosity is estimated to be true for 10% of the US population (Wiki references). Delusions of grandeur are even more prevalent:
Grandiose delusions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Delusions of grandeur" redirects here. For other uses, see Delusions of grandeur (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Grandiosity.
Patients suffering from grandiose delusions wrongly hold themselves at an extraordinary high status in their mind.

Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in comparison to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.[2]
Contents

1 Prevalence
2 Symptoms
2.1 Expansive delusions
2.2 Positive functions
3 Accounts of delusion
4 Epidemiology
5 Diagnosis
6 Comorbidity
6.1 Schizophrenia
6.2 Bipolar disorder
7 Anatomical aspects
8 Treatment
9 See also
10 References

Prevalence

Research suggests that the severity of the delusions of grandeur is directly related to a higher self-esteem in individuals and inversely related to any individual’s severity of depression and negative self-evaluations.[3] Lucas et al. found that there is no significant gender difference in the establishment of grandiose delusion. However, there is a claim that ‘the particular component of Grandiose delusion’ may be variable across both genders.[2] Also, it had been noted that the presence of GDs in people with at least grammar or high school education was greater than lesser educated persons. Similarly, the presence of grandiose delusions in individuals who are the eldest is greater than in individuals who are the youngest of their siblings.[4]
Symptoms

According to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder, grandiose-type symptoms include grossly exaggerated belief of:

self-worth
power[5]
knowledge
identity
exceptional relationship to a divinity or famous person.[6]

For example, a patient who has fictitious beliefs about his or her power or authority may believe himself or herself to be a ruling monarch who deserves to be treated like royalty.[7] There are substantial differences in the degree of grandiosity linked with grandiose delusions in different patients. Some patients believe they are God, the Queen of England, a president's son, a famous rock star, and so on. Others are not as expansive and think they are skilled sports-persons or great inventors.[8]
Expansive delusions

Expansive delusions may be maintained by auditory hallucinations, which advise the patient that they are significant, or confabulations, when, for example, the patient gives a thorough description of their coronation or marriage to the king. Grandiose and expansive delusions may also be part of fantastic hallucinosis in which all forms of hallucinations occur.[8]
Positive functions

Grandiose delusions frequently serve a very positive function for the person of sustaining or increasing their self-esteem. As a result, it is important to consider what the consequences of removing the grandiose delusion are on self-esteem when trying to modify the grandiose delusion in therapy.[5] In many instances of grandiosity it is suitable to go for a fractional rather than a total modification, which permits those elements of the delusion that are central for self-esteem to be preserved. For example, a man who believes he is a senior secret service agent gains a great sense of self-esteem and purpose from this belief, thus until this sense of self-esteem can be provided from elsewhere, it is best not to attempt modification.[5]
Accounts of delusion

There are two alternative accounts for getting grandiose delusions:[9]

Delusion-as-defense account: defense of the mind against lower self-esteem and depression
Emotion-consistent account: result of exaggerated emotions.

Epidemiology

In researching over 1000 individuals of vast backgrounds, Stompe and colleagues (2006) found that grandiosity remains as the second most common delusion after persecutory delusions.[2] A variation in the occurrence of grandiosity delusions in schizophrenic patients across cultures has also been observed.[10][11] In research done by Appelbaum et al. it has been found that GDs appeared more commonly in patients with bipolar disorder (59%) than in patients with schizophrenia (49%), followed by presence in substance misuse disorder patients (30%) and depressed patients (21%).[2]

A relationship has been claimed between the age of onset of bipolar disorder and the occurrence of GDs. According to Carlson et al. (2000), grandiose delusions appeared in 74% of the patients who were 21 or lower at the time of the onset, while they occurred only in 40% of individuals 30 years or older at the time of the onset.[2]
Diagnosis

Patients with a wide range of mental disorders which disturb brain function experience different kinds of delusions, including grandiose delusions.[12] Grandiose delusions usually occur in patients with syndromes associated with secondary mania, such as Huntington's disease,[13] Parkinson's disease,[14] and Wilson's disease.[15] Secondary mania has also been caused by substances such as levodopa and isoniazid which modify the monoaminergic neurotransmitter function.[16] Vitamin B12 deficiency,[17] uremia,[18] hyperthyroidism[19] as well as the carcinoid syndrome[20] have been found to cause secondary mania, and thus grandiose delusions.

In diagnosing delusions, the MacArthur-Maudsley Assessment of Delusions Schedule is used to assess the patient.[21]
Comorbidity
Schizophrenia
Main article: Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder distinguished by a loss of contact with reality and the occurrence of psychotic behaviors, including hallucinations and delusions (unreal beliefs which endure even when there is contrary evidence).[22] Delusions may include the false and constant idea that the person is being followed or poisoned, or that the person’s thoughts are being broadcast for others to listen to. Delusions in schizophrenia often develop as a response to the individual attempting to explain their hallucinations.[22] Patients who experience recurrent auditory hallucinations can develop the delusion that other people are scheming against them and are dishonest when they say they do not hear the voices that the delusioned person argues to hear.[22]

Specifically, grandiose delusions are frequently found predominantly in paranoid schizophrenia, in which a person has an extremely exaggerated sense of his or her significance, personality, knowledge, or authority. For example, the person may possibly declare to own IBM and kindly offer to write a hospital staff member a check for $5 million if they would only help them escape from the hospital.[23] Other common grandiose delusions in schizophrenia include religious delusions such as the belief that one is Jesus Christ.[24] A 2012 paper suggested that psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms, that may include grandiose delusions, may be possible explanations for revelatory driven experiences and activities such as those of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Saint Paul.[25]
Bipolar disorder
Main article: Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder is severe affective dysregulation, or mood states that sway from exceedingly low (depression) to exceptionally high (mania).[26] Bipolar patients with grandiose delusions are essentially high on themselves. If they convey any feelings of aggravation at all, these at most characterize secondary anxiety that others will be jealous of them and hold them back from getting what they are entitled to, or seize what they already have.[27]

Bipolar patients experience delusion during the worse part of their illness. Typically, when experiencing or displaying a stage of heightened excitability, joy, rage, senselessness, and correlated phenomena they might convey thoughts or beliefs that are grandiose in nature. Some of these grandiose beliefs frequently involve thoughts that the patient is very rich or famous or has super human abilities, etc.[28] In the most severe form, known as psychotic mania, the bipolar patient may hear voices and have grandiose delusions such as "I am the King of England".[29]
Anatomical aspects

Grandiose delusions are frequently and almost certainly related to lesions of the frontal lobe. Temporal lobe lesions have been mainly reported in patients with delusions of persecution and of remorse, while frontal and frontotemporal involvement have been described in patients with grandiose delusions, Cotard’s syndrome, and delusional misidentification syndrome.[30]
Treatment

Patients suffering from schizophrenia, grandiose and religious delusions are found to be the least susceptible to cognitive behavioral interventions.[21] Cognitive behavioral intervention is a form of psychological therapy, initially used for depression,[31] but currently used for a variety of different mental disorders, in hope of providing relief from distress and disability.[32] During therapy, grandiose delusions were linked to patients' underlying beliefs by using inference chaining.[31][33] Some examples of interventions performed to improve the patient's state were focus on specific themes, clarification of neologisms, and thought linkage.[33] During thought linkage, the patient is asked repeatedly by the therapist to explain his/her jumps in thought from one subject, to a completely different one.[33]

Patients suffering from mental disorders that experience grandiose delusions have been found to have a lower risk of having suicidal thoughts and attempts.[34]"
-------------------
The 25% estimate may actually be too conservative since other mental health diagnoses would account for some.

Finding a statute and then inventing evidence to fit a charge does not meet research standards for a finding of illegality. None of Issa's unfounded, biased witch hunts have held up to the standards of law and why a bipartisan majority voted to fund the unbiased independent ethics group. Dan and Tina also sent me stars...LOL? Unwarranted assumptions perhaps of why stars were received?
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 7:37 pm

I feel quiet sure that many do not bother reading the full article, that is not a comment on excellent Op Ed by William Rivers Pitt but rather for some, a time constraint. Those who do follow WRP realize that he often uses hyperbole to make his point. He too is guilty of using the tongue in cheek approach to make his point more palatable to the reader. It would take a very dense mind to not recognize the use of exaggeration in this article.
 

JL A. (272)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 7:49 pm
Hyperbole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the term used in rhetoric. For the mathematical term, see Hyperbola.

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[3] Hyperbole makes the point that the bag was very heavy, though it probably does not weigh a ton.

In rhetoric, some opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the 'letdown' after a hyperbole in a phrase)."
_____________________

Excellent point Kit--many unfamiliar with rhetorical devices often apply the kind of literalism so problematic with some using the Bible as a source. AP English Composition makes students know and recognize and use appropriately to pass the course and/or exam. The kinds of distorted thinking identified as symptoms for many DSM diagnoses can have similar results.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 9, 2013, 10:03 pm
Hi JL :)

I read the survey and can think of at least two ways it could easily have come out wrong.

First, there is the party that holds the presidency. Exactly how many leftist conspiracy-nuts were there while Bush was president? Is there an equivalent survey for comparison? Does the phrase "war for oil" (a conspiracy-theory that makes no more sense than do many of those on this survey) ring a bell? How about the politics and ideologies of "truthers" that Pitt even mentioned in the article?

If you ran a similar survey, just switching the conspiracy-theories in question but not their absurdity, with a Republican president, the results would probably be similar, but reversed. The survey does not distinguish between outright conspiracy-nuttitude and the heavy partisanship that has become standard in the U.S.

The other method to rig such a poll is by selection-bias. The pollsters could easily have identified a population that is heavily Republican and in which conspiracy-nuts are common, and another which is heavily Democrat where conspiracy-nuts are not. It could also have weighted demographic-groups after checking the data to produce whatever result it wanted. However, I suspect the cause of the results was partisanship and partisan media, not deliberate selection-bias by those making the calls..

Also, JL, I'm pretty certain you're not a psychoanalyst. A professional would realize she didn't have nearli enough material to work with. Stop pretending to be one. It's annoying.

As for inventing evidence, are you saying you think I am on the Congressional Research Committee, or that I wrote the conventions on what constitutes a war-crime? If so, perhaps there really should be a psychoanalyst involved.

Hi Kit :)

I doesn't take as long to go through the tables relevant to the article as it does to go through the article. We are talking about 14 tables,with 9 entries each, totally about as much reading as one of Pitt's longer paragraphs. It takes under two minutes. especially with the URL posted here, so no, the time-commitment is not the problem. It's a lack of desire to check claims, just like why JL never followed the links I gave here, and it's worse than not checking: I remember the first time I pointed out that the math in an article here didn't work out: Posters here tried to mock me for using math to prove something wrong because they just wanted to believe what they were told.

There is nothing grandiose at all about claiming to be both better-informed about the issues that arise here and outright better at analyzing them than the bulk of Care2 posters. While there are quite a few who are well-informed and competent to discuss the matters that they do, there are very, very many who are not.
 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 10, 2013, 8:54 am
People who persist in ignoring other people's rights and use myths and spurious arguments that do not meet the standards for logic (as taught in college) so are nonsequiturs are using distorted thinking. I did not diagnose (failure to listen or read accurately statements made that is common with distorted thinking in the research)--I provided what researchers who are undisputed experts provided--a distinction that merits note when counterposition is personal opinion without evidence.
The poll did not have selection bias despite tilting at windmills and other meritless suppositions inconsistent with current high school standards.
There is no reason to follow links without a relationship to the article posted and expecting that of others suggests unwarranted priority from other people expectations.
There is research that compared the parties on belief in conspiracy theories that found DEM's far less credulous in this regard--it was posted on Care2 a while back.
Grandiose fits when not supported by logic or preponderance of evidence.
-------------------
Non sequitur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up non sequitur in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Non sequitur /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/ is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.

Non sequitur may refer to:

Non sequitur (literary device), an irrelevant, often humorous comment to a preceding topic or statement
Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise
Non Sequitur (comic strip), a comic strip by Wiley Miller
"Non Sequitur" (Star Trek: Voyager), an episode of Star Trek: Voyager

Sequitur may refer to:

Sequitur algorithm
--------------------
Fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about errors in reasoning. For the formal concept in philosophy and logic, see formal fallacy. For other uses, see Fallacy (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1][2] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form.[3] Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4]

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[5]

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
Contents

1 Formal Fallacy
1.1 Common examples
2 Aristotle's Fallacies
3 Whately's grouping of fallacies
4 Intentional fallacies
5 Deductive fallacy
6 Paul Meehl's Fallacies
7 Other systems of classification
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

Formal Fallacy
Main article: Formal fallacy

A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one: for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Common examples
Main article: List of fallacies#Formal fallacies
Aristotle's Fallacies

Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list. Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" (De Sophisticis Elenchis) identifies thirteen fallacies. He divided them up into two major types, those depending on language and those not depending on language.[6] These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a verbal fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.[7]
Whately's grouping of fallacies

Richard Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion does follow from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's sophisms except:ignoratio elenchi, petitio principii, and non causa pro causa, which are in the material group.[8]
Intentional fallacies

Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, or advertising, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.

For instance, the speaker or writer might divert the argument to unrelated issues using a red herring; insult someone's character (argumentum ad hominem), assume they are right by "begging the question" (petitio principi); make jumps in logic non-sequitur; identify a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc); assert that everyone agrees, the bandwagoning; create a "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified; selectively use facts or "card-stacking"; make false or misleading comparisons with "false equivalence", and "false analogy"; generalize quickly and sloppily with a "false generalization"; and many more.[9]

In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson employs fallacious reasoning in many of his cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.[10]
Deductive fallacy
Main articles: Deductive fallacy and formal fallacy

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. Logic is the use of valid reasoning; A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. Therefore, the clause is contradictory... However, the same terms are used in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason. A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false. Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. The so-called fallacy is a failure to understand that all bets are off unless the argument is formally flawless and all premises are true.
______________________
Too many false premises as foundations lead to too many erroneous conclusions. Pretending otherwise is a grandiose type of distorted thinking.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday October 10, 2013, 2:35 pm
Hi JL,

"I did not diagnose (failure to listen or read accurately statements made that is common with distorted thinking in the research)--I provided what researchers who are undisputed experts provided" ... Speaking of "non-sequiturs, if your earlier post was just information about the relevant disorders without any implication that they were related to any comments on this thread, how precisely were they related to the discussion at hand or the article?

Speaking of "failure to listen or read accurately statements made that is common with distorted thinking in the research", had you read mine fully, you would have known that I actually made no claim that there was selection-bias in the study. In fact, the possibility I suggested matched one to which Pitt, in his article, alluded.

"There is no reason to follow links without a relationship to the article posted" ... You were the one who made the connection originally, insisting that the suspicion of conspiracy was unreasonable on the grounds that the events which produced the suspicions suggested nothing illegal was occurring. You seemed to insist before that the law was relevant, but now that the directly relevant section of law is not. Why the change of opinion?

Also, when quoting Wikipedia, please just post a link. Kit mentioned that nobody could ever accuse me of being succinct here. By copying in large bodies of text rather than just posting links, you needlessly lengthen your posts and, where you do not also provide the URL, remove context from the copied sections. Your posts would actually be more informative, more conducive to effective navigation of the discussion-threads, and, and I imagine more convenient for you with just the links.

"Too many false premises as foundations lead to too many erroneous conclusions. Pretending otherwise is a grandiose type of distorted thinking." Indeed.
 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 10, 2013, 4:48 pm
Many do not have high speed internet and prefer not to have to load another webpage to follow threads or read articles and thank me and ask for information from the links. I post full definitions of terms, etc. for their sakes and not a minority of one's preference.

The content of this article was about the kinds of distorted thinking and label of insanity was associated (note the title)--if one chose to apply it to himself, that was his choice; for most readers of the article it was clearly topical to the article posted.

I
 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 10, 2013, 4:56 pm
For those of you reading, and perhaps choosing not to comment to avoid the kind of treatment Kit and I have received, many of you know there is value in specific information. You might recognize some of these symptoms in someone you know and be in a position to encourage them to connect with a mental health professional (if they have health coverage or other access to care) and get beyond stereotypical stigmas many associate with mental health issues. Making that kind of difference in one or more lives makes lengthy posts such as here even more worth doing for me.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday October 11, 2013, 8:27 am
Hi JL :)

Prefer not to load another webpage? We're not talking about Arcade Fire's showcases here. (I highly recommend checking out their some of their videos, like "The Wilderness Downtown", which uses Google Maps to get your neighborhood into the video, and "Reflektor", which is highly interactive. they break new ground and act as a preview, hopefully, of what we will see soon throughout the web.) We're talking about Wikipedia and a pdf. Anybody who has trouble loading those should probably turn off automatic loading of images while on Care2. Also, beyond a certain size, lengthening one webpage can increase loading times. I remember going off and doing other things as a Care2 page with ~500 comments took a few minutes to load. I think it has to do with how the pixel-distances in the scrollbar relate to physical distances on the screen. That's why I still wouldn't recommend, even for their sake, copying everything in. Of course, if you find something on a site that people may not recognize or trust, by all means copy it in so the more cautious of us can avoid discomfort in following such a link. Still, if you insist that this is the better method, I am happy to assist.

What treatment are you referring to that people should try to avoid? I would be happy to apologize for any mistreatment you have received if it was by me, but I cannot do so honestly right now because I am having trouble finding it. Please let whoever mistreated you know exactly how. (In this case, a quote of the offensive material would probably be best.)

If helping people who face problems of distorted thinking related to what is described in the article, I recommend checking for this one, from http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder:
-------------------
Types of Delusional Disorder

There are different types of delusional disorder based on the main theme of the delusions experienced. The types of delusional disorder include:

Erotomanic: Someone with this type of delusional disorder believes that another person, often someone important or famous, is in love with him or her. The person might attempt to contact the object of the delusion or stalk them.
Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of self-worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
Jealous: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that his or her spouse or sexual partner is unfaithful.
Persecutory: People with this type of delusional disorder believe that they (or someone close to them) are being mistreated, or that someone is spying on them or planning to harm them. It is not uncommon for people with this type of delusional disorder to make repeated complaints to legal authorities.
Somatic: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that he or she has a physical defect or medical problem.
Mixed: People with this type of delusional disorder have two or more of the types of delusions listed above.
--------------------------
Specifically, the Grandiose and Persecutory forms may apply here.

This one as well is probably important to watch out for: From
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/paranoid-personality-disorder
------------------------
What Are the Symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder?

People with PPD are always on guard, believing that others are constantly trying to demean, harm, or threaten them. These generally unfounded beliefs, as well as their habits of blame and distrust, might interfere with their ability to form close relationships. People with this disorder:

Doubt the commitment, loyalty, or trustworthiness of others, believing others are using or deceiving them
Are reluctant to confide in others or reveal personal information due to a fear that the information will be used against them
Are unforgiving and hold grudges
Are hypersensitive and take criticism poorly
Read hidden meanings in the innocent remarks or casual looks of others
Perceive attacks on their character that are not apparent to others; they generally react with anger and are quick to retaliate
Have recurrent suspicions, without reason, that their spouses or lovers are being unfaithful
Are generally cold and distant in their relationships with others, and might become controlling and jealous
Cannot see their role in problems or conflicts and believe they are always right
Have difficulty relaxing
Are hostile, stubborn, and argumentative
---------------------
In particular, check for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th symptoms listed here.

The article may have been intended to be about disordered thinking, but the examples given in it may not actually be of the types o disorders described. Some of the cases cited, which were treated as paranoid conspiracy-theory, are likely something very different, simple partisanship, different assumptions made in social analyses, and access to difference information, Even in the context of politics-neutral work for mental health, which was certainly not the direction that the discussion here took, it is vital to avoid providing false-positives, especially if the person in question really is ill, but in ways unrelated to the reported disorder. False positives alienate people, who may really be in a position where they need not to be alienated from their friends and family, and, as with any false positive, discredit real findings. beyond that, it wastes resources of an obviously already-overburdened mental-health system which could otherwise treat real illnesses.
 

JL A. (272)
Friday October 11, 2013, 2:07 pm
Please do not disparage others' opinions and needs that are not your own--their own voice is more reliable and I've been informed by educators, researchers and others that it is extremely disrespectful to substitute one's own views in this way.
Content on future of technology in this thread seems rude to readers and a tangent inappropriate for this thread IMO.
Thank you for affirming the validity of the information I posted with your preferred industry-funded site--I'll leave it to the readers as to why you chose to add paranoia to the other forms of distorted thinking, if they even are interested.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday October 13, 2013, 1:57 pm
Hi JL :)

Did I disparage others' opinions and needs? Are you talking about issues of loading-times?

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding:
I have been following current affairs literally since I learned to read. I used the "World" section of the newspaper to practice in Grade 1. That also happened to precisely when the Berlin Wall came down. (Funny story there.) As far as international politics go, I began following matters just late enough to avoid getting stuck with Cold War-era assumptions that no longer hold true. Between that and many years of formal training in analysis of data and dynamic systems, as well as formal training directly in mattes of politics, I have a very good background to understand what is going on.

I am also lucky enough to have stumbled upon, years ago, another three forums where posters include top-end professionals posting about their fields of expertise. For example, when posters here bicker, pontificate, and theorize about what is wrong in U.S. drug-testing, I just ask one of the FDA's "go-to people" who personally reviews a substantial fraction of the tests and effectively makes the call as to whether the drugs may go to market. When I said "Arming rebels which do not hold reasonable claim to statehood (control of territory and legitimate belligerent status) rebels is legally an act of war. ", I wasn't making stuff up. I got that from a retired professor of international law, specializing in treaties relating to war, who arguably held the most prestigious position on Earth as far as such teaching goes. (I would not be shocked if the penalty for a mistake in class-lecture there involved prison-time or death, because a misunderstanding when teaching at the U.S. Army War College could cost thousands of lives.) That, and my analysis of the data, leave me much better-informed than most posters here.

This is not a form of disparagement. I just happen to be very good at understanding this stuff and have far easier access to important information than do most posters on Care2.

I added paranoia because it is a form of mental illness that would motivate precisely the sort of conspiracy-theories that Pitt tries to claim are common among Republicans.
 

JL A. (272)
Monday October 14, 2013, 9:28 pm
Those who miss the meaning of statistics and apply methods to data that do not meet the standards for that method end up without appropriate meanings or interpretations. If one misses the main points someone else communicates and focuses on tangents and portions taken out of context instead, then citing an expect source does not provide credibility to the statements. I welcome input on physics from someone who has demonstrated ability to understand the subject, yet not on other subjects where efforts I've seen fall short of understanding the subject and meaning as communicated by experts.
 

Kit B. (277)
Tuesday October 15, 2013, 9:24 am

Once more time for the cheap seats, the device used by WRP is humor and satire both cloaked in the form of an Op Ed or if one lacks understanding of the term Op Ed that is an editorial opinion. People are free to agree, disagree or just read it for the interesting and slightly humorous take on the current politics of the day.
 

Kit B. (277)
Tuesday October 15, 2013, 4:57 pm

Of course they do, read the New York Times. Papers have always had a place for their opinion writers, those also can be found in the larger and better news papers. Things have changed with the advent of the Internet. People like WRP have to earn their readership just as they always have had to do. By writing well enough, and knowing enough about the topic to inform or entertain the readers. This article is written with a sardonic wit not all of his articles are amusing.

Yes, I believe we all know the reasons for Congress to request the unknowable. The CBO - Congressional Budget Office makes those predictions for ten years because they must do as Congress demands. They often come with a caveat that the predictions are based on current models. I can not see why your "friend" would mock someone he does not know and has not read for himself. What J L said about the use of statistics is quiet accurate and you should know that.

Somehow, I think this is more about you having the last word.
 

JL A. (272)
Tuesday October 15, 2013, 7:20 pm
Thanks Kit for providing an accurate viewpoint, as usual. One has to know enough about a subject to recognize relevant information and facts to present for a response from an expert to be accurate, valid or reliable--like they say about computers, garbage in=garbage out for any analysis, including by human experts.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday October 15, 2013, 8:51 pm
Hi Kit :)

It have read the NYT, and while they do sometimes run Op-Eds opposing their editorial commentary, it's pretty rare. They might try, but the people they have on hand seem so badly versed in what those with opposing views actually say and believe that the job they do is so bad that they might as well not try.

He did not mock JL. He mocked the argument, which is a very separate thing from mocking a person. When the argument is based upon the presumption that professionals cannot bin data that is normally provided to them already binned, and that averages aren't numbers. (You weren't in that conversation, but I mean it in the sense that "If I have 4 apples, and you have 6, on average each of us has 5", and that JL insisted that averages were functions over some domain.) There was that, and the presumption that professionals could not bin data ... that is gathered and provided to them already binned. It was so long ago that I don't remember the exact comments, but they were pretty funny.
 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:08 am
When relevant factors to an argument are omitted in information provided, it equals garbage in=garbage out. When someone has a history of missing central messages in articles and comments and focuses almost exclusively on tangents, I and many others do not trust them as accurate reporters of any information. Once again your summary shows you missed the point that certain statistical methods are not appropriate to use when numbers are averages and not counts because it violates the assumptions that permit using the method to get valid results.
 

JL A. (272)
Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:14 am
Afterthought: I know many experts that would find it laughable that someone would even ask them if they should follow the rules/assumptions for use of statistical methods...and might do so sufficiently diplomatically that someone who cannot believe they do not know a subject enough to know what they do not know might manage to hear support for absurdities.
 

Kit B. (277)
Thursday October 17, 2013, 10:20 am

I'm often taken aback when someone so young makes so many assumptions. I guess while still in our 20's and 30's some do think they are extremely well informed; after a bit more time life happens and we learn we do not know all that we once thought. Life can be a painfully humbling experience.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.