What is wrong with the nanny state?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebuttle to "Librals are Crazy:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250462/Op_Ed_Dr_Rossiter_s_message_I_know_you_are_but_what_am_I_
*
Several years after a Federally funded study found that conservatism was a mental disorder a Right Wing psychiatrist has released a book, timed for the election cycle, claiming the same things about Liberals. Are we to believe that this is a coincidence?
Little known shrink and political hack Dr. Lyle Rossiter has released a new book entitled “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” that is designed to feed the red meat hunger of Right Wing ideologues at a time when the Conservative movement is on the ropes after seven years of incompetence and corruption under George W. Bush.

Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.

The report “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in “fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity”.

In an article published in the highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal “Psychological Bulletin” the authors state:

“This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes.” Among the sufferers of this heart-breaking malady the researchers studied President George W. Bush and found him to be a “textbook case” of the madness. Among the early warning signs that he exhibits is “his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.” The scientists believe that it was Bush’s aversion to shades of gray and the need for “closure” that led him to ignore intelligence that contradicted his beliefs about Iraq’s non existent WMD’s.

At the time that this report came out conservatives were outraged and dismissed the whole thing as merely the opinion of the scientists involved. It is highly amusing now to watch conservatives fall all over themselves to tout Dr. Rossiter unscientific and undocumented political scree simply because it gives them comfort in the face of their impending humiliation at the polls come November.*

😛
 
I’m quite happy to ignore that ‘common sense’. There is a difference between having a gun in your home and being able to carry one around. The situations where you’d be justified in pulling it out are the ones where you’d most likely already be a) unconcious, b) dead. And are you justified in shooting someone who was trying to take your wallet? So many problems with it.
Historic data also shows this to be a fallacy as well.

In fact, you have not come up with a shred of evidence to clearly show your conjecture…“simple” indeed.
 
Swan,

Dr. Lyle Rossiter is a psychiatrist with 35 years experience. What are the credentials of the person who wrote that Op-Ed piece?

If it’s someone with a degree in Journalism, I think Dr. Rossiter’s opinion has more credibility.
 
I think it’s because it presumes all people are infantile, stupid, and unable to care for themselves
Sounds like a ton of people I know, many I don’t know, and me at different points during my life.

For a real dismal exercise, try bringing every action over the next 10 days to the bar of reason and revelation. And you can’t fudge either. Especially in areas of social justice. Mercy, mercy, mercy, I cry!

Also, there’s another post very early on about limiting “liberty.” Gosh, would love to do that.

Fear not. I won’t try.
 
This is a wholesale dismissal of data, is it?
The replies are about the ridiculous assertion that gun availability makes people safer.
Actually, it’s about the ridiculous assertion that victim disarmament makes people safer
For eg: the Virginia Tech massacre: a mentally unsound individual is able to purchase two handguns with a background check that’s only for a criminal record.
For eg: the Virginia Tech massacre: people with no criminal record are entitled to a concealed handgun permit for the asking. And even people with no permit can carry a handgun openly.

But not on the Virginia Tech campus!:eek:

The victims were disarmed because of college policy.
It’s a simple as that, walk into a store, walk out with a handgun, people die. Any potential psycho, any fired postal worker with a ‘clean record’ can do it. The price of this freedom. But of course you’ll say that if the other students were armed they could have stopped him… again ridiculous, normal people don’t carry guns around with them in their day to day lives.
It’s as simple as taking the course, passing the background check and being able to defend yourself if someone attacks you.
And this is not an american forum
Were you under the impression that Catholic Answers is based in Iceland or Terria del Fuego?:rotfl:
 
But of course you’ll say that if the other students were armed they could have stopped him… again ridiculous, normal people don’t carry guns around with them in their day to day lives.
Maybe if they did, more of them would still be alive.
 
Maybe if they did, more of them would still be alive.
Amen to that – thirty plus unarmed people slaughtered.

And why were they unarmed? Because of the ideological bent of the faculty staff!

I say their civil rights were infringed under color of authority, and that contributed to their deaths. The faculty of Virginia Tech has a lot to answer for.
 
Amen to that – thirty plus unarmed people slaughtered.

And why were they unarmed? Because of the ideological bent of the faculty staff!

I say their civil rights were infringed under color of authority, and that contributed to their deaths. The faculty of Virginia Tech has a lot to answer for.
Yeah; it’s like that shopping mall in Omaha where eight people were killed and five wounded by that nut last December. All the liberals were babbling about "But how could this happen??? The Westroads Mall is clearly marked as a gun-free zone!!!"

They actually, truly believed that if they put up a sign that read, “No guns allowed” that the criminals wouldn’t bring guns into their mall. Which merely underscores a basic bit of reality: Restricting weapons will only succeed in lowering shootings if everyone abides by the law.

Criminals and fruit loops don’t abide by the law—if they did, they wouldn’t be out there shooting people in the first place—so enacting restrictions on firearms is, for the criminal element anyway, utterly worthless. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than depriving decent, innocent people of the means to defend themselves and others from the criminals.

(shrug) But the gun-control nuts just don’t get it.
 
Yeah; it’s like that shopping mall in Omaha where eight people were killed and five wounded by that nut last December. All the liberals were babbling about "But how could this happen??? The Westroads Mall is clearly marked as a gun-free zone!!!"

They actually, truly believed that if they put up a sign that read, “No guns allowed” that the criminals wouldn’t bring guns into their mall. Which merely underscores a basic bit of reality: Restricting weapons will only succeed in lowering shootings if everyone abides by the law.

Criminals and fruit loops don’t abide by the law—if they did, they wouldn’t be out there shooting people in the first place—so enacting restrictions on firearms is, for the criminal element anyway, utterly worthless. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than depriving decent, innocent people of the means to defend themselves and others from the criminals.

(shrug) But the gun-control nuts just don’t get it.
Apparently some people have great difficulty in wrapping their minds around the idea that criminals are people who** don’t** obey the law.:whacky:
 
This is a wholesale dismissal of data, is it?
The replies are about the ridiculous assertion that gun availability makes people safer.
For eg: the Virginia Tech massacre: a mentally unsound individual is able to purchase two handguns with a background check that’s only for a criminal record.
The background check in Virginia ( and my home state of Mich) DOES include a check for diagnosis of mental health issues.

The problem is that, while a judge ordered Cho to recieve mandatory care for his mental health issues, the court staff did not act on it and thus he recieved no care and the order was not forwarded to the state police.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270507,00.html
 
Wikipedia is useful, but users must keep in mind that it reflects a liberal mindset and that folks attempting to correct liberal errors that appear in Wiki will find their corrections deleted.

With respect to guns and gun control, read more here:

amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644
With respect to Wikipedia, I found this article in which Lawrence Solomon takes Wiki to task for their left-wing agenda and refusal to accept editorial corrections.

nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1

and here:

nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=456024

Solomon was on www.booktv.org this past weekend … and talked briefly in his book discussion about his frustrations attempting to correct erroneous information on Wikipedia.

booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9369&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=Yes
 
The background check in Virginia ( and my home state of Mich) DOES include a check for diagnosis of mental health issues.

The problem is that, while a judge ordered Cho to recieve mandatory care for his mental health issues, the court staff did not act on it and thus he recieved no care and the order was not forwarded to the state police.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270507,00.html
This is another answer to the question asked by the thread: " What is wrong with the nanny state?"

When we depend on the Nanny State, and the state drops the ball, people die.

When individuals depend on themselves, they have a chance of surviving governmental foul-ups.
 
Amen to that – thirty plus unarmed people slaughtered.

And why were they unarmed? Because of the ideological bent of the faculty staff!

.
Why were they unarmed?!?!?! Normal people don’t want to carry around a heavy, dangerous hunk of metal with them everywhere they go. Do you honestly think every person on the street should be carrying a gun? Crazy:whacky:

Next time someone gets mugged, someone gets hit from behind, instead of hand over your wallet and your watch, it’ll be hand over you wallet, your watch and *your gun. *What is the average person going to do, quickdraw and fill em full of lead with their six shooter? It’s a fantasy.
 
Why were they unarmed?!?!?! Normal people don’t want to carry around a heavy, dangerous hunk of metal with them everywhere they go. Do you honestly think every person on the street should be carrying a gun?
A great many people do go armed. And the simple fact that someone in the crowd may be armed has a powerful deterrent effect.

Since people in Blacksburg, the city bordering the campus can (and many do) go armed, ask yourself why the killing happened on campus, and not in Blacksburg.
Next time someone gets mugged, someone gets hit from behind, instead of hand over your wallet and your watch, it’ll be hand over you wallet, your watch and *your gun. *What is the average person going to do, quickdraw and fill em full of lead with their six shooter? It’s a fantasy.
You’re an expert on firearms and self-defense, are you?😛
 
Since people in Blacksburg, the city bordering the campus can (and many do) go armed, ask yourself why the killing happened on campus, and not in Blacksburg.
He was a student there. He was taking revenge on them for his own various, insane, self-pitying reasons - and a relatively free access to handguns allowed him to do it.
 
Criminals and fruit loops don’t abide by the law—if they did, they wouldn’t be out there shooting people in the first place—so enacting restrictions on firearms is, for the criminal element anyway, utterly worthless. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than depriving decent, innocent people of the means to defend themselves and others from the criminals.

.
Thanks to your liberal gun laws, you’re more subject to these loonies than I am, or someone living in the U.K. If they don’t have a record yet, they can get one legally. If they do, they can buy one from a gun fair where people make private sales, or get one elsewhere just as easily, because there are just so many in circulation. It’s like purchasing marijuana, except much easier.
 
What is the average person going to do, quickdraw and fill em full of lead with their six shooter? It’s a fantasy.
That particular scenario may be fantasy, but what is not fantasy is the scenario of the would be mugger stopping beforehand because the prospective target may be armed.
 
Suppose that you were subject to, say, horrendous sinus infections or earaches. In America, by law you would have to get an appointment with a doctor, $75, thank you—when he had time, how about day after tomorrow, whereupon he would give you a prescription for amoxicillin, fifteen bucks and a trip to a pharmacy. If this happened on a Friday, you would either slit your wrists by Saturday evening to avoid the torture, or go to an emergency room, however distant, where they would charge you a fortune and give you a prescription for…amoxicillin.

In Mexico, upon recognizing the familiar symptoms, you would go to the nearest farmacia and buy the amoxicillin. The agony would be nipped in the bud (presuming that agony has buds). The doctor would not get $75, which is against all principles of medicine. The pharmacist would not lose his license, as he would in the United States.
I have a problem with this. It was not until Mexicans began coming into this country in large numbers that antibiotic resistant strains of tuberculosis started showing up.

A friend of mine is a nurse who worked in a large factory that hires many Mexicans. One day, a Mexican woman came to her, opened a suitcase that was full of prescription medicines, and asked her which one she should take for a stomach ache. The Mexican lady rather fancied a powerful antibiotic. The nurse told her she should not take an antibiotic without knowing what was really wrong with her, and certainly not the one she wanted to use. Disappointed in the nurse’s ignorance, the woman snapped the suitcase shut and left with it.

Trade in prescription medications from Mexico is rampant in the area. So are superinfections. So are untreated illness that, if treated early and properly, might be more amenable to cure. One man who self-treated got a savage case of aspergillosis, a serious fungal lung disease that can flourish when one takes antibiotics over a long period of time. Partial removal of one lung was the only resort.

One of the common ailments of which Mexicans complained was “impacho”; a chiefly stomach but also general malady which also had some elements of moral guilt. If one committed adultery, for example, he/she was a prime candidate for “impacho”. Prescription medicines, of whose proper uses they were utterly ignorant, and spiritual treatment by the “curandera” (a sort of conjure woman) was the answer.

I get as frustrated with the medical world as anybody, particularly with the ridiculous cost of it. But self-medication is not the answer. Some things really need to be regulated and controlled by those who have some understanding of medicine.

I expect, as time goes on, we’ll see a lot more NPs, though.

I have dealt with many Hispanics in their contacts with the law. Most Mexicans from Mexico have no understanding at all of American law; particularly they do not understand that it’s relatively incorruptible and is meant to be taken seriously. It is obvious (and I have had Mexicans explain to me) that in Mexico, the law is simply a fig leaf that law enforcement uses to extort money and that the powerful use to despoil the powerless. I was astounded to learn, for example, that there is nothing in Mexico like our property recording system. You probably own land if your predecessor testified that you do. But maybe not, if somebody more influential than you wants it. Land ownership is not secure there, but merely relative. Drunk driving in Mexico is normalcy. If you’re arrested for it, you pay the arresting officer and that’s all there is to that. Sanctions are not progressive. Records are not kept. Drunk drivers can drive drunk their whole lives long. Respect for the law is virtually non-existent. Many take those attitudes north with them, and it is very disruptive to society here.

I’m far from being a nanny-stater. Far from it. But I don’t think the proper alternative is a lawless state.
 
I have a problem with this. It was not until Mexicans began coming into this country in large numbers that antibiotic resistant strains of tuberculosis started showing up.

A friend of mine is a nurse who worked in a large factory that hires many Mexicans. One day, a Mexican woman came to her, opened a suitcase that was full of prescription medicines, and asked her which one she should take for a stomach ache. The Mexican lady rather fancied a powerful antibiotic. The nurse told her she should not take an antibiotic without knowing what was really wrong with her, and certainly not the one she wanted to use. Disappointed in the nurse’s ignorance, the woman snapped the suitcase shut and left with it.

Trade in prescription medications from Mexico is rampant in the area. So are superinfections. So are untreated illness that, if treated early and properly, might be more amenable to cure. One man who self-treated got a savage case of aspergillosis, a serious fungal lung disease that can flourish when one takes antibiotics over a long period of time. Partial removal of one lung was the only resort.

One of the common ailments of which Mexicans complained was “impacho”; a chiefly stomach but also general malady which also had some elements of moral guilt. If one committed adultery, for example, he/she was a prime candidate for “impacho”. Prescription medicines, of whose proper uses they were utterly ignorant, and spiritual treatment by the “curandera” (a sort of conjure woman) was the answer.

I get as frustrated with the medical world as anybody, particularly with the ridiculous cost of it. But self-medication is not the answer. Some things really need to be regulated and controlled by those who have some understanding of medicine.

I expect, as time goes on, we’ll see a lot more NPs, though.

I have dealt with many Hispanics in their contacts with the law. Most Mexicans from Mexico have no understanding at all of American law; particularly they do not understand that it’s relatively incorruptible and is meant to be taken seriously. It is obvious (and I have had Mexicans explain to me) that in Mexico, the law is simply a fig leaf that law enforcement uses to extort money and that the powerful use to despoil the powerless. I was astounded to learn, for example, that there is nothing in Mexico like our property recording system. You probably own land if your predecessor testified that you do. But maybe not, if somebody more influential than you wants it. Land ownership is not secure there, but merely relative. Drunk driving in Mexico is normalcy. If you’re arrested for it, you pay the arresting officer and that’s all there is to that. Sanctions are not progressive. Records are not kept. Drunk drivers can drive drunk their whole lives long. Respect for the law is virtually non-existent. Many take those attitudes north with them, and it is very disruptive to society here.

I’m far from being a nanny-stater. Far from it. But I don’t think the proper alternative is a lawless state.
God diagnosis of what people flee Mexico. In terms of resources, Mexico has always been a rich nation, but not one of law as we understand it. The rich, the powerful have ruled it since the time of Cortez, and of course, before that. Furthermore, American businessmen who historically got involved had to play the same game. The Robber baron types who invested during the time of Diaz, loved the freedom from the constraints they felt in the USA. Nothing changed with the Revolution, except the Party grabbed its share.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top