>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You mean the man responsible for one of the larger acts of treachery towards the natives, of which helped him win the war of 1812, was a democrat? Wait, Abraham Lincoln was a republican? It is hard for me to recite my trite narrative with this historical evidence in my path!


Andrew Jackson's platform reads like a Tea Party masturbation fantasy. He eliminated the national debt, he eliminated the Federal Reserve of his time, he wanted to eliminate paper money (gold and silver coins only, please!), and thought a federal highway or rail system was unconstitutional. Hey, wasn't the Confederacy a project embarked on by a bunch of Southern Democrats who believed in states' rights? Totally different from Southern Republicans advocating so many of the same things today, because, like, Abraham Lincoln and stuff.

That sounds like solid historical evidence to me. Evidence that supports my hypothesis, though.

It must be hard indeed for you to recite your trite narrative with all that historical evidence in your path!

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, well, I don't know because I try not to lump individuals into collectives, statist.
Honestly though, I absolutely know there are racists in ever party, even the Libertarian Party. It's human. I just don't want to categorize the TP as being racist because some of its members, just like I haven't done so to the Democratic party for it's racist founder: Andrew Jackson.


You mean the man responsible for one of the larger acts of treachery towards the natives, of which helped him win the war of 1812, was a democrat? Wait, Abraham Lincoln was a republican? It is hard for me to recite my trite narrative with this historical evidence in my path!

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^bobknight33:
Its a Joke, just a joke. That was funny.

I guess the left can't take a laugh unless they make the joke.

If it was a joke, why wasn't it fucking funny? If you're going to trivialize the barbarism to which journalists are commonly exposed in their pursuit of information, you can at least make the joke a good one. That's not the biggest issue for me, though. It's that I know she was only half-joking.
I'm starting to think "the right" are mentally deficient by default, and I'm not even on the same fucking continent as you people.
Here's a thought; you won't be able to find a right-wing, mainstream party anywhere in western Europe that's more conservative than the Democrats. Your political system is a trainwreck of sodomy. You are doing something wrong. And on the right, little concepts like reality don't seem to factor into it.


Only in a few red-states (like mine, Utah) think that classical conservatism via the Republican party with Abraham Lincoln being the first elected, still think it's the same and alive and beating. They also believe that Nixon and especially Reagan fit into it's precepts. These people get A's in academia for thinking this. I won't even begin to explain as to why academia in th U.S. is full of shit as well as "Republican" followers or fellow "revolutionaries" or "jackoffs" like The Tea Party (the unfortunate rock band with that name needs to change it, or be tied with it and them--unfairly). The idiots calling it "The Tea Party" or "Neo-Con:The Second Shot Party" for us, couldn't even begin to tell you what the Boston Tea Party was for or about; they're clueless to history and if you tell them so, they believe they're only--more correct...

The party called "Republicans", died with Teddy Roosevelt.

/Every politician since the U.S. started in 1776 are turning in their graves... Except for some since prohibition--the Others™, that failed, and lead us to a near coup (Mafia wise). The U.S. state picked, history books don't bother to tell you how close it was. All it tells you is how AWESOME your state and country are--fuck everyone else except Britain when we get to the chapter called "People and Countries that make great lapdogs.".

I hope our secondary drug war doesn't turn out the same; but, ironically, it's starting to have a great potential for it. Brought to you by the people that don't read about history. Neo-Conolgy...

//dev/null

Thanks probie for hooking that up. I would love to promote a video of yours, but it seems you don't have any. Anyway, I have a power point at your disposal. Just let me know what to do with it.

In reply to this comment by probie:
Just click through to YouTube, it's right there:

The movie starts, "Sweet Emotion"'s playing in the background,
kids are smoking weed with Slater, man he's such a class clown,
all the cars are full of beer, Bacardi and liquor,
because tonight there is a giant house party at Pickford's,
it's the last day of school, Slater is trippin,
Tony had a weird dream and tells Mike he should listen,
in his dream he had a naked girl her boobies were decent,
but then the naked body's head belonged to Abraham Lincoln, whoa,
Don gives Randal Pink a pledge sheet for football that says
he can't do drugs while Benny's making a paddle,
Jodi begs the guys to not hurt her brother Mitch Kramer
but they still plan to, damn they're such assholes,
they breaking it down, for the football coach, "You have to use a substance?
Randal Pink you better be giving yourself an attitude adjustment,"
so they drive up to the middle school to make a big announcement
Mitchy Mitchty Mitchy do not run don't think about it
Mitch asks the teacher if they can escape through the back
"50 going on a mission, 25 aint coming back,"
school is over but they're gettng chased like fuck it lets be out,
Carl's mom pulls out a gun "but miss there's ruffians about,"
("AIRRAID YOU FRESHMEN BITCHES!!!!")
they're smoking weed in Pickford's room,
the beer man brought the kegs too soon,
the party's canceled, ruining the plans that were in store,
cuz if you go to Pickford's house and knock his dad answers the door,
Hitch is at his game hes pitchin and hes terrified
oh holy shit he looks up in the bleachers and right theres the guys
they catch him and the bend him over beat him til his fanny's pink
now he can hardly walk and so he gets a ride from Randy Pink,
they pick him up later like he's a foolish little kid
"you got a joint?" "no i do not," "well it'd be cooler if you did"
alright alright alright, theres Wooderson hes such a crazy fool
they go to the emporium to meet some girls and play some pool
you leave the dance, you can't come back
but fuck it those kids didn't care
they wanna walk around a bit but Herschfelder was "gettin there"
now they're gettin chased and they get licked by O'Bannon
wee wee wee squeeal like a pig oh my god they cannot stand him
now they're breakin mailboxes with cans that's meant for trash
get a gun pulled on em fuck this old man Pickford hit the gas
they get revenge on Obannon,with hardy laughter dude scours,
Wooderson plotted a beerbust, awesome party at the moon tower!
president George Washington was not a homosapien
ain't you ever heard that song? the presidents were aliens
Mitch and Julie hit it off, theyre prolly gonna get it on,
the beer is flowin nicely then abruptly everything went wrong
smells like someone's smokin reefer! i'm the one thats smokin reefer,
push him, sucker punch him, oopsie daisies put him in the sleeper
dominant alpha male mothafucker you fuckin disgust me i hate your guts,
he's kickin his ass hes punchin and kickin and killin him til they break it up
god damn it, he's lucky that he's still alive,
stupid mothafucka had to ruin shit and kill the vibe,
the party's over, keg is tapped, it's get up in the car time
lets go smoke a joint right on the 50 fuckin yard line!
break down! giggling! party in the hot night!
mustve been too loud or something theres a fuckin cop light
cops are talkin shit like they can smell beer and smell smoke
randy floyd is gettin high well wait til i go tell coach!
coach comes, mad as hell, randy pink, let's speak,
ditch your loser friends right now and sign your freakin pledge sheet,
sorry coach i got a speech for you it goes like this,
ya see i might play football in the fall but nope i wont sign this, peace!
mitch and julie making out until the sun rise,
mama grabs him by the ear you'reo ff the hook this one time,
mitchell are you drunk right now? heck no mom,
happy end mitch kramer goes to sleep with headphones on>> ^eric3579:

A promote to the sifter who can track down the lyrics to this song.

Just click through to YouTube, it's right there:

The movie starts, "Sweet Emotion"'s playing in the background,
kids are smoking weed with Slater, man he's such a class clown,
all the cars are full of beer, Bacardi and liquor,
because tonight there is a giant house party at Pickford's,
it's the last day of school, Slater is trippin,
Tony had a weird dream and tells Mike he should listen,
in his dream he had a naked girl her boobies were decent,
but then the naked body's head belonged to Abraham Lincoln, whoa,
Don gives Randal Pink a pledge sheet for football that says
he can't do drugs while Benny's making a paddle,
Jodi begs the guys to not hurt her brother Mitch Kramer
but they still plan to, damn they're such assholes,
they breaking it down, for the football coach, "You have to use a substance?
Randal Pink you better be giving yourself an attitude adjustment,"
so they drive up to the middle school to make a big announcement
Mitchy Mitchty Mitchy do not run don't think about it
Mitch asks the teacher if they can escape through the back
"50 going on a mission, 25 aint coming back,"
school is over but they're gettng chased like fuck it lets be out,
Carl's mom pulls out a gun "but miss there's ruffians about,"
("AIRRAID YOU FRESHMEN BITCHES!!!!")
they're smoking weed in Pickford's room,
the beer man brought the kegs too soon,
the party's canceled, ruining the plans that were in store,
cuz if you go to Pickford's house and knock his dad answers the door,
Hitch is at his game hes pitchin and hes terrified
oh holy shit he looks up in the bleachers and right theres the guys
they catch him and the bend him over beat him til his fanny's pink
now he can hardly walk and so he gets a ride from Randy Pink,
they pick him up later like he's a foolish little kid
"you got a joint?" "no i do not," "well it'd be cooler if you did"
alright alright alright, theres Wooderson hes such a crazy fool
they go to the emporium to meet some girls and play some pool
you leave the dance, you can't come back
but fuck it those kids didn't care
they wanna walk around a bit but Herschfelder was "gettin there"
now they're gettin chased and they get licked by O'Bannon
wee wee wee squeeal like a pig oh my god they cannot stand him
now they're breakin mailboxes with cans that's meant for trash
get a gun pulled on em fuck this old man Pickford hit the gas
they get revenge on Obannon,with hardy laughter dude scours,
Wooderson plotted a beerbust, awesome party at the moon tower!
president George Washington was not a homosapien
ain't you ever heard that song? the presidents were aliens
Mitch and Julie hit it off, theyre prolly gonna get it on,
the beer is flowin nicely then abruptly everything went wrong
smells like someone's smokin reefer! i'm the one thats smokin reefer,
push him, sucker punch him, oopsie daisies put him in the sleeper
dominant alpha male mothafucker you fuckin disgust me i hate your guts,
he's kickin his ass hes punchin and kickin and killin him til they break it up
god damn it, he's lucky that he's still alive,
stupid mothafucka had to ruin shit and kill the vibe,
the party's over, keg is tapped, it's get up in the car time
lets go smoke a joint right on the 50 fuckin yard line!
break down! giggling! party in the hot night!
mustve been too loud or something theres a fuckin cop light
cops are talkin shit like they can smell beer and smell smoke
randy floyd is gettin high well wait til i go tell coach!
coach comes, mad as hell, randy pink, let's speak,
ditch your loser friends right now and sign your freakin pledge sheet,
sorry coach i got a speech for you it goes like this,
ya see i might play football in the fall but nope i wont sign this, peace!
mitch and julie making out until the sun rise,
mama grabs him by the ear you'reo ff the hook this one time,
mitchell are you drunk right now? heck no mom,
happy end mitch kramer goes to sleep with headphones on>> ^eric3579:

A promote to the sifter who can track down the lyrics to this song.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Wow. I was really happy to see this video, because I have gotten into a lot of debates about exactly what it addresses. Then I read the comments. Now I am depressed. Watch the video again, people. Several of you missed it.


@Drachen_Jager "Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a 'God' might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0."

There is also an infinite number of permutations on what 'soup' might be. Therefor soup doesn't exist? Sorry, you cannot mathematically disprove the existence of anything. You can only look at specific claims and either accept them, dismiss them, or hold them as unresolvable. For instance, the claim that "the God of Abraham exists as defined in the Bible" can be disproven with logic. However, the claim that "a Supreme Being created the universe" cannot be proven or disproven.


@Bidouleroux "Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist."

Nonsense. Though I have rejected every religion I've heard about, there is no reason not to believe that a consciousness may exist outside of our normal understanding of what constitutes the universe. But until it affects my life directly in one way or another, I have no reason to believe it either. I am neutral on the subject.


@SDGundamX "Isn't this the old argument about the differences between agnosticism and atheism?"

Yes. But Agnosticism isn't just "I don't know". It is the view that "nothing CAN be known". It is a much more extreme viewpoint than anybody gives credit.

One of the points of this video is that anybody who says "I don't know what to believe" is an atheist. It is a very broad category that theists have successfully narrowed, pigeon-holed, and marginalized. I urge you to re-watch the video with this in mind.


@mgittle "Assuming you subscribe to the fact that evolution shaped the way our brains work, why are you surprised at the concept that evolution created a predisposition towards belief in some sort of supernatural mind that has will and intent?"

It isn't that we have a predisposition towards supernatural belief, but that we have a predisposition toward recognizing "other". We can see that separate people have separate minds, and we assign things that we don't understand to be the working of "other". And if we can't find a logical reason for some occurrence in the world, we might assume that "other" has power over the world and was the cause. However, science has progressed to the point where it simply isn't necessary to do that anymore, and anyone brought up in a household that respects science may very well never find themselves jumping to supernatural beliefs. We can simply hold that "other" as temporarily unknown, and either seek the answer or be perfectly content leaving it unknown.

Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difficult position of seeing the irrational behavior in others and how that can tend towards a feeling of personal superiority. Modesty, while ideal, can be difficult to maintain.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

Learning things is good, there are no good or bad seasons to learn. Great work by those involved with the billboards and TV adds etc

Telling someone that they are wrong isn't always mocking them. Sometimes it's simply an attempt to point out a fact, raise their awareness, or take away some ignorance. Yet this can still be embarrassing, and therefore can easily be seen as mocking. Everyone likes to be right, some are just more reasonable to accept the alternative based on proof and move on.

However, religions should be mocked as there is no scientific proof of a god's existence at this point in time, and nothing other than religious scriptures and scientific facts are needed to achieve this to a near perfect art.
Note: "doesn't need to be proven" is not a reasonable stance for any argument. Try it in any other subject and watch how fast it fails.

All statements need to be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, else they should be discarded with any other unproven opinions.

Thomas Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions"

PS: besides, the gods in the Abrahamic religions are a bunch of ass holes, why would anyone in their right mind want to appease any version of them?

Wall of text warning. No tl;dr. Learn to read dammit (see what I did there?).

@quantumushroom

Unusual post from you there qm. But again you miss the point (what did you expect?).

First off, religion necessarily has an effect on society otherwise no one would care if you adhered or not (i.e. there would be no religious wars, no religious-based hatred etc.). The problem is not that religion enhances your sense of well-being, it's that as a consequence (or side effect if you will) you close yourself off from people of a different religion and from contrary opinions on many different matters: you trade freedom of thought for psychological safety and by doing that you deserve neither. Now, if you're a "religious scientist" type then your either not really religious or not really a scientist. Compartmentalization can only get you so far.

Second, wtf does any of this has to do with liberalism? Your tangent does not intersect my argument at any point. I bet you can't derive for shit. Do you even know what derivation is?

Third, atheism is neutral. Atheism is to theism as amoralism is to moralism. The antonym to moral is not amoral but immoral. In the same way, the antonym to theism is non-theism. A non-theist can be religious, he simply does not believe in a deity or deities. Atheism was a term invented by theists to vilify non-theist and polytheists. It has been adopted by non-religious people like "nigger" has been adopted by African-Americans, as a way of empowerment. It encompasses many views, most of them non-religious. It does not mean atheists cannot suffer from the same delusions as religious people, only that they are less likely because by identifying and refusing to accept the kind of bad thinking that goes on in religious circles, they have inoculated themselves to a point.

Fourth, on the contrary one could say that there have never been a religion without a state. Every religion needs a vector of power to affirm its authority and convert others. The Jews in Pharaonic Egypt formed a state within a state, electing their own leaders and applying the laws of Abraham to their brethren, much like Muslims try to do in western countries by following sharia law and even trying to make it official. I would go so far as to say that religion is the prototype of the state. Look at Buddhism. Not a year after the Buddha died and already sects formed and tried to control the movement he started. The conflicts may not have been overtly violent, but they were power struggles and as such quite far from the detachment from worldly matters taught by the Buddha. All prophets are dictators. Their intentions may be good, but it will always turn sour when they're gone as they, and not their god or teachings, are really what unify their followers. The continuation depends not on the person or the teachings but on the institutions that they or their successors build, just like a state. You could see what I mean if you had read the Leviathan of Hobbes (that's not what he says, but the parallels he makes and his insistence that religion is necessary for the state's well-being goes in this direction). This, to me, argues for anarchism but of course with people like quantumushroom - not to mention the potential for greed and cruelty still in all of us - I would have to say we are not ripe for it just yet. It may well be that a great part of the population will need to be forced to become atheists just to live among an atheist society comfortably, like atheists were once forced to recant their views in religious societies. While it would mean some psychological violence, as long as we stay in a democratic state it would not do more damage than what religion does now and I believe it would benefit humankind in the long run.

@Gallowflak

Nowhere did I say atheists were more rational than the religious. In fact, most rationalists (like Descartes) are religious for various reasons, one which I will explore below. I said that atheists are more reasonable and detached in their understanding of the world. Now, while "reasonable" comes from "reason" it does not mean here that a reasonable person uses more reason than another. It means that a person is more sensible than another. For example, there are no empirically verifiable evidence of a god or gods. Any religious person not mentally ill will agree. They may argue for the acceptance of anecdotal evidence or of natural phenomena as "acts of God", but just saying something doesn't make it so and anecdotal evidence is not verifiable/repeatable by a third-party and thus of very little value. So there doesn't seem to be any evidence for deities, even Pascal admitted that fact in the frickin 17th century, that's why he had to make a wager with non-believers: he tried to say that by betting on an infinite reward you cannot lose (many think that Pascal says the odds are infinite, but that would be empirical. Pascal says that since god is presumably infinite, and that you presumably gain this infinity when you die, you should take the bet since by doing so you lose nothing in this life. Of course the last part I think is false, also the dying part. Only the "god is infinite" has any kind of weight and it is very light). Of course he didn't really understand mathematical infinity and thus didn't realize that doing so meant you only had an infinitesimal chance of winning in return.

Digression aside, this means that the natural state of a rational being would be non-theistic. Only non-rational belief (based on logical fallacies or the sentiment of faith) or logical arguments based on non-empirical premises can lead to the existence of a god as part of one's thinking. Thus, while not necessarily non-rational, religious thinking most of the time is. In other cases, when dubious premises are used, we would say that the conclusions are not reasonable, meaning that they do not agree with our raw, unfiltered experiences of the world. This is exactly why many religious persons and theists resort to rationalism, as it lets them bypass primary experience in order to define god a priori as the creator of our experiences by some logical argument with dubious premises. Of course this comes from an empiric viewpoint, but then again rationalists don't have a monopoly on reason even though they let us empiricists have a monopoly on experience: that's where the Kantians enter, but that's a story for another time I'm afraid.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Penn, admire and respect him. And I understand the rejection of the contradictions of the Bible. While faith is a personal matter, rejecting any religion on its contradictions alone seems narrow-minded. Life itself is fraught with paradoxes and contradictions. Many liberals believe in higher taxes on the wealthy, yet no one can make sense of the US Tax Code, filled with more than its share of contradictions, paradoxes, hypocrisy and passages that should have been ignored long ago.
It's possible to Believe and have faith in something without it being "perfectly" understood.


Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

If a national leader, as an example, relies upon their religious faith for aspects of decision making, that strikes me as uncomfortable but tolerable - if their decisions have honest merit. However, it's grotesque when politicians bandy about their blind faith as if it were to their credit, and I don't believe there should be any religious references in the structure of government. Likewise, children should be educated about religion but not have it installed into them; on such an important matter, the decision to become religious needs to be made by a fully autonomous, intelligent person.

I'm not an anti-theist, but considering the (especially Abrahamic) religious claims, the stakes could not be higher. Religion deserves great attention and scrutiny for exactly that reason.

The "Ten Points" appear every February 12 in newspaper ads honoring Abraham Lincoln. In fact, these aphorisms are from the pen of Reverend William John Henry Boetcker (1873-1962).

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

--Abraham Lincoln



Dis-Grayson? Good riddance to mad rubbish!

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.