…that the left is trying to get traditional western culture treated as a thoughtcrime, it‘s really not hyperbole:
Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, said that recent developments suggest that we will soon be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness.
Big deal. Breshnev was claiming the same thing 50 years ago.
Bonus: art imitates life! Kathleen Taylor of Oxford:
Suzanna Hamilton in the movie (or was it?) 1984:
Accidental? I think not.
I find this Brave New World stuff fascinating.
“She said that radicalizing ideologies may soon be viewed not as being of personal choice or free will but as a category of mental disorder.”
Being homosexual used to be considered a mental disorder. Now it’s considered an orientation. Liberals will tell you that people have no choice about their orientation, but the APA says that most people experience ‘very little sense of choice” about their orientation, which is not the same thing at all.
Neurologist Kathleen Taylor:
“. . . there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm.””
Like communism? Say, wasn’t Aurora mass shooter James Holmes a neurologist?
This sentence is awesome!
The author of the article:
I think that we found a new contributor to Pen Blog.
Appropos of nothing, Cheaper than Dirt has Russian TulAmmo 55grain, 5.56 ammo on sale for $230 \ 1000rnds.
At that price, a guy can afford to do some real plinking.
Dude, you can buy same crappy Russian ammo on SGA for a lot less than that!
Bento……and a man (or was it a lady?) was fined over $100,000 for refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony. And Hillary approves.
Bento, check your e-mail. It’s on baby.
Crappy Russian ammo has
piled up a lot of bodies,/strike> poked a lot of holes in targets.SGA has Wolf 5.56 for $.22\rnd, but hey, I do have a limit on what I’ll put through ol’ Harasser.
Heh…broken tag.
Chuck, I’ve never been invited to a homo wedding. Who do I sue?
What Bento says. When people start treating the most lethal ideology in history as a mental illness–yeah, I’m talking to you, Bernie, and you too, Hilliary–then I’ll believe they’re serious about it. As things stand, secular fundamentalism is several orders of magnitude more deadly than any religion professing a belief in a god ever has been.
Heh indeed. I never had problems with crappy Russian ammo either, just pulling your lariat and trying to save you a few pennies – subscribe to SGA newsletter, they sometimes have great deals and I found them to be cheaper than cheaper than dirt. Now, if you lived in the Philippines, you could put that plinking to good use and get a medal for it.
Mitch, I find this hilarious, given the conservative history of bad conduct in this area from conservatives.
There is nothing here that is a problem as presented. In view of the dangerous and unscientific, proven-damaging conduct of the right wingers, notably the fundie right, like reparative therapy to attempt to alter gender and sexual orientation, this is the pot calling the kettle black.
What this does reference is that delusional thinking – like those who religiously believe factually false things (e.g. the earth is flat, the sun rotates the earth, or that the earth is 6,000 years old, denial of climate change and human causation ) is a very real problem for our society.
Jerks like your conservative candidate for president denying that California has suffered from an extreme drought and continues in many parts of the state to do so IS A PROBLEM.
This reflects NOT the writing of Orwell in 1984, but rather the kind of writing one finds in legitimate medical and other scientific publications reflecting what we learn about hard science.
As to James Holmes being a neurologist? Gosh Bento – do your homework. He was a student in the field of neurology; it had nothing to do with his becoming a mass shooter. Anyone can become a victim of schizophrenia – as happened with the radical conservative site follower who shot up the street corner in AZ, Jared Loughner.
What this lady is referencing is not religious beliefs per se as social conformity — you know, the stuff YOU LOT push. It is looking at EXTREME and disabling belief systems in the larger context of mental illness as diagnosed by a much better and more objective scientific basis.
I have to laugh at Bento; the ONLY reason homosexuality was EVER classified as a mental illness was the intimidation of science by religion. There are numerous instances where, for example, scientific observers of animal behavior NOTED same sex activity, but did not report on it or include it out of concern for the attacks they would be targeted for by those very same fundies.
But hey – I can see why you would be concerned here. It is your side of the political spectrum that has that big collection of nuts, notably conspiracy theory freaks and science deniers. Read any Alex Jones crap lately, like Michele Obama is a man? Pffffffttttttttt! Talk about a candidate for a straight jacket and a rubber room! Any part of the political spectrum that not only embraces such insanity, but endorses a candidate who spews the same rubbish and gives it credence should be worried. You’ve courted and welcomed the wackos for too long on your side.
You don’t need more of your purity purges that the right is so fond of, you need the kind of house cleaning that William F. Buckley Jr. provided when he drove out the John Birchers and other extremists back in the 1960’s and fought for the control by SANE and more moderate people who were better connected to reality.
Off topic alert.
I just had a thought, and I’d like some guidance from SITD law talking dudes. If Clot were to win, and the GOP held it’s majorities, could Congress impeach her for high crimes committed while SoS?
Swift…..if The Donald wins, can we impeach him for something?
“could Congress impeach her for high crimes committed while SoS?”
why bother? She’s a criminal, just wait 6 months – there’ll be plenty to of reasons to impeach her.
the ONLY reason homosexuality was EVER classified as a mental illness was the intimidation of science by religion.
Yeah well, you have to admit, the feces covered sheets, thrashing around in park bushes and <a href = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Camp_of_Tolerance" Gerbiliing didn’t help.
Chuck, if he strays off the SCOTUS candidate list he’s submitted, I’d say absolutely.
DG,
I’m not going to bother responding until I have some indication you ever actually read responses to you.
What this does reference is that delusional thinking – like those who religiously believe factually false things (e.g. the earth is flat, the sun rotates the earth, or that the earth is 6,000 years old, denial of climate change and human causation ) is a very real problem for our society.
Where to begin? First, how is the rantings of folks like the “young Earth” creationists a very real problem for society? Are they blowing up schools that teach the earth is round (more accurately, it’s an oblate spheroid)?
Sun “rotates” the earth? I haven’t heard that one. Did you mean the prior notion of the sun revolving around the earth? For someone who castigates the “anti-science” of those with whom you disagree, you don’t seem to care enough about details, or you just plain don’t know the difference, when it comes to rotation versus revolution.
The phrase “denial of climate change and human causation” speaks volumes about the rigidity of your position, so much so that it moves from scientific opinion to “belief”. If someone dissents from a opinion, scientific or otherwise, the proper term for them is “skeptic”. Calling them a denier is on par with labeling them an “unbeliever”. Who’s the zealot now?
Anyone can become a victim of schizophrenia – as happened with the radical conservative site follower who shot up the street corner in AZ, Jared Loughner.
Loughner was all over the map politically. It is intellectually dishonest to characterize him as following “radical” conservative sites when his on-line activity has him going after pretty much everyone.
Jerks like your conservative candidate for president denying that California has suffered from an extreme drought and continues in many parts of the state to do so IS A PROBLEM.
California’s dry spell is a man-made disaster. California’s misguided water policies failed to allow for dry spells, made worse in part by elevating the Delta Smelt over the needs of farmers, and turning farmland in dust bowls. (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/trump_is_correct_about_the_california_drought.html)
It is your side of the political spectrum that has that big collection of nuts, notably conspiracy theory freaks and science deniers.
Conveniently forgetting the anti-vaccine movement, DG? More of them tend to identify as liberal or progressive. And worse than being “science deniers”, they believe in junk science. Like the discredited and debunked claims of mercury in thimerosal causing autism.
Once again, Doggone demonstrates she SERIOUSLY needs to read some Solzhenitsyn or Valladares.
California has suffered from an extreme drought
Caused by radical environmentalists trying to save a doomed fish that serves no tangible purpose.
Jerks … IS A PROBLEM.
*are
(out of order)
In view of the dangerous and unscientific, proven-damaging conduct of the right wingers
As opposed to the radical ideologues your side reveres, who have murdered well over 100 million living and 55 million unborn babies in the last century.
It is bereft of any reason, of course, but dg’s little tirade is not without comic value. Let us examine the work of St. Olaf’s Wordsmith:
Mitch, I find this hilarious, given the conservative history of bad conduct in this area from conservatives.
The conservative history of bad conduct? As in a succinct summation..or just an example of tortured syntax?
There is nothing here that is a problem as presented.
So her objection is to the presentation, not that no problem exists.
In view of the dangerous and unscientific, proven-damaging conduct of the right wingers [syntax and grammar], notably the fundie right, like reparative therapy to attempt to alter gender and sexual orientation, this is the pot calling the kettle black. [Run-on, syntax]
What this does reference is that delusional thinking – like those who religiously believe factually false things [Grammar explosion. I feel the beginnings of a headache…this may not be a good idea]
Jerks like your conservative candidate for[P] resident[,] denying that California has suffered from an extreme drought and [, which] continues in many parts of the state
to do soIS A PROBLEM.This reflects NOT the writing[This does NOT reflect the writing] of Orwell in 1984, but rather the kind of writing one finds in legitimate medical and other scientific publications[,] reflecting what we learn about hard science.As to James Holmes being a neurologist? Gosh Bento – do your homework. He was a student in the field of neurology; it had nothing to do with his becoming a mass shooter. Anyone can become a victim of schizophrenia – as happened with the radical conservative [web] site follower who shot up the street corner in AZ, Jared Loughner. [I don’t think dg wrote this, not enough errors]
What this lady is referencing is not religious belief
s per seas social conformity, per se — you know, the stuff YOU LOT push. It is looking at EXTREME and disabling belief systems in the larger context of mental illness as diagnosed by amuchbetter and more objective scientific basis.I have to laugh at Bento; the ONLY reason homosexuality was EVER classified as a mental illness was the intimidation of science by religion. There are numerous instances where, for example, scientific observers of animal behavior NOTED same sex activity, but did not report on it or include it out of concern for the attacks they would be targeted for by those very same fundies. [I digress here to point out to dg that animals have been observed, by scientists mind you, to eat their own shit, too]
But hey – I can see why you would be concerned here. It is your side of the political spectrum that has
thatthe big collection of nuts, notably conspiracy theory freaks and science deniers. [paragraph]Read any Alex Jones crap lately, like Michele Obama is a man?
Pffffffttttttttt![Pffft] Talk about a candidate for a straight jacket and a rubber room! Any part of the political spectrum that not only embraces such insanity, but endorses a candidate who spews the same rubbish and gives it credence should be worried. You’ve courted and welcomed the wackos for too long on your side.You don’t need more of
your[the] purity purgesthatthe right is so fond of, you need the kind of house cleaning that William F. Buckley Jr. provided when he drove out the John Birchers and other extremists back in the 1960’s and fought for the control by SANE and more moderate people who were better connected to reality.You say this woman is the product of an expensive education from an elite, private college? Pffft.
Dog Gone: huff less paint.
Once again, Doggone demonstrates she SERIOUSLY needs to read some Solzhenitsyn or Valladares.
Bikebubba – I’d be amused if she’d just try to spell them.
Dog Gone’s words speak for themselves!
The article is a bit of a fraud. The author seems to have compiled bits and pieces of pop-psy articles and mashed them together, adding his own editorial comment here and there.
The idea that human behavior is so well understood that we can confidently call certain things ‘mental disorders’ is quackery. The term is a political definition. It is contextual. Keep a fellow human being helpless and locked up against his or her will and you are a psychopathic sadist, or maybe you are just the county sheriff. The APA’s definition of mental disorders has gotten to be so vague it is entirely useless. It changes with each new edition of the DSM. The latest attempt is:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-psychology/201307/the-new-definition-mental-disorder
The article the definition appears in is excellent, BTW.
We would all be better off if the APA stuck to dealing with human behavior, and not abstractions like ‘orientation.’
DG-“denial of climate change and human causation…” Sounds the same as a strick religious view you have there, DG. As in you want to banish the non-believers. Show us your proof of the “settled science”, please.
The article may be a bit of a fraud, but I am still confronted by the fact that the woman profiled is a professor at one of the world’s oldest and most eminent universities, and not in a “soft” discipline like sociology. So fraud or not, it would appear to be evidence that even the hard sciences are being penetrated by activists who aren’t going to let evidence stand in the way of their bigotry. And that’s a scary thought–that someone like Doggone might someday get tenure.
Neuroscientists tend to look at human beings and human minds as being deterministic machines whose operation is comprehensible or can be made comprehensible to man. The field tends to attract people that think that way.
The “New Atheist” Sam Harris got a grad degree in neuroscience to buff up his credentials. I put the quotes around “New Atheist” because Harris has the whiff of a charlatan about him. Harris is famous for proposing that we can use science to define a new, improved morality (he wrote a book about it, did the TED talks, etc.). His book has been shredded by moral philosophers, atheist and non-atheist, Left and Right. There is a certain breed of person who believes since reason and mathematics allow us to put people on the moon, reason and mathematics can tell us how to improve the moral state of mankind.
Bento; agreed, but neuroscience is something that does have a certain number of right and wrong answers–concussions damage the brain in many ways, for example–and hence it is still striking to see this. At least to me.
Where to begin? First, how is the rantings of folks like the “young Earth” creationists a very real problem for society?
While I’m loathe to address anything DG writes until she stops with the poop and run, this is an interesting point.
Leaving aside the fact that young-earth creationism is a minority view among Christians, I love to ask: so what if your neurosurgeon was a young-earth creationist.
I mean, his/her knowledge of science has been proven by, y’know, becoming neurosurgeon. So if they know how to successfully operate on the human brain, what difference does their belief about the age of the Earth make?
I lied. It’s not hypothetical. Ben Carson is a creationist. Would DG like to compare her command of science with his?
Please?
Mitch, even if Dr. Carson weren’t retired, I think he’d have a distinct lack of material to work with if he were called to operate on DG, if you catch my drift.
Agreed, Mitch. If Dr. Carson was a geologist, his creationist viewpoint might actually come into conflict with his function in society. It’s highly unlikely a creationist would be a geologist anyway.
Besides, religion and science can co-exist. Just ask Fr. Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory.
Ian,
The idea that religion and science are at odds is, like young-earth creationism, pretty recent.
Wait a second here. Old earth geology really has only been a dominant theory since the 1800s, and dates back realy to Lyell and Hutton. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism
We can argue scientific evidence, but let’s not get confused who’s the new kid on the block, K?
That said, it is true that the idea that religion and science are at odds is recent, and I would argue that the whole idea is a conceit on the part of secularists to reframe arguments in their favor. Even the materialist view of the word “science” (Latin for “knowledge” of course) is something of a cheap shot that way.
Guys, remember the axiom of science – we don’t know what we don’t know. We got to where we are today – an infinitesimal step in understanding universe – by questioning and challenging status quo. Nothing is ever settled in science. Nothing. Ever. By definition. Whoever says it is does not know how to spell the word science, nor should ever use it in a sentence. QED.