John Cuthber

Can I just ask why your jackass' book is more valid than my jackass' blog? Note that my jackass is probably a better known social commentator than yours. Also, it's shorter so, if you can't be bothered to critique it, you can hardly blame me for taking a similar view of a much longer work.

And the next time I need to explain what an ad hom attack is I will point to this as an example.

Here's an interesting take on a related issue http://blog.dilbert.com/post/113340087216/is-it-healthier-to-be-republican

It's not clear from the OP whether he is talking about the number of numbers between one and infinity or the number of rationals in that range. There are more numbers (including transendentals) in the range 0 ->1 than there are integers in the range 1-> infinity or rationals in the range 0->1

That proves that there are at least as many numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 1 and infinity. There are , I think, actually rather more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

He has to use a slide rule instead.

"That is the difference, NO handouts were provided to people, jobs were." If you pay one guy to dig a hole,and another guy to fill it in, are you creating jobs or giving handouts? it hardly matters in a way. The money that was paid- via a job or not- came from taxing people. And they didn't get it from taxing the poor people. So what the government did was take money from the rich and give it (possibly via an intermediary; who cares?) to the poor. That's a clear, direct way to reduce disparity in wealth. In order to do more of that, you need to collect more tax revenue. You don't (ordinarily) do that by cutting tax rates. You can do it if you increase tax rates. (Of course, you might piss the money away in a war that some other guy started or whatever, but that's not the point. If you don't collect the money, you can't redistribute it) Claiming that you can redistribute money you don't collect is either irrational or dishonest. If this thread only exists to label the Right wing as "not worth listening to" then labelling them as liars is every bit as effective as calling them insane. It really doesn't matter if they are discredited for irrationality or for dishonesty. "By yours ( and John's ) definition, are we, then, ALL insane for believing the things which get said during elections ( or by paid-for shills and 'talking heads' ) ?" Seriously? You believe that hogwash?

There is a pretty clear distinction between giving tax breaks to organisations that employ people and giving tax cuts to people who stash it in overseas accounts. There;'s also a clear distinction between "supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary" and those who do it all the time as a means to buy votes and influence. Pointing out that an argument doesn't tally with the rules of cause and effect- the cause has to come first- is an attack on the argument. Admittedly, it doesn't reflect well on the person who advances that argument in the first place.

" It is an attempt to label people and ideas as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion. " Or it's a question based on some observations. "As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression." Seems like time travel "Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy" From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

""Trickle down' economics, ..., is not just a Reagan Conservative policy." Nobody said it was. But the important thing is that it doesn't work. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens " There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'" Then why worry about them? In particular, why keep using those terms? Incidentally, from my point of view (and, I think that of most of the world) America doesn't have any Left wing politicians actually in office. " IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008," You seem to have muddled him up with Dr Who. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama "Assumed office January 20, 2009" So, you seem to be saying there's nothing insane about Conservatives (which, you say, don't exist anyway)- the problem is the crash caused by Mr Obama shortly before he became president. Glad we got that settled.

All "A" are "B" doesn't prove all "B" are "A". But if it's true for a large enough sample, it supports the suggestion. I can't check all Conservatives, but I have looked at a sample of them... Can you show me the clearly sane ones please? Can you, for example, show me the ones who don't believe in trickle down economics and who believe that the wealth inequality isn't a good thing.

I take it that you accept my point, the guy who really thinks he's Napoleon isn't sane. Do you also accept that the bloke who was on Fox news saying he believed that B'ham was a Moslem city and off-limits to those who follow other faiths, was also either deluded, or lying? Not least because there's no logical route from "The place is totally Moslem" to "It's a no- go area for those who are not"

Re 1 Guess again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder Many forms of insanity include delusion as one of the symptoms. That has been discussed at some length. The discussion already included the evidence and my qualifications. To cut a long story short, would you describe someone who thought they were Napoleon as sane? Of course it's possible that he's simply dishonest. Unless that's compulsive it doesn't mark him, or even Fox News, out as insane. It just means they can't be trusted. We already knew that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html (It's interesting to note that Fox News' reply was the corporate equivalent of an ad hom attack- a logical fallacy, rather than a valid rebuttal). The second is a red herring; essentially nothing is representative of all people who label themselves conservative (with the tautological exception that they label themselves as Conservative) The important point is not that all Conservatives seem to be like this guy, but that all the people like this guy seem to be Conservatives. The mainstream Left wing doesn't seem to need to tell as many lies as the mainstream Right wing does. Why is that?

Ho Hum, here's another one. He's delusional (or dishonest- take your pick). He's Right wing. He's on Fox News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_zF7nbEvwY

Fair point; someone gets shafted.

That suggests that you can't tell sex from politics.

No, and once again you seem to be repeatedly ignoring what I say, Stop pretending that the decision is down to my personal biases. I never said that, you keep trying to pretend that I did. I repeatedly pointed out that it's a societal decision. And you flatly said it isn't- but you offered no sensible reason for that assertion. If you want to see who is sane you look at what people believe. If they think the moon is made of cheese, that there are dragons at the bottom of the garden, and so on- things that are clearly not true, then they are insane. It's not a matter of "not people's subjective view of those who disagree with them. " It's a matter of whether they believe that the Queen is a shape changing alien lizard. If they do, then they are nuts. Why do you think it takes a medical professional to see that? How do you reckon that anyone ever ends up going to see such a doctor? After all- you seem to think that nobody else can make the judgement. Do you think these people wander deludely round the streets until they happen to bump into a psychiatrist? Or do you accept that the general public are able to tell that someone is "not right in the head" and alert the authorities? Until you actually look at what I say you are not even trying to debate with me.

No I did not. I said that, if you want a medical diagnosis then you need a doctor. However, to judge if someone is sane or not, you just need to consider their behaviour.

And, once again (in the hope that you might listen this time). No. I have labelled people who disagree with evidence insane. That's not controversial and I have cited my reasons for asserting it. You seem not to understand that I already presented the evidence. The definition of delusional disorder falls within the field of psychiatry. The relevant bit is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion However, the diagnosis might not fall in that field. Imagine I claim that there's gold in my garden. The only way to tell if I'm delusional in thinking that is to check to see if it's actually true. You need an analytical chemist or a geologist or some such to do that. A psychologist or psychiatrist simply isn't qualified to establish whether my belief is delusional or not. So, will you please stop banging on about psychiatry and psychology as if they are some God-given answer to anything? Anyway, here's the evidence again. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm You are not in any way attempting to show that it's wrong. And, in spite of that clear documented evidence, you seem to insist that the Right wing are correct in their beliefs. Do you, by any chance also think that you are Napoleon?

Yes, as I have pointed out several times. The Right wing are in the same position as a man who thinks he's Napoleon. They believe stuff that's plainly not true. For example, trickle-down economics. There are, of course, plenty of other daft ideas they subscribe to.

Next time, before you quote stuff back at me, you may wish to read it John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist."" Also, it might look better if you spell my name correctly- I know it's a pseudonym, but surely it's not too much trouble to get it right. And, once again I will draw your attention to the fact that three were de facto diagnoses of insanity before there were psychiatrists. The doctors came about because there was an illness- not the other way round. Are you actually going to address that?

If you look back a bit, you will find out what I think is required to make a diagnosis http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity/?p=841378 And, since I have clarified why I think it's essentially a societal decision, ordinary people are perfectly able to decide if someone has lost the plot or not. As I said, people diagnosed others as being insane long before psychology existed. It's possible that psychology and psychiatry can tell you more about these unfortunates- perhaps give you the why's and wherefores or even offer treatment. But, in terms of just answering the question "are these people normal?" there's no need for any qualification; there never was.

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology. If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist. If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion. it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

Ok it seems you don't like the idea of the Right being defined by being the Right. you seem to have forgotten that I did attack the principle or, at least, I provided a link to where another group has done so. http://www.oecd.org/...es Numero 2.pdf But there's a point where people stick to principles even after they were shown to be wrong. At that point I start to think they have lost their minds.

Exactly which part do you not agree with? Do you not agree that a slippery slope argument is a fallacy? Do you not agree that the Right wing has common properties that make them Right wing? Do you not agree that I can lump all right wingers together - at least in so far as their political views are concerned- because if I can't then "right wing" is a bit thin on definition? Do you not agree that a group of people who - as the groups defining character- believe in something absurd can be considered insane? Do you not agree that "trickle down" economic policies are discredited to the point of absurdity? If it's just the last of those then all we need to do is look at some financial figures and see who as reality on their side. And, you may have missed it, but labelling isn't just found in playgrounds- it's rather common in doctors' surgeries and in hospitals.