Essay talk:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

If you want this as an essay versus an article you should move it to Essay:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?, else we are all going to edit it. - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 07:46, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Also I would like to point out with the UK they are expecting an increase in dementia because the population is getting older, higher numbers of older people means higher rates of dementia, it has nothing what so ever to do with how liberal they are the US is probably expecting a similar trend. - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 07:57, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
I'd concur. Dementia isn't a mental illness, its closer to a mental handicap. CS Miller (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Trotter sez[edit]

"Generalizations to the public liberal community"? You should read [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]. You think this is a generalization to the public "liberal" community? The left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. This is not a generalization, this is fact. Let me say this, "Impaired judgement, by definition, does not know it is impaired" ~ Michael M. Trotter Thanks for reading. — Unsigned, by: MikeTrotter1 / talk / contribs 16:57, 31 December 2014‎ (UTC), originally vandalism.

Ehh...I can't say I fully agree, but I do see your point. I seriously doubt, though, that liberals want to run others lives for them any more than Conservapedia conservatives do. If anything, Conservapedia's desire to control religion, who you can and can't marry, control who can do what work (to them, only men should work out of the house), control what happens in people's bedrooms, and so on, sounds like the kind of anti-freedom agenda you are worried about. In any case, if you disagree with this essay's conclusion, you should write your own essay, and explain your points better (as I fail to see how "providing for everyone's healthcare" "protect[ing] everyone's self-esteem", "educating every citizen", and many other things you are speaking out against are bad things). Not insert a clustered paragraph saying "I disagree vehemently" at the end of someone else's essay. Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed the extra "Mike Trotter sez" paragraph[edit]

Dissenting views can go on the talk page, not in the essay. I see it's on the talk page, and that's fine, but do we really need it to be thrown in the essay as well?Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The silly Weaseloid must've gotten confused and thought you were vandalizing instead of removing vandalism. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 00:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm? Was I too hasty in removing that? Should I have gotten an admin's attention? If so, sorry.Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean a janitor? No, you don't need to fetch the janitor because you were fixing vandalism. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)