Doctor Baby~
What do you think of Biden?
PhatShady~
He doesn't have a chance in hell, too wordy; he's like Kerry, without the good hair. Obama fever, catch it!!!
Doctor Baby~
Oh how trendy. Where's your well defended animosity towards black people now? Biden forever!
PhatShady~
He's not really black you know, doesn't have the 'my grandpapi was a slave attitude' even Jesse and Al aren't on board, how hateful is that? Besides who said I was still in animosis? Aren't I allowed to evolve and redefine myself as I see fit?
Why Obama? He was against the war, before it was cool to be against the war. And I think the lack of DC TAINT is quite refreshing to this old Curmudgeon.
Doctor Baby~
I see, not black. Interesting. I would say not American Black which may be the same thing. True his father is off the boat African, Kenyan I think, so he doesn't have that entitlement thing going. But wasn't Biden one of the sole voices of reason way back when? Biden says what he thinks regardless of how it is received. Also he has a proven track record of less than standard on the corruptibility index. One of few.
PhatShady~
What about the plagiarism charges in college?
Doctor Baby~
Oooh, he bought a term paper. Heaven forbid!
Phatshady~
He got Caught, there's a difference. Aren't you American?
Doctor Baby~
He got caught doing something stupid when he was in college. That's a far cry from Duke Cunningham. You have to have some perspective. Should he be forever judged by a mistake of youth? That would be far too inflexible.
PhatShady~
I'm not the one doing the judging, I'm just commenting on how the herd will perceive him. I like Joe, and I like John, but they are not Alpha. Unfortunately, if you want to be Alpha in this Society then you must Alpha-explain your mistakes. Biden doesn't do this, he just offers more warmed over sameness that Kerry did, and Edwards while we are on the topic. Hillary, gods love her, brings nothing new to the party. Obama has the freshness and the underdog value that America begs for.
Doctor Baby~
Form over substance is all that matters anymore. We are such a juvenile society.
PhatShady~
In the end, it’s not the election you want, it’s the election you deserve.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Mental health bill moves forward in Congress
A recent discussion on mental health after reading this article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-02-15T135333Z_01_N14417499_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-MENTAL.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Doctor Baby~
I'm not terribly happy with this 'indulgence' bill. Few people are nuts and they are typically too nuts to have jobs or insurance. This is for the Cindys of the country and we get to pay for it. Perhaps they just get a grip instead. I have real issues with 'diseases' with no biomarkers. "We made the diagnosis by talking to them." Real scientific.
I'm glad I have my tiger-repelling computer in front of me. I know it works, I don't see any tigers.
PhatShady~
But people do need someone who is not so judgmental when faced with overwhelming stress. You can make a mental health diagnosis 'by talking to them,' I do it everyday. You don't just talk to the person; you watch their body language and the context that they bring the problem forth. PTSD has no'bio marker' but it is a very real mental illness that can only be understood and treated by 'talking' along with the proper med support.
Doctor Baby~
I agree that people do need a sympathetic shoulder in times of crises. We all have a threshold. However I see a number of glaring problems with the current approach to mental health. While I understand that it is more than just listening to their words, I find it entirely subjective. Itis based on too much on the Standard Model approach. The medical establishment defines what's normal via the DSM. Anything outside this agreed upon range is then by definition not normal. Unfortunately this is predicated upon the beliefs that humans are generally rational creatures and that certain behaviors are defects as opposed to simply variation in type. Both, in general, are ludicrously incorrect assumptions. How rational is the belief in an invisible friend, like God? Why not Zeus?
Too many people know how to 'act' crazy or eccentric. They know exactly what they need to say or do. Some learn to do so intentionally to work the system. Others do it instinctively because that's how they make their way in life (i.e. Cindy). Any attention is good attention so to speak. Additionally the accepted method of diagnosis is based too much on the 'we think the brain works thusly' methodology. But we don't know how it works with ANY scientific accuracy. Without demonstrable proof how do you know your right? What scientific proof can be offered and how can it be independently verified? "Well, we believe......" That is not proof.
Remember there was a time in the early 20th century when women went to the doctor to be masturbated. I cannot remember the exact aliment nor what they called the treatment but it was considered a medical condition.The medical establishment had similar assertions of medical validity then also. Have you forgotten that the DSM (III) listed homosexuality as a mentalillness until 1989? Never mind that there was, and continues to be, not a shed of scientific proof to support this conclusion. And let's not forgetone of my personal favorites either, bloodletting. "I have your diagnosismiss, you have too much blood." Where are these 'treatments' and conclusions now?
True madness unquestionably exists. I would never make the case that
it does not. But it is difficult to accurately assess without real world observation. The kind that seldom occurs in reality due to the poor cost benefit analysis. A better approach to diagnosis might be: A) Does the behavior manifest when it isn't convenient? Is it physically detrimental? Even that is still less than exact. But psychology today has given us such foolishness as Social Anxiety Disorder. What we once used to call being shy is now a condition. Now, instead of having a shot of booze to loosen up we have this nice little pill. Possible side effects are loss of scalp and penis. As long as psychology continues to tell us it's not our fault this problem will fester.
Psychology is good at assessing large groups of people. It becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to smaller groups and particularly individuals. And exacerbating the situation is the fact that there is a small percentage of people in your profession like you. People that have the ability to accurately assess others. I bet you rely more on your empirically gained experience than your training. Regardless, too many of the remainder of your colleagues are quacks with deep seated issues of their own. And they are the ones writing the DSM.
PhatShady~
Wow, I think you just about nailed it, and here I was ready for a 'Battle Royal' (with cheese!). The DSM like many things is a work in progress, just as our understanding of humanity is a work in progress. The DSM-IV is an imperfect object, but it is the best tool we have to be consistent in our documentation of mental illness. Insurance companies that don't want to pay unless a person meets DSM-IV criteria have hijacked the purpose of the DSM-IV. The most important criteria, and sadly most overlooked, is the impact the illness has on the person's ability to function in their environment. Functionality is key in our approach here in the Cow Counties. While you may be shy or depressed, does this feeling have a significant impact on your ability for self care, employment, and/or education.
Social anxiety can be very real if it keeps you locked in your home, afraid to answer the door when the pizza guy comes (and most likely indicative of something greater than social anxiety). However, if your anxiety just means that you are often dateless on Fridays, then maybe a support group would be more appropriate. But social anxiety is a real phenomenon, just like shyness. Where can a person turn if they feel that their shyness is getting in the way of living a fulfilling life? We used to be surrounded by families and friends in a community we grew up in. Now we often find ourselves removed from the familiar and all alone in the crowd. With no one else to turn to shouldn't the mental health professional be available to assist, replacing traditional modes of personal resolution? Again, yes, social anxiety is a condition, but it is its impact on functionality that needs to be assessed before a treatment intervention can be formulated. If you choose to call it shyness that is fine, but as a professional, if you want to be reimbursed by the insurance company then its 300.23 Social Phobia with a GAF of 55 or lower.
Just because our past understanding of mental illness was flawed is no litmus that our current understanding is as flawed or worse. I admit that we have a long way to go to understanding how and why our brain and body work the way they do. We have advanced, albeit slowly. Just as our understanding of homosexuality continues to evolve so will our understanding of heterosexuality. Much of this depends on the social pressures and focus. Malingering is another matter and readily ferreted out by the trained professional. But, alas, as you commented few professionals don't take the time or are overburdened and just passed the person through. I have been somewhat guilty of this in respects to Southeast Asians. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I feel a collective guilt in over how our country disrupted and abandoned our allies during the conflict. Often inmates are medicated for mental illness while incarcerated. This is done so the 'system' can manage their behavior, not for the benefit of the individual. This is a jacket that they use and wear proudly post release to further their victimization of the community.
Psychology does not tell people that it's not their fault; this is a huge fallacy and misinterpretation of the craft. Often a client will utilize a label like 'social phobia' to avoid taking responsibility. But if they are active in their treatment then they are learning to assume responsibility for their emotions. All of the major intervention therapies (i.e., CBT, DBT, and ACT) emphasize that while we can't change the past we can change the way we think and feel about it today. We have a saying; if you are not at treatment then you are not in treatment. Next time you hear a person say they can't because they are Bipolar (my favorite) or something else ask what their treatment plan is, what's the goal? If they respond that they are taking a rectal bleeding pill then their treatment provider is not serving them. All mental illness is manageable with the appropriate level of care. (Unfortunately not many of the severe chronics can afford this; hence you get the basket people.) Challenge them to advocate for better care if they are serious about getting better. Consumer Reports did and exhaustive study that indicated that the best treatment for mental illness was therapy with med support.
I agree that many people get into this profession to fix or better understand themselves rather than assist our population. This is sad. Also you find a great many narcissists in this field. What kind of gall is it that you think you can fix another person? (Myself included ;)
Yes I do rely on empirical evidence. But it is evidence gained by seeing symptoms on a continuous basis, consulting with colleagues, and measuring that information against the criteria set forth in the practitioner's bible, the DSM-IV.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-02-15T135333Z_01_N14417499_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-MENTAL.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Doctor Baby~
I'm not terribly happy with this 'indulgence' bill. Few people are nuts and they are typically too nuts to have jobs or insurance. This is for the Cindys of the country and we get to pay for it. Perhaps they just get a grip instead. I have real issues with 'diseases' with no biomarkers. "We made the diagnosis by talking to them." Real scientific.
I'm glad I have my tiger-repelling computer in front of me. I know it works, I don't see any tigers.
PhatShady~
But people do need someone who is not so judgmental when faced with overwhelming stress. You can make a mental health diagnosis 'by talking to them,' I do it everyday. You don't just talk to the person; you watch their body language and the context that they bring the problem forth. PTSD has no'bio marker' but it is a very real mental illness that can only be understood and treated by 'talking' along with the proper med support.
Doctor Baby~
I agree that people do need a sympathetic shoulder in times of crises. We all have a threshold. However I see a number of glaring problems with the current approach to mental health. While I understand that it is more than just listening to their words, I find it entirely subjective. Itis based on too much on the Standard Model approach. The medical establishment defines what's normal via the DSM. Anything outside this agreed upon range is then by definition not normal. Unfortunately this is predicated upon the beliefs that humans are generally rational creatures and that certain behaviors are defects as opposed to simply variation in type. Both, in general, are ludicrously incorrect assumptions. How rational is the belief in an invisible friend, like God? Why not Zeus?
Too many people know how to 'act' crazy or eccentric. They know exactly what they need to say or do. Some learn to do so intentionally to work the system. Others do it instinctively because that's how they make their way in life (i.e. Cindy). Any attention is good attention so to speak. Additionally the accepted method of diagnosis is based too much on the 'we think the brain works thusly' methodology. But we don't know how it works with ANY scientific accuracy. Without demonstrable proof how do you know your right? What scientific proof can be offered and how can it be independently verified? "Well, we believe......" That is not proof.
Remember there was a time in the early 20th century when women went to the doctor to be masturbated. I cannot remember the exact aliment nor what they called the treatment but it was considered a medical condition.The medical establishment had similar assertions of medical validity then also. Have you forgotten that the DSM (III) listed homosexuality as a mentalillness until 1989? Never mind that there was, and continues to be, not a shed of scientific proof to support this conclusion. And let's not forgetone of my personal favorites either, bloodletting. "I have your diagnosismiss, you have too much blood." Where are these 'treatments' and conclusions now?
True madness unquestionably exists. I would never make the case that
it does not. But it is difficult to accurately assess without real world observation. The kind that seldom occurs in reality due to the poor cost benefit analysis. A better approach to diagnosis might be: A) Does the behavior manifest when it isn't convenient? Is it physically detrimental? Even that is still less than exact. But psychology today has given us such foolishness as Social Anxiety Disorder. What we once used to call being shy is now a condition. Now, instead of having a shot of booze to loosen up we have this nice little pill. Possible side effects are loss of scalp and penis. As long as psychology continues to tell us it's not our fault this problem will fester.
Psychology is good at assessing large groups of people. It becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to smaller groups and particularly individuals. And exacerbating the situation is the fact that there is a small percentage of people in your profession like you. People that have the ability to accurately assess others. I bet you rely more on your empirically gained experience than your training. Regardless, too many of the remainder of your colleagues are quacks with deep seated issues of their own. And they are the ones writing the DSM.
PhatShady~
Wow, I think you just about nailed it, and here I was ready for a 'Battle Royal' (with cheese!). The DSM like many things is a work in progress, just as our understanding of humanity is a work in progress. The DSM-IV is an imperfect object, but it is the best tool we have to be consistent in our documentation of mental illness. Insurance companies that don't want to pay unless a person meets DSM-IV criteria have hijacked the purpose of the DSM-IV. The most important criteria, and sadly most overlooked, is the impact the illness has on the person's ability to function in their environment. Functionality is key in our approach here in the Cow Counties. While you may be shy or depressed, does this feeling have a significant impact on your ability for self care, employment, and/or education.
Social anxiety can be very real if it keeps you locked in your home, afraid to answer the door when the pizza guy comes (and most likely indicative of something greater than social anxiety). However, if your anxiety just means that you are often dateless on Fridays, then maybe a support group would be more appropriate. But social anxiety is a real phenomenon, just like shyness. Where can a person turn if they feel that their shyness is getting in the way of living a fulfilling life? We used to be surrounded by families and friends in a community we grew up in. Now we often find ourselves removed from the familiar and all alone in the crowd. With no one else to turn to shouldn't the mental health professional be available to assist, replacing traditional modes of personal resolution? Again, yes, social anxiety is a condition, but it is its impact on functionality that needs to be assessed before a treatment intervention can be formulated. If you choose to call it shyness that is fine, but as a professional, if you want to be reimbursed by the insurance company then its 300.23 Social Phobia with a GAF of 55 or lower.
Just because our past understanding of mental illness was flawed is no litmus that our current understanding is as flawed or worse. I admit that we have a long way to go to understanding how and why our brain and body work the way they do. We have advanced, albeit slowly. Just as our understanding of homosexuality continues to evolve so will our understanding of heterosexuality. Much of this depends on the social pressures and focus. Malingering is another matter and readily ferreted out by the trained professional. But, alas, as you commented few professionals don't take the time or are overburdened and just passed the person through. I have been somewhat guilty of this in respects to Southeast Asians. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I feel a collective guilt in over how our country disrupted and abandoned our allies during the conflict. Often inmates are medicated for mental illness while incarcerated. This is done so the 'system' can manage their behavior, not for the benefit of the individual. This is a jacket that they use and wear proudly post release to further their victimization of the community.
Psychology does not tell people that it's not their fault; this is a huge fallacy and misinterpretation of the craft. Often a client will utilize a label like 'social phobia' to avoid taking responsibility. But if they are active in their treatment then they are learning to assume responsibility for their emotions. All of the major intervention therapies (i.e., CBT, DBT, and ACT) emphasize that while we can't change the past we can change the way we think and feel about it today. We have a saying; if you are not at treatment then you are not in treatment. Next time you hear a person say they can't because they are Bipolar (my favorite) or something else ask what their treatment plan is, what's the goal? If they respond that they are taking a rectal bleeding pill then their treatment provider is not serving them. All mental illness is manageable with the appropriate level of care. (Unfortunately not many of the severe chronics can afford this; hence you get the basket people.) Challenge them to advocate for better care if they are serious about getting better. Consumer Reports did and exhaustive study that indicated that the best treatment for mental illness was therapy with med support.
I agree that many people get into this profession to fix or better understand themselves rather than assist our population. This is sad. Also you find a great many narcissists in this field. What kind of gall is it that you think you can fix another person? (Myself included ;)
Yes I do rely on empirical evidence. But it is evidence gained by seeing symptoms on a continuous basis, consulting with colleagues, and measuring that information against the criteria set forth in the practitioner's bible, the DSM-IV.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A Recent Conversation On Racism after viewing the following article:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/long-beach-hate-crime-verdict/15545/
Sad on so many levels.
~Doctor Baby
Did you get a chance to read my paper on racism on our blog?
~PhatShady
Yep, sure did. Unfortunately I found it somewhat standard whitemale. The analysis overlooks preconceptions and is too simplistic. The biasis readily apparent at the outset. When events occur, either positive ornegative, they are held up in comparison to a 'standard' negative model.They aren't evaluated on their own merits but simply for how they reinforceor dispel the expectation.It is a text book example of how the reasoning part of our mindsjustify the primitive passions of our lower brain. I can make similarassertions for brunettes as a group. You know how those darkies are. Alwaystrying to make blondes look like airheads by actin' all smart. When a blackperson plays on whities stereotypes to get over it's called the Race Card.When whitie plays their card to get over we call them assholes, sycophantsor irresponsible. Think frivolous lawsuits. Hot coffee is hot. Regardlessit's more a societal issue than a person specific one. However if a memberof the group that is stigmatized displays the same behavior a very personaldislike ensues.If it isn't skin color it's always some difference, real orimagined. When you isolate whitie, or any other species of humon, by itselfit will find a group to stigmatize within itself. It will make it up ifnecessary. Most terrestrial creatures require a group at the bottom to stepon for some reason I don't fully understand. Humons try to act as if theyhave risen above this but we still share this trait with all the otherspecies here. Welcome to Earth, every creature will try to eat you. If youneed proof I can supply a plethora of examples. Wolf packs are perfect humananalogy.If we are to truly become rational creatures we need to rise aboveour nature, not try to ignore it. Perhaps we could evaluate each person ontheir own actions rather than the standard for the assigned group. Itrequires effort to engage our higher brain to override the primitive andmeans that things might not adhere to one's desire. You might get a headachetoo.Tell me. What do you first see when you look at a person or group?
~Doctor Baby
Its true that I was anti black at the time I wrote the article, but it isall true. I wasn't anti black until that moment at the ballpark. When I seea group of people I notice in this order, race, age, socioeconomic status.
~PhatShady
That's unfortunate. I understand the circumstance but why not applythis standard to other groups? Whitie, brunettes, vegetarians and lefthanders for example. Why the narrow view when skin color is involved? Wouldyou hate all red haired whities if you were treated badly by one? If notthen shouldn't your ire be directed at the person responsible and not thegroup they share traits with. Anything seems would seem indefensible.
~Doctor Baby
Well to quote a good friend of mine (namely you), 'its not the Buddhistextremists that are causing the problems.'It all boils down to the fact that hatred is earned, not given freely by theilluminati. Sure lots of people have slighted me in many ways, but one grouphas been consistent, so shouldn't my awareness level rise when encounteringmembers of this group? Why should put myself in the situation of beingvictimized again?
~PhatShady
Hatred is 'not' freely given? Afraid I can't agree with that one.I've seen too many instances of unreasoned and undeserved hate inflicted onpeople. Why do girls hate each other when they aren't in competition? Butregardless I still see no valid justification. Whitie has picked on youplenty but you don't judge all of the by the same standard. Where is theawareness in this regard? You've decided all black people are worthy ofscorn even if they haven't done anything in particular. Are there any 'good'darkies or does the one size fits all approach preclude that?Personally I can't condemn anyone for that which they are notresponsible. Otherwise I'd hate whitie. As for putting yourself in aposition to be victimized. How does being racist protect you from the guy atthe ballpark? Will it make him shut up? Probably not.On a funny note. Next time something like that happens say thefollowing: "Oh, is it racist day? I had no idea. In that case, back of theline Nigger." Won't that be fun?
~Doctor Baby
I get the feeling that you really didn't read the paper, just kind of skimmed it and drew your own conclusions.I don't mean to imply that hatred isn't freely given, but earned in this respect. What is wrong with reasoned internal dialogue to come to the conclusion that you shouldn't play with snakes, shouldn't be around snakes, and as a rule avoid snakes?
~PhatShady
Of course I drew my own conclusions silly. I read every word of it.I paid close attention in fact. I find it fascinating how differing humansview interacting. I just see it differently and you asked. I can understandbeing wary of a group that has done injury in the past. I tend to distrusthip hoppers as most of them are losers regardless of their physicalcharacteristics. But that's just a generalization. I give each one the sameopportunity to prove themselves as I would others.Some groups are worthy of disdain and marginalization. The KKK,Crips and pedophiles are all excellent examples. I have no problem withdisliking people due to their willing allegiance to such groups. But skincolor, hair color, stature and the like aren't choices. To disdain peoplefor the circumstances of birth is not logically supportable in my view. Ifone's skin color is enough to make a person culpable for the transgressionsof others of similar complexion a fundamental question must be answered.What about whitie, or brunettes? How about Jews?I personally have been jerked around by white people far morefrequently than any other type of people. Should I therefore take a similarview then? After all, if the threat comes from that quarter........... AndI've found Mexicans the friendliest. Does that mean Mexicans are better?Maybe culture has more to do with it than minor genetic differences.There's nothing wrong with reasoned internal dialogue regardingsnakes. I just think the criteria for snakes is too broadly cast. Why shouldit go beyond the offending individual to include those that look like theoffender? Isn't it the same as saying "I don't like how you look and that'sall the reason I need?" But don't worry. I still love you. :)
~Doctor Baby
I think it all boils down to the usage of ‘Race.’ Whitey, Blondes, Redheads, Mexicans, sure they have all done me wrong, but they didn’t use race to do it. They did it because they were assholes or thought I was an asshole, not because I was White. And I think that’s the difference.
~PhatShady
Sad on so many levels.
~Doctor Baby
Did you get a chance to read my paper on racism on our blog?
~PhatShady
Yep, sure did. Unfortunately I found it somewhat standard whitemale. The analysis overlooks preconceptions and is too simplistic. The biasis readily apparent at the outset. When events occur, either positive ornegative, they are held up in comparison to a 'standard' negative model.They aren't evaluated on their own merits but simply for how they reinforceor dispel the expectation.It is a text book example of how the reasoning part of our mindsjustify the primitive passions of our lower brain. I can make similarassertions for brunettes as a group. You know how those darkies are. Alwaystrying to make blondes look like airheads by actin' all smart. When a blackperson plays on whities stereotypes to get over it's called the Race Card.When whitie plays their card to get over we call them assholes, sycophantsor irresponsible. Think frivolous lawsuits. Hot coffee is hot. Regardlessit's more a societal issue than a person specific one. However if a memberof the group that is stigmatized displays the same behavior a very personaldislike ensues.If it isn't skin color it's always some difference, real orimagined. When you isolate whitie, or any other species of humon, by itselfit will find a group to stigmatize within itself. It will make it up ifnecessary. Most terrestrial creatures require a group at the bottom to stepon for some reason I don't fully understand. Humons try to act as if theyhave risen above this but we still share this trait with all the otherspecies here. Welcome to Earth, every creature will try to eat you. If youneed proof I can supply a plethora of examples. Wolf packs are perfect humananalogy.If we are to truly become rational creatures we need to rise aboveour nature, not try to ignore it. Perhaps we could evaluate each person ontheir own actions rather than the standard for the assigned group. Itrequires effort to engage our higher brain to override the primitive andmeans that things might not adhere to one's desire. You might get a headachetoo.Tell me. What do you first see when you look at a person or group?
~Doctor Baby
Its true that I was anti black at the time I wrote the article, but it isall true. I wasn't anti black until that moment at the ballpark. When I seea group of people I notice in this order, race, age, socioeconomic status.
~PhatShady
That's unfortunate. I understand the circumstance but why not applythis standard to other groups? Whitie, brunettes, vegetarians and lefthanders for example. Why the narrow view when skin color is involved? Wouldyou hate all red haired whities if you were treated badly by one? If notthen shouldn't your ire be directed at the person responsible and not thegroup they share traits with. Anything seems would seem indefensible.
~Doctor Baby
Well to quote a good friend of mine (namely you), 'its not the Buddhistextremists that are causing the problems.'It all boils down to the fact that hatred is earned, not given freely by theilluminati. Sure lots of people have slighted me in many ways, but one grouphas been consistent, so shouldn't my awareness level rise when encounteringmembers of this group? Why should put myself in the situation of beingvictimized again?
~PhatShady
Hatred is 'not' freely given? Afraid I can't agree with that one.I've seen too many instances of unreasoned and undeserved hate inflicted onpeople. Why do girls hate each other when they aren't in competition? Butregardless I still see no valid justification. Whitie has picked on youplenty but you don't judge all of the by the same standard. Where is theawareness in this regard? You've decided all black people are worthy ofscorn even if they haven't done anything in particular. Are there any 'good'darkies or does the one size fits all approach preclude that?Personally I can't condemn anyone for that which they are notresponsible. Otherwise I'd hate whitie. As for putting yourself in aposition to be victimized. How does being racist protect you from the guy atthe ballpark? Will it make him shut up? Probably not.On a funny note. Next time something like that happens say thefollowing: "Oh, is it racist day? I had no idea. In that case, back of theline Nigger." Won't that be fun?
~Doctor Baby
I get the feeling that you really didn't read the paper, just kind of skimmed it and drew your own conclusions.I don't mean to imply that hatred isn't freely given, but earned in this respect. What is wrong with reasoned internal dialogue to come to the conclusion that you shouldn't play with snakes, shouldn't be around snakes, and as a rule avoid snakes?
~PhatShady
Of course I drew my own conclusions silly. I read every word of it.I paid close attention in fact. I find it fascinating how differing humansview interacting. I just see it differently and you asked. I can understandbeing wary of a group that has done injury in the past. I tend to distrusthip hoppers as most of them are losers regardless of their physicalcharacteristics. But that's just a generalization. I give each one the sameopportunity to prove themselves as I would others.Some groups are worthy of disdain and marginalization. The KKK,Crips and pedophiles are all excellent examples. I have no problem withdisliking people due to their willing allegiance to such groups. But skincolor, hair color, stature and the like aren't choices. To disdain peoplefor the circumstances of birth is not logically supportable in my view. Ifone's skin color is enough to make a person culpable for the transgressionsof others of similar complexion a fundamental question must be answered.What about whitie, or brunettes? How about Jews?I personally have been jerked around by white people far morefrequently than any other type of people. Should I therefore take a similarview then? After all, if the threat comes from that quarter........... AndI've found Mexicans the friendliest. Does that mean Mexicans are better?Maybe culture has more to do with it than minor genetic differences.There's nothing wrong with reasoned internal dialogue regardingsnakes. I just think the criteria for snakes is too broadly cast. Why shouldit go beyond the offending individual to include those that look like theoffender? Isn't it the same as saying "I don't like how you look and that'sall the reason I need?" But don't worry. I still love you. :)
~Doctor Baby
I think it all boils down to the usage of ‘Race.’ Whitey, Blondes, Redheads, Mexicans, sure they have all done me wrong, but they didn’t use race to do it. They did it because they were assholes or thought I was an asshole, not because I was White. And I think that’s the difference.
~PhatShady
Brain Scan That Can Read People's Intentions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
They won't be asking for your papers. The sheep are going to clamor for this to be used at airports and it will spread from there. Your mind will no longer be private and chaos will ensue. Or we will be a police state worse than our most horrible nightmares. The future is looking so bright I gotta wear shades, brain shades.
~Doctor Baby
Oh man, I'm going to have to walk around with one of those black bars over my head, like censored images. My thoughts are ugly and wrong.
~Ronnie
There is a theory out there that Freud destroyed much of his most important work because it revealed that the elite of Vienna were little more than incestuous sex crazed perverts. Every new technology has been modified to satisfy the prurient interest. If they start using this on a larger scale we will learn just what a bunch of sex-obsessed deviants the world really is made of. Like Lex Luther said, "People are no damn good," or was it John Cougar Mellencamp?
Tin Foil Helmets for everyone!!
~PhatShady
They won't be asking for your papers. The sheep are going to clamor for this to be used at airports and it will spread from there. Your mind will no longer be private and chaos will ensue. Or we will be a police state worse than our most horrible nightmares. The future is looking so bright I gotta wear shades, brain shades.
~Doctor Baby
Oh man, I'm going to have to walk around with one of those black bars over my head, like censored images. My thoughts are ugly and wrong.
~Ronnie
There is a theory out there that Freud destroyed much of his most important work because it revealed that the elite of Vienna were little more than incestuous sex crazed perverts. Every new technology has been modified to satisfy the prurient interest. If they start using this on a larger scale we will learn just what a bunch of sex-obsessed deviants the world really is made of. Like Lex Luther said, "People are no damn good," or was it John Cougar Mellencamp?
Tin Foil Helmets for everyone!!
~PhatShady
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
