Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

[BenBurch]

Please re-read all the evidence that Loughner's very specific delusional content closely matched the Repub theme of an unconstitutional government, a need to read the constitution, and the often publicized belief of Ron Paul that the currency is illegal because it is no longer backed by gold.

Then re-read all the evidence that while delusions of persecution are consistent among paranoid schizophrenics, needing to "read the constitution" is not common.

Well, I think RP's party affiliation is a "flag of convenience" for him... He was, after all, twice the LP candidate for President. But others who actually are Republicans say the similar things.

 

[Pardalis]

Please re-read all the evidence that Loughner's very specific delusional content closely matched the Repub theme of an unconstitutional government, a need to read the constitution, and the often publicized belief of Ron Paul that the currency is illegal because it is no longer backed by gold.

First of all, Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. I don't think he is much liked within Republican circles.

The fact that it resembles his themes doesn't mean it was what motivated it. This is not evidence.

Then re-read all the evidence that while delusions of persecution are consistent among paranoid schizophrenics, needing to "read the constitution" is not common.

This is not evidence either. It's highly speculative, equivocal and subjective. Alot of schizophrenics have religious obsessions. For some people, the US Constitution is nothing sort of a Bible, so it wouldn't surprise me that he would have a fixation on it. It's a authoritative piece of paper, which would appeal to that sort of individual who seek guidance.

Still doesn't mean he was motivated by Republican rhetoric.

All this "evidence" would be laughed at in court.

You really have a problem with that word, "evidence". Do you even understand what it means?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You don't need the specifics you are suggesting. The theme of 'fear the dangerous government', which is false and based on a political marketing campaign, has potentially dangerous consequences.

You still have addressed the "fear the government" campaign tactic that is out of hand on the right.

You appear to be taking the position that government can do no wrong—or at least that it so far has done no wrong—and that anyone who disagrees with this position is “out of hand”, promoting ideas that are “false and based on a political marketing campaign”, and which have “potentially dangerous consequences”.

Am I misunderstanding you, so far?

You further seem to be blaming those who do not accept your “government can do no wrong” position, and who express opinions contrary thereto, for creating the alleged atmosphere of hatred and violence that allegedly led to the Tuscon shootings.

It seems to me that you are taking a very dangerous and destructive position. You are taking a position that you have the one indisputable political “truth”, and that nobody can openly disagree with this “truth” without subsequently being blamed for random acts of violence and murder. You are on the verge, it seems, of seeking to suppress the right of those with whom you disagree, to openly hold and express their opinions—if not through legal force, then at least through shame, intimidation, and threats.

Do you really not see how harmful your position is? Do you not understand that if you prevail in suppressing these opinions that you do not like, that in the near future, as the tide of public opinion shifts the other way, it might very well be you that finds yourself suppressed and censored by the very same principles you are now trying to invoke?

Your defense of an out-of-control government could, in the near future, result in you and those of like mind being blamed personally for the crimes committed by this government; and in calls for those who hold opinions similar to yours to be silenced using the same precedents that you are now trying to set in order to silence those with whom you disagree.

 

[Thunder]

I think we should take the time to pay respects to the real victim here.........

Sarah Palin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I think RP's party affiliation is a "flag of convenience" for him... He was, after all, twice the LP candidate for President. But others who actually are Republicans say the similar things.

I'm familiar with the Libertarians.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First of all, Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. I don't think he is much liked within Republican circles.

The fact that it resembles his themes doesn't mean it was what motivated it. This is not evidence.

This is not evidence either. It's highly speculative, equivocal and subjective. Alot of schizophrenics have religious obsessions. For some people, the US Constitution is nothing sort of a Bible, so it wouldn't surprise me that he would have a fixation on it. It's a authoritative piece of paper, which would appeal to that sort of individual who seek guidance.

Still doesn't mean he was motivated by Republican rhetoric.

All this "evidence" would be laughed at in court.

You really have a problem with that word, "evidence". Do you even understand what it means?

So now you are an expert on the American politics that a few posts back you said you were not familiar with? Which is it, Pard, you know American politics or you don't?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You appear to be taking the position that government can do no wrong—or at least that it so far has done no wrong—

Are you kidding? My word you do not know me!

and that anyone who disagrees with this position is “out of hand”, promoting ideas that are “false and based on a political marketing campaign”, and which have “potentially dangerous consequences”.

Am I misunderstanding you, so far?

Yep.

You further seem to be blaming those who do not accept your “government can do no wrong” position, [blah blah blah] .

Do you ever listen to Glenn Beck? Do you believe his bizarre thinking is rational? Are you aware how many people do believe his bizarre stuff?

Are you familiar with the Karl Rove Playbook, Tactic #12: Use Emotional Appeals that I linked to earlier? That's the one about using fear mongering as an effective political campaign technique. No need for the thing to fear being real. Made up things to fear work just as well if not better.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you ever listen to Glenn Beck? Do you believe his bizarre thinking is rational? Are you aware how many people do believe his bizarre stuff?

I've never listened to Glenn Beck, so I am not in a position to judge his opinions. But clearly, he has an audience that thinks his opinions are worth expressing, and worth listening to, or else he wouldn't be in business.

Who are you to determine what opinions and beliefs others are allowed to hold and express?

I do not see any rational way to interpret the positions you've expressed here as anything other than a desire to suppress and silence those with whom you disagree; whether by governmental force, by shame, by intimidation, by threats of holding your opponents responsible for unrelated acts by crazy people, or whatever.

This is at least as dangerous and harmful a position as anything that you can attribute to those that you seek to silence.

I, of course, will not think of demanding that you be silenced, but please know that if you succeed in establishing the power to silence others with whom you disagree, the time WILL come when someone will use those same precedents against you. Is that what you want?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Are you familiar with the Karl Rove Playbook, Tactic #12: Use Emotional Appeals that I linked to earlier? That's the one about using fear mongering as an effective political campaign technique. No need for the thing to fear being real. Made up things to fear work just as well if not better.

And how is this not what you are yourself attempting to do? You're making emotional appeals, and engaging in fearmongering, in order to suppress the expression of opinions that you do not like. You are cynically exploiting a recent tragedy, in order to raise the specter (which you surely must know is false) that if people are allowed to openly express certain opinions, that this will somehow provoke more crazy people into committing more crazy crimes, such as what happened in Tuscon.

You are doing the very thing of which you are falsely accusing others.

This is truly a despicable, pathetic act of cowardice, hypocrisy and fraud on your part, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Pardalis]

So now you are an expert on the American politics that a few posts back you said you were not familiar with? Which is it, Pard, you know American politics or you don't?

Still no evidence I see.

You're stuck in a logical loophole. Everytime I ask you for evidence, you answer with the same baseless speculation.

 

[Tumblehome]

This is truly a despicable, pathetic act of cowardice, hypocrisy and fraud on your part, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Whoa, those are pretty strong accusations. Sounds like the police should get involved.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
You appear to be taking the position that government can do no wrong—or at least that it so far has done no wrong—

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
You further seem to be blaming those who do not accept your “government can do no wrong” position, [blah blah blah] .


interesting strawman.

 

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You appear to be taking the position that government can do no wrong—or at least that it so far has done no wrong—

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You further seem to be blaming those who do not accept your “government can do no wrong” position, [blah blah blah] .


interesting strawman.

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Whoa, those are pretty strong accusations. Sounds like the police should get involved.

Surely such words could incite someone to violence.

 

[I Ratant]

I think we should take the time to pay respects to the real victim here.........

Sarah Palin.

.
Yes.
Such a promising future shot down.. or is that sunk, by a loose lip. Hers.

 

[I Ratant]

Was "The Protocols of The Elders Of Zion" responsible for persecution of Jewish people?

Was "Unintended Consequences" responsible for the OK City bombing?

Ultimately people are responsible for what they do, but it's bordering on delusional to think that words have no effect on them.

.
That's why people seek the offices of dog-catcher and higher, using campaign promises.
Word have effects.
They have to!
We get them every day.. Don't do this, don't do that, cross on green only, keep right except when passing, a chicken in every pot, the currency has no value...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You appear to be taking the position that government can do no wrong—or at least that it so far has done no wrong—

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You further seem to be blaming those who do not accept your “government can do no wrong” position, [blah blah blah] .


interesting strawman.

Interesting evidence of how humans change what words one sees on a page as those words are received as nerve impulses into one's brain.

So a discussion of 'fear mongering using FALSE claims' becomes "government can do no wrong", a completely different concept.

And a discussion of the problem of 'consequences of fear mongering' becomes 'a call for a ban on free speech', which is one of many solutions and not one I have ever said was the best solution.

The best solution, and the one I am most interested in, is exposing the propaganda techniques for what they are. People are less likely to be influenced by marketing techniques once they are able to recognize them when they see them.


One's brain changing what one perceives is also apparent in this example where I posted evidence, and instead of addressing the evidence, the reader simply writes:

I still see no evidence that this is what motivated this shooting

In addition, Pard admitted not knowing much about US politics and his posts revealed he knows little about schizophrenia. Yet he continues to reply in total denial of this lack of knowledge he himself said he lacked.

If you know little about the mind of a schizophrenic, and you know little about the intense fear mongering campaign going on in the US, how can you then be so certain you understand this incident?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.
That's why people seek the offices of dog-catcher and higher, using campaign promises.
Word have effects.
They have to!
We get them every day.. Don't do this, don't do that, cross on green only, keep right except when passing, a chicken in every pot, the currency has no value...

At what point would you say that promoting the message, the government is so dangerous Second Amendment remedies are needed, crosses the line? At what point does Glenn Beck's and Fox's propaganda war cross the line from a campaign promise or a campaign accusation against an opponent to dangerous propaganda?

 

[ProbeX]

Do you have a clear idea yet in your mind what my claims are? That's where you need to start.

Why I'd be more than happy to refresh your memory:

But can the incessant "fear the government" campaign tactic also increase the likelihood such an unstable person will act out their paranoia? Yes.

Now. Again: where is your evidence to back your claim that "fear the government campaign tactics increase the likelihood such an unstable person will act out their paranoia" ?

... This requires that you stop all the emotional political posturing long enough to provide reasonable evidence. Citing a legitimate body of psychological studies is a good start.

 

[bruto]

.
Yes.
Such a promising future shot down.. or is that sunk, by a loose lip. Hers.

Oh, I hope so, I hope so, please let it be so!