Personal Diss

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines personality disorders as "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it".

That “markedly from the expectations of the culture” protects many individuals from being appropriatedly classified as having a personality disorder. This exclusion results in omission of a large number of individuals whose thinking is characterized by rigid belief systems that involve fixed fantasies or dysfunctional schemata. The inflexibility and pervasiveness of their dogmatic delusions often causes serious personal and social difficulties to others.

This category is intended for the DSM-IV R (Dastardly Stubborn Mean IV Revised) category. I’m calling this cognitive/character/personality disorder Conservative Antisocial Disorder (CAD)





****. CADs are characterized by three or more of the following:

_1. Insistence on believing in fantasies for which there is no evidence in preference to, or exclusion of, realistic explanations for which abundant empirical and experimental evidence exists.

_2. Convinced by emotional propaganda in preference to, or exclusion of, logical arguments.

_3. A marked tendency to quickly turn to lies and/or fallacies of logic and/or unimaginative personal insults and/or violence/threats of violence when faced by any opposing opinion or logical argument.

_4. A firm conviction that use of UPPER CASE makes a claim TRUE.

_5. Discriminatory, moralistic thinking characterized by adherence to unfounded dogma, and manifesting as insistence upon dictating the behaviour of liberal-thinking individuals or nations.

_6. Preference for, or adulation of leaders, including politicians, with patently inferior character or ability.

_7. Slavish willingness to obey the authority of anti-humanitarian, anti-liberal, or anti-science leaders.

_8. Internally inconsistent belief systems; for example, being pro-war and pro-death-penalty while opposing a woman's right to choose abortion.

_9. Tendencies to arrogance, hypocrisy, selfishness, and greed.

Did I miss any?

**** I contemplated the acronym-driven designation "Bigotted Illogical Greed-driven Obsessive T***" but abandoned the idea when I could only think of a single, unacceptable term for the T.

Illogic Alarm Bells

I alluded to this in "What is the Matter with Americans?"

Illogic alarm bells clanged when I stumbled across this (brown) verbiage by a prejudiced individual whom I'll call "caveman" (his own words).

I feel that "anti-discrimination" provisions are always discriminatory & bestow special priveleges. (e.g the ability to unleash the government against someone who opposes them, or bestow marriage bennies on a HS couple but not on, say, close platonic friends) And I don't want such to be bestowed on what is almost certainly a chosen lifestyle rather than an embedded attribute of the
person.

I'm against the verbal tricks / dirty pool tactics used by mainstream gay activists (unlike mainstream activists against homosexuality.), and discriminatory "anti-discrimination" laws. I'm neutral on gay marriage.
First, the word "feel" immediately signals that the statement will likely be heavily emotion- rather than logic-based.

Clang .

Second, the word "always" suggests that the writer is a categorical thinker. Emotive thinkers often tend toward making categorical statements because they think in absolutes and because absolutes feel potent. This is poor ploy because any exception blows the argument out of the water.

Clang . Clang.

Third, we have an unsubstantiable claim that "anti-discrimination" provisions are always "discriminatory" and bestow "special privileges". This claim contains a chunk of illogic to which I will return.

Clang . Clang . Clang.

Fourth, we have more emotional and unsubstantiable claims that [gay marriage legislation] would unleash the government against individuals . . .

Clang . Clang . Clang. Clang .

Fifth, we have selfishness-motivated comments about "bennies" that are irrelevantly compared to non-bestowal of benefits on platonic friends. Is this caveman not what he appears to be, but a heavily disguised champion of platonic rights? (I'll explain why he called himself "caveman" in a later post.)

Clang . Clang . Clang. Clang . Clang .

And all these clangers occur within the first rather unwieldy sentence. This person is certainly efficient when it comes to packing emotional illogic into a sentence!

Next, we hear more of his emotional desires about what he irrelevantly and inaccurately claims is a non-embedded attribute. No doubt, he knows virtually no science.

Things go from bad to worse when this illogical, language-manipulating caveman claims he is against "verbal tricks" and "dirty pool politics", which he erroneously attributes to gay activists, but not to "mainstream activists against homosexuality". In other words, if he doesn't like the contents of the message, then the message's language must be corrupted. "Mainstream activists" indicates that he gives anti-homosexual messages the Bigot Stamp of Approval.

Returning to the illogical complaint about "discriminatory "anti-discrimination" laws" – note the quotation marks around anti-discrimination that are intended to convey that such laws would not be anti-discrimination.

This argument runs:

P1 ................ : Anti-discrimination laws are always discriminatory

P2 (implied) : All discrimination is bad.

Therefore.....: Anti-discrimination laws are always bad.

The problem, of course, is that anti-discrimination laws, by definition, have the sole purpose of reducing discrimination, which by premise 2 should be not-bad. Someone pointed this out to the anti-gay-marriage person, and he either could not follow the logic, or refused to acknowledge the inconvenient-to-his-prejudiced-argument reality, or both. Either way, his performance was less than impressive.

Finally, just in case we have jumped to any accurate conclusions about this caveman's prejudices, we are assured that he is "neutral" about that which he is clearly attacking.

I hate illogic and irrationality, but I do find irony highly amusing. This last sentence had me in stitches.

I presume that he thinks that everyone is at the same level of irrationality as he, and that his readers will be credulous enough to believe this extraordinary denial of the obvious. In essence, he is lieing in a vain attempt to look good, presumably so that his argument will be more acceptable and will slip under readers' illogic radar. Since he is pumping out a message that fits with religious prejudices, then he can probably be confident that those who would accept this ploy are equally credulous, illogical, and bigoted.

What is the Matter with Americans?

I do mean it, though I certainly am not referring to all Americans.

I am writing of those Americans whose narrow, bigoted, emotional, black and white thinking lags behind so much of the Western world. Not merely narrow. Not merely bigoted. Not merely emotional. But illogical, rigid, ill-informed – and religious in an unchristian sense.

These are the people who make atheists and humanists look extra especially moral and rational.

Several things brought me to this post:

First, was my stumbling purely by chance across a couple of interesting posts on "Letters from A Broad." (below)

Second, when I discussed these with a friend, I was directed to information about the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to strike down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Third, was a singularly illogical statement made elsewhere that led to a discussion about gay marriage. More about this later in the Caveman Series.

On the basis of our Constitution, gay marriage was made legal across Canada in 2005.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure why anybody in Canada, straight or gay, bothers to marry in this age of common-law protections and obligations. Divorce, which strikes something like 40% of first marriages and 60% of second marriages is messy, expensive, and painful. As I understand it, marital break-up is equally traumatic in the US. However, I would wish everyone – be they straight or gay, married or unceremonial – the very best of luck and happiness in their love life. I did mean love life – people who are dating generally have a more active sex life than people who are permanently coupled. While I'm about it, I'd wish consenting adults of whatever combination the best of luck and happiness in their sex life too.

The Caveman Series:

Trickery

Illogic Alarm Bells

Letters from A Broad :
Discrimination against homosexuals: why? why? why??? . Why? Why? Why??? II

Also worth reading: A nation of contempt .

Sasquatchean God

fake ceramic skeleton of SasquatchCreationists and religionists are hilarious . . . irritating, yet hilarious.

Matt: “Does it take more faith to disbelieve the claims about Bigfoot than it does to believe them?”
pause . . .
“Well . . . that’s an interesting point . . . but . . . I mean . . . even with Bigfoot . . . like . . . well, OK, I don’t like to compare God to Bigfoot”
Which translates as:
“That’s an excellent point, but I don’t want to admit that it’s just as ridiculous to believe in God as it is to believe in a large, hairy, clearly mythical, humanoid.”
The religionist's ultimate capitulation is typical and predictable.