When I opened this thread, I was expecting something more like:
Evil Captor is living up to his name!
He has me chained in his basement!
Yes I must admit the thread title is kinda misleading…
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. Probably all that loud clacking noise made by all the people in here with sticks up their butts.
There are several pro-choice folks who agree that you have gone over the line.
One of the oldest, cheapest and sleaziest tricks for gaining the approval of an opponent is to turn on one of your own.
Hey! I only chain people I LIKE in my basement!
What kind of MONSTER do you take me for?
Actually I was picturing you as more of a minty green.
No, that’s not it. It’s that numerous posters besides myself feel you are engaging in a debating style that is frowned on.
Tell us what your qualifications are to engage in psychoanalysis. Are you a psychiatrist? a psychologist? Licensed in any field at all?
If you are, then it is still absurd to claim to know what is in the subconscious of someone you have never met. If you are licensed, you discredit yourself professionally. If your profession stands behind such behavior, it discredits itself. And it’s especially absurd that what you discover in the subconscious is warmed-over radical-feminist rhetoric about patriarchal oppression – which you then apply to someone you did not realize was a woman!
As for pure reason, let’s examine your conclusion:
The world is not a triumph of pure reason:
Therefore, Freud’s claims about penis envy, oedipal conflict and dream interpretation are correct.
Bzzzt. Try again.
Freud perpetuate a pseudoscience, but perhaps that’s a topic for another thread.
Well, yeah. Say if I, a Giants fan, go to a Giants game in LA, and some guy wearing a Giants hat is sitting near me, speaking in tongues, with a hot dog sticking out of each ear, I’m going to say “I’m not with him.”
Arrrghhhh the betrayal you must feel. Here, have a hankie.
Bah hah hah hah-- that’s a good one. Wait---- your serious?
:rolleyes:
Evil responds, but does he take me up on my offer off a reasoned debate? Bollocks he does…what’s this? “sticks up their butts”…?
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY EVIL CAPTOR:
Clearly, I haven’t called anybody any names…
Well you’re definitely getting that way now eh? Could be because we’re in the pit of course, but probably because you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
“You don’t agree with me because of X Y and Z? OH! you must have a stick up your butt!! Anyone want a reasonable debate?”
Stop your whining Evil and start either backing up your position or admit that you’re making no sense whatsoever.
Oh, and another thing…your theory (or should I say conjecture, seeing as he has no demonstrable proof??) is very accusatory…"…you…are trying to control them…and getting off on it…"
You make pro-life sound like a mental illness, which isn’t gonna help your credibility.
Thanks – got any lotion?
Again with the lack of any attempt at a debate
Yeah, right. I’ve seen your thread. That’s gotta hurt.
Tell us what your qualifications are to engage in psychoanalysis. Are you a psychiatrist? a psychologist? Licensed in any field at all?
You’re right. I have no qualifications to engage in psychoanalysis. I guess it’s just a lucky thing I’ve confined my pychoanalysis to discussion boards rather than, say, hanging out a shingle and charging people. Because the one would get me in trouble, the other is a pretty commonplace thing.
If you are, then it is still absurd to claim to know what is in the subconscious of someone you have never met.
No, it’s not. You’re like one of the lawyer types we have on the Dope who go nuts whenever someone who doesn’t have a law degree ventures an opinion on the law that’s contrary to theirs, even when it’s about the morality or justness of the law in question. You don’t have to have a degree to have an opinion, otherwise all the debates here would be just one long argument to authority.
**As for pure reason, let’s examine your conclusion:
The world is not a triumph of pure reason:
Therefore, Freud’s claims about penis envy, oedipal conflict and dream interpretation are correct.
Bzzzt. Try again.
Freud perpetuate a pseudoscience, but perhaps that’s a topic for another thread. **
See, this is what I am talking about WRT the world not being a triumph of pure reason. I did not say anything about Freud’s claims about penis envy, oedipal conflict and dream interpretation were correct. I only said that there remains considerable evidence for the existence of a subconscious or preconscious mind. Freud was an early innovator in psychology, and he got a lot of things wrong, but there’s no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I guess you figure YOU’RE the product of pure reason. (Hey guys! We’re gonna need more rolleyes! LOTS of 'em!)
Stating opinions is what debate is all about, but unsupportable, mildly offensive opinions are gonna create a stink. Someone says ‘I think such-and-such’ and they generally follow up with some kind of back-up to support their opinion.
Nah, it’s because we’re in the pit. I mean, c’mon, Dragon, how could you POSSIBLY know whether or not I have any legs based on the contents of my posts to a discussion board? Are you some kind of medical doctor or something?
Stop your whining Evil and start either backing up your position or admit that you’re making no sense whatsoever.
If I thought you or anyone else in this thread had the least interest in looking at things objectively, I would. But your total failure to respond to the logical elements of my arguments is what they call … revealing. But I won’t say how, because then you’d think I was reading your mind, and I know how you guys hate that.
Oh, and another thing…your theory (or should I say conjecture, seeing as he has no demonstrable proof??) is very accusatory…"…you…are trying to control them…and getting off on it…"
OK, I’m saying that I think most pro-lifers have a subconscious desire to control others. So far the only response on this thead has been, “Where’s your license to think thoughts we don’t aporove of, jerk?”
Lemme help you out. Logical responses to my assertion might include (but are not limited to):
-
There’s no such thing as a subconsious or preconscious mind so there’s no way anyone could have such feelings. (This is the line I think Andy meant to take, but he kinda went on a tangent about Freudianism.)
-
Just because someone attempts to control the actions of others it doesn’t mean they have some kind of sick subconscious need to control – there are good reasons for wanting to control the actions of others. (I actually alluded this argument on the other thread when I talked about wanting to control the actions of potential robbers and rapists and such.) I think pro-lifers exhibit a sick need to control because they exhibit in the area where doing what they say will cause great emotional and physical distress to those they control, and because so many of them seem to feel that because a woman engages in sexual activity, she then has to do what they say wrt birth control techniques and abortion. You’ve had sex, so you’re my turf. Right.
I completely reject the notion that I am not allowed to speculate about the mental processes that lead people to post, based on their posts. As long as I’m willing to make an attempt to connect the dots, I can speculate however I like. People are free to reject those speculations and to disregard those speculations if they feel I don’t do a sufficiently good job of connecting the dots.
For the record, I don’t think it is conceivable that I or anyone could ever do a sufficiently good job of connecting dots to satisfy the participants of this thread. (Damn! There I go! Speculating again.)
You make pro-life sound like a mental illness, which isn’t gonna help your credibility.
Damn, you just haven’t read anything I’ve posted with comprehension, have you? Now I want you to go back and read the part I wrote about all human beings having subconscous feelings that may seem sick, perverted, etc. Try and focus on those words and understand what they mean.
For the record, pro-life is not a mental illness, though if it gets to the point where you’re standing outside obgyn clinics and screaming at pregnant women, you might just have a problem. And if you wind up planting bombs and shooting people, you do have a problem.
OK I agree with you in part:
"…though if it gets to the point where you’re standing outside obgyn clinics and screaming at pregnant women, you might just have a problem. And if you wind up planting bombs and shooting people, you do have a problem."
I don’t think there’s much doubt that these people have problems, and I for one have no idea what’s going on in their minds to make them act this way. Could possibly be a subconscious need to control.
However I don’t think you can reasonably pigeonhole EVERY pro-lifer into this definition. As an example, someone who is particularly religious may believe in the absolute sanctity of human life and that it is sinful to kill a baby developing in the womb - so their philosophy on the subject arises out of a totally different context.
How about people who believe killing is just plain wrong? Such people also object to capital punishment, warfare etc etc…where’s the subconscious need to control there? What are THEY ‘getting off’ on?
For the record, I am pro-choice myself (at least up to a certain extent, although I do think there are many grey areas). I am not standing up against your ‘right to speculate’; I am simply saying that I believe that your speculations are narrow-minded and sound a little smug - it does sound like you’re saying that pro-lifers are submitting to this ‘sick desire’ whereas the pro-choicers have risen above such things, or perhaps have a more PG-rated subconscious?
"…what they say will cause great emotional and physical distress to those they control…"
Whilst this is true, I utterly reject the notion that every pro-lifer has this as their end goal. Unwanted pregnancy is not a nice scenario; SOMEONE is bound to not like any particular outcome. I very much doubt that the average, normal pro-lifer feels remotely satisfied that the mother has to go through such trauma, rather that it is what they believe is the lesser of two evils.
In short, I have no doubt that there do exist individuals who exhibit exactly the behaviour you describe; however, just as I would object to you saying that everyone under the age of 25 has a sick subconscious desire to have sex with chickens (despite the fact that there must be some that do), so you can expect pro-lifers to get royally pissed off when you insist on generalising like you are.
We already got that part - not everyone who recommends some course of action is a sick control freak, just those who disagree with you.
This is an attempt to change the subject of debate away from a discussion of the rationale of abortion, to a discussion of the motives of one side. Which is problematic, because you have no information about those motives (beyond a quick scan of their posts which ignores the rational basis for their position), as well as no expertise in any related field, no personal experience of any poster or his motives IRL, and a demonstrated willingness to ignore rational argument in favor of personal attack.
And on to the next, not-terribly-subtle attempt to change the topic.
No one on this thread or the other has made reference to a desire to force women’s choices as regards birth control. Nonetheless, your magic insight into the thought processes of people you have never met allows you to judge that this is what they are really thinking. So you can now attack a position no one has taken, based on an assumption you have not proven, supported by evidence which you have not supplied.
Which, as has been pointed out, is a game any number may play. If abortion opponents can be judged as control freaks, because they argue against abortion, certainly abortion proponents are equally likely to be motivated by subconscious lesbian urges. Since they secretly desire lesbian sex, they subconsciously reject the normal outcome of heterosexual relations, and wish for the destruction of pregnancy. Or they have severe father issues, and want to bring an end to the nuclear family which failed to protect them from abuse which they cannot consciously remember. Or they just hate people, and want to target the innocent for death.
Evidence? Why do you need evidence? It is pretty clear from their posts, wouldn’t you agree?
Regards,
Shodan
Looks around cautiously for naughty words
Hey, rational debate starting to happen in the pit! Referee!
Evil
Did you bother to read in the OP to this thread a little about my background? Considering that you knew none of it when you had your insight into my subconscious, does knowing a little more about me change your opinion? Do you still really think my mitivations are to control womenand make them suffer?
That would make you…hold on I got it, not an Uncle Tom, but an Aunt Autz? 
All right, all right -
Asshat! Wombat-molesting pigeon-felcher! Person who flatulates silently and blames it on others!
Doo-doo head!
Sorry. I will try to maintain standards.
Regards,
Shodan