Dr. Sanity reminded me of a homily given by Father Bill (God rest his soul) years ago. Father Bill was discussing his work with drug addicts and alcoholics. His basic point was that you have to remember that no matter how rational they seem, no matter how well they can repeat the reasons they shouldn't use, they will do it anyway. Because with respect to their addiction, they are insane.
Father Bill then extended this concept to moral questions like abortion. He viewed many abortion proponents as incapable of rational discourse on the topic. No matter what facts are brought to bear, nothing will make them change their mind.
When I get into a debate on such a topic, I think of that homily. If it becomes clear that facts and logic are irrelevant to the other person, I gracefully exit the discussion because I know it is pointless.
In her "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?" Dr. Sanity explains the concept as a trained Psychiatrist. (Lynne Stewart is an attorney who has just been convicted of giving material support to terrorists, in this case her client the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. See Andrew C. McCarthy for more.):
As in a case of hysteria, or a conversion disorder--where the symptoms are not intentionally produced but are the result of unintentional motives--the Lynne Stewarts of the Left are not deliberately being obtuse. They aren't even deliberately evil. They truly don't see anything wrong with being a nice person and kindly grandmother and simultaneously thinking that a terrorist attack in Indonesia where children might be killed is a wonderful thing. This kind of cognitive dissonance is the result of a psychological defense mechanism called "repression". Repression is necessary in the expression of a conversion disorder where some physical symptom (blindness, paralysis, pain) becomes the focal point; so that the individual is able to avoid the unacceptable thought or feeling. For that to occur, the unacceptable thought or feeling must be ruthlessly stashed away from awareness, or repressed.Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - alienboy
CB: I don't quite understand the purpose of this post.
You state that "Of course, insanity of this type is in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt that the many BlogCritics commenters would prefer to spin it as conservatives repressing things like their love of war and desire to dictate what women do with their own bodies." However your entire post is an (a)typical spin of a particularly nasty kind.
In general terms, one of the greatest dangers to anybody, or any society, is an insistence upon their particular world view, despite the indifferent and objective reality. That is to say, when the sun rises in the East, we have to accept that, no matter how much we wish it were not so.
You might want to reflect upon the particular form of insanity that takes on the form and appearance of "rationality" and "reason" to dress up and conceal some pretty ugly psychology of a particularly hateful kind.
Here we have classic examples of "subjective dissonance", to coin a phrase, from Dr Sanity (and how many insecurities or neuroses does that choice of name suggest..?), this Father Bill character and, alas, your previously good self.
On the subject of terrorism, if we used the terminology back in the day, would not the brave soldiers of the American Revolution been considered terrorists as they fought the then legitimate rule of the Britsh Crown?
There is way too much bandying about of the word terrorist these days and it is becoming an increasingly unhelpful term.
To re-phrase slightly: "This is why so often the authorities present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on."
2 - Carpe Bonum
Alienboy, I'm stumped. I can't figure out specifically what in the post you are objecting to. But I will make these comments:
- The purpose of the post is the same as any political post: spout off my opinion on something in the hope someone will stroke my ego by reading it. For this post, a more specific purpose would be to give some advice on how to be at peace with someone who disagrees with a core belief: you don't have to convince them, maybe they are insane.
- The "eye of the beholder" para was intended to balance the piece by acknowledging that people with contrary views could just as easily see conservatives like me as the ones repressing their true feelings or beliefs. Your "authorities present an unsolvable puzzle" para illustrates this: you see authorities contradicting themeselves where I see people like Lynne Stewart doing so.
- You don't seriously equate American revolutionaries with today's Islamofascist terrorists do you? When did American revolutionaries mass murder people buildings-full at a time? When did they spin up young stupid followers into homicidal/suicidal religious fervor enough to kill themselves along with their victims for heavenly reward? When did they take over theaters and schools, and kill as many innocents as possible? When did they saw off the heads of their still-living victims? If you think there is an equivalence there, then you must be...well...you know.
One more question/comment: what did you mean "previously good self?" I don't think this post is a departure from what I have posted previously. Maybe you just didn't see my true colors before!3 - Steve S
If it becomes clear that facts and logic are irrelevant to the other person, I gracefully exit the discussion because I know it is pointless.
This is also why you don't get far in a discussion on religion with a person on the extreme right.
alienboy says: I don't quite understand the purpose of this post.
It's to slam the Left. That is it's purpose.
4 - jadester
i'm not sure that actually IS the point of the post. I read most of it and was getting all ready to write a pissed-off reply, then i re-read the title.
Correct me if i'm wrong, CB, but i think your point is that if you come across someone that you argue with about the same thing over and over again, going in circles, never making progress either way, the best thing is to leave it, and accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your POV
5 - alienboy
CB: You could always try re-examining your core beliefs.
I, for example, have as a core belief that killing people is wrong and so see the United States as barbaric for its devotion to heavy weaponry and state execution. But every time I meet a total jerk, I re-examine that view, LOL!
There are rational ways of understanding what is happening in the world and formulating effective strategies for dealing with it, at either a global or personal level, but they are seldom utilised as they clash with fixed agendas and dogmas.
I think the comparison is valid. I don't know the details of the Revolution, but I'm sure there were many atrocities committed, though obviously their scale would have been limited by the available technology.
Let's face it, if the Americans, and their loyal allies, The French (yes, really!) had lost, it would have been called the American Rebellion, not Revolution. People use what means they can when they have to, I'm sure you understand that.
The tactics being used in Iraq are rational to the Sunni because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that nothing else can be done to resist the invaders of their country more effectively, either in Iraq or in the battle for public opinion in the USA.
If the strong German campaign to win the support of the USA in the 2nd World War had been victorious, as it so nearly was, then I, and almost everybody I know, would be terrorists resisting the evil occupying Germerican Empire.
These labels are simply evidence of the victors re-writing history to suit them in order to justify themselves and their actions
6 - Carpe Bonum
jadester:
Yes, that is it. Also, (perhaps 40%) ego stroking. And maybe another 40% pathetic ploy for attention... :-)7 - Dave Nalle
Steve, I don't think the post slams the left excessively. He does point out that the same kinds of criticisms can be made of some right wing beliefs and gives examples. Seems pretty balanced to me.
And his point is valid for ideologues on both sides. You can't reason with someone whose beliefs come from ideology handed down from some higher source. Only positions originating in reason are arguable.
Dave
8 - Carpe Bonum
Come on alienboy, the comparison is hate/murder/death cult vs. radical visionary liberal revolution. Where did you learn your history?
9 - Eric Olsen
CB, two things are going on here: you are presenting a set of views, and you are discussing a meta-method for analyzing and at least partially understanding all views. You are obviously aware that your own specific perspective can be viewed as pathology just as easily, but the rationality and amiability with which you present these views is disarming, even charming. Great post.
10 - Carpe Bonum
You trying to make me blush, Eric?
11 - Eric Olsen
not necessarily
12 - alienboy
CB: It is my comparison so I'll set the terms thank you very much!
Nice 9, Eric.
13 - Steve S
Hmm, I'll have to give it some thought. I find a lot of the premise erroneous.
some examples...
Anti-war "peace" marches represent repression of the fact that some leftists just don't want others to be free.
Of all the peace protesters that I have read about, or known or have heard of, not a one of them is marching for peace because they support slavery or oppression.
And "choice-" and "liberation-" spouting abortion proponents are repressing the simple truth that they just don't want more babies to be born.
I have never heard of a pro-choice person, choosing pro-choice ideology because they want babies to quit being born.
Okay folks, if you say so, this is filled with non-biased fact and not an attempt to demonize anybody with 'insane' rhetoric and false representations. okay. okay. Sure, I'm convinced.
14 - Dave Nalle
>>I have never heard of a pro-choice person, choosing pro-choice ideology because they want babies to quit being born.<<
You have now. I'm pro-choice specifically because I don't want poor people to have babies they can't support and because I want the overall population kept down, particularly the population of unwanted kids. I make no bones about it.
Dave
15 - Carpe Bonum
Steve, Dr. Sanity's point is that the underlying belief is being repressed. Thus, in the examples we have been discussing, the person would not admit the underlying belief because they don't know they are repressing it!
This is clearly not the case with Dave and his view on abortion. (Had to pick my jaw up off the floor after I read that one.)
16 - Eric Olsen
I partially agree: it doesn't have that much to do with economics - I don't want ANYONE who doesn't want to have children to have children. It's hard enough to be a parent when you want to, when you are willing to make the commitment, at least within your own imperfect human mind, to do so to the best of your ability, than to force people who aren't willing, unable, unprepared to make that commitment to be responsible for raising children. Most of societies problems -- although certainly not all -- stem ultimately from poorly raised children. This becomes more and more important as the world transforms from a communal, agrarian-based -- where the more bodies the better, and a world where a sizable percentage of children don't make it to adulthood so you'd better have a shitload to make sure SOMEONE carries on the family -- society, to a world where the focus is on the individual and all the eggs are going into fewer baskets. You'd better be able to take care of those baskets, and if not, the world is better off without them. I TOTALLY buy the argument that we must value the ACTUALLY living over the potentially living and the availability and legality of abortion has to be part of that.
17 - Dave Nalle
To moderate what I said earlier, I think adoption is an excellent thing and am all for it when it's done in a legal, binding and never to be screwed up way. I'd rather see unwanted babies adopted than aborted, but I sure don't want to see them being born and neglected.
Dave
18 - Eric Olsen
I agree adoption is better than abortion, but if we preclude abortion as a legal and available option, we are forcing women to go through the complete transformation of their bodies for nine months with nothing to show for it in the end. This may in fact be a very noble course of action, but it is unfair for society to demand it.
19 - Carpe Bonum
You guys are giving me an idea for a future posting: a list of possible prenatal and postnatal actions, ordered by relative moral badness. With some simple inputs of basic pricicples, I bet I could do it with a spreadsheet...
20 - Eric Olsen
interesting idea: you can begin with the temptation to engage in nonprocreative sex
21 - Steve S
CB says: "choice-" spouting abortion proponents are repressing the simple truth that they just don't want more babies to be born.
Dave says: and because I want the overall population kept down, particularly the population of unwanted kids.
While at face value, both statements say the same thing, at the same time, one says volumes more. That was my point of contention. One is more clearly defined, the other is vague enough to cover just about anything including the often spoken rhetoric of the Right about people on the Left hating life. Not worth dwelling on, but was why I spoke up.
Another reason why I questioned the intent is because I wondered what the next logical question of the premise would be. Yes, people would make ideological decisions based on repressed feelings. People also would make ideological decisions on traumatic experiences, major life changes or anything else going on in their life. That would be a given, I would think. So the next logical question is, how much of the Left is going through repressed feelings? Enough to sway the abortion vote in the Left's favor? Enough to worry that pro-choice public opinion might not unduly swayed by repression? I don't think that many millions of people are suffering from repression, so I guess it just sounds like an attempt to undermine the ideological choice of pro-choicers, rather than being a factor for serious concern. Just an opinion.
22 - Carpe Bonum
What "abortion vote?" The current state of US abortion law is the result due to the opinion of just seven "pro-choicers."
Having said that, yes, part of the intent of the post may have been to attempt to undermine some small number of people's ideological views. But since the discussion has been balanced, it seems just as likely to affect people on either side of whichever debate.
So, I'm back to ego-stroking, attention grabbing, and a dash of getting-along-with-others advice as the main intents of the post.
23 - Dave Nalle
CB, there was no such thing as a 'pro-choicer' when the Supreme Court voted on Roe v. Wade. The justices may have been more liberal than the ones we have today, but they mostly made the decision on law and what they thought was best for society, and court watchers believe that if RvW came up for a vote in this more conservative court it would still be upheld. Remember, the decision was originally made in a lower court then appealed and held up by an appellate court and then it went to the Supreme Court. An awful lot of judges looked at it and supported it, not just seven liberals.
Dave
24 - Angela Chen Shui
What a great thread. Especially loved the honesty of 14 and the follow-up 16-18 and 20!
Thanks for: "I don't want ANYONE who doesn't want to have children to have children. It's hard enough to be a parent when you want to, when you are willing to make the commitment, at least within your own imperfect human mind, to do so to the best of your ability, than to force people who aren't willing, unable, unprepared to make that commitment to be responsible for raising children." and "we are forcing women to go through the complete transformation of their bodies for nine months ... it is unfair for society to demand it."
25 - SFC SKI
I suppose the idea that people should be responsible enough to not get pregnant in the first place is too much to suggest?