Re: Glenn Beck

by **SheikBen** Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:11 pm

You guys might like this story. I used to work with people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities (ironically my academic discipline is political science, and I find the two fields often related), and whenever politics would come up, they could quote verbatem the talking points of the 30 second ad spots and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself, depending on whatever ideology they had, the basis of which I could never quite tell outside of their family influences.

by **SheikBen** Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:13 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:That's still not definitive evidence that it was shot down. When I see those 'radar tracking images' and the missile being fired, I'll believe it. Kind of the same as I'll believe in aliens when the space ship lands in my yard and one gets out.

HA, you still wouldn't believe it unless Pelosi or Obama told you the images were real.

Devoutly partisan Democrats only believe what their Party Masters tell them.

You know, Sam, I think AC has a lot more independence than you give her credit for, and there is no surer way to make someone an extremist than to label them as such.

The only reason that I self-identified as a Republican in the past, and likely will do so again, is because whenever I would share my beliefs someone would label me a right-wing extremist. Well, that gets old really quick, and the only affect it has had is to completely turn me off to the liberals who paint me that way.

I think you are making the same mistake with Andrea that a great many Chicago North Shore libs made with me.

by Cato Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:25 am

SheikBen wrote:
Cato,

You forget that I agree that Congress should only do those things for which it is clearly given permission.

Where I disagree is that the Constitution, written by Federalists who favored a strong national government, and whose John Marshall gave the majority decision, I believe, in McCulloch v Maryland, somehow didn't mean the "necessary and proper" clause.

I wish that "elastic clause" weren't in the Constitution, but it's in there. I should like to see it very narrowly applied, but again, it is in there. The practice of judicial review is itself odious except where obvious (very rarely is it obvious).

My point is that the better battle in my opinion is that universal health care is going to be a disaster and that is why we should not do it. In your reading of the Constitution, Congress has been exceeding what it should be allowed to do now since 1813 or so. Much better to show how much of a disaster anything this government gets invovled in (see housing or education, for example) then to appeal to an unfortunately long ago lost battle.

While I agree with you that universal health care is going to be a disaster whether or not the US Constitution allows congress to deal with it or not. However, the listing in article 1, section 8 exists as does the law of exclusion. If the authority to do something is not listed then congress doesn't have the authority to deal with it. That being said, I know what many of the US Supreme Court Justices have said. I also know that many have come down on disenting side, saying that congress's authority is limited to the list in Article 1, Section 8.

All we see in Supreme Court rulings is the dangers that arise when justices are appointed who have agendas and are not above bending the US Constitution to further said agenda. In other words we see the danger of unlimited government.

In my humble opinion if we love our liberty we need to keep driving the point home that congress lacks the authority to piddle in most of the items it is messing in. We need to keep refering to Article 1, Section 8 and keep what it says on the front burner for all to see. We need to demand our representatives adheare to article 1, section 8 literally and not go beyond its listing. The last time I looked we were a nation of law, it is time we held those who represent us to the supreme law of the land.

One last point, however, I am also a realist. I know that the public has been dumbed down by a dismal education system. While we should be pounding on the Constitutional issues, we need to also be beating home these facts also with regard to healthcare, climate, and all the other legislation those in office are meddling with:

1. It is immoral and unethical to extort the fruits on one mans labor to give to another, especially if the other will not take responsibility for themself.

2. It is immoral to enter into debt with no plan to repay it, instead opting to pass it to the next generation.

3. It is unethical to presume to know what is the best course of action for antoher individual.

4. It is both immoral and the ultimate expression of arrogance to base one's healthcare on their value to society.

5. It is the ultimate expression of ignorance to base legislation on an agenda based on the twisting of fact for the sake of passing the agenda.

6. It is the poorest form of goverance to write law that is so voluminous and written in such a manner nobody can read and comprehend what it says.

by Andrea Cristobal Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:41 am

SheikBen wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:That's still not definitive evidence that it was shot down. When I see those 'radar tracking images' and the missile being fired, I'll believe it. Kind of the same as I'll believe in aliens when the space ship lands in my yard and one gets out.

HA, you still wouldn't believe it unless Pelosi or Obama told you the images were real.

Devoutly partisan Democrats only believe what their Party Masters tell them.

You know, Sam, I think AC has a lot more independence than you give her credit for, and there is no surer way to make someone an extremist than to label them as such.

The only reason that I self-identified as a Republican in the past, and likely will do so again, is because whenever I would share my beliefs someone would label me a right-wing extremist. Well, that gets old really quick, and the only affect it has had is to completely turn me off to the liberals who paint me that way.

I think you are making the same mistake with Andrea that a great many Chicago North Shore libs made with me.

Thank you Sheik Ben. I actually am independant minded with a viewpoint that is mixed. I get assailed by the left for not being pro-choice and assailed by the right for believing in government run health care. I also believe in the death penalty which some may call me hypocritical in my church. We all have crosses of being labeled unfairly to bear at times. I have experienced what you have with disabled people. I have worked with two who are developmentally delayed but at the same time are considered savants. They could remember an astounding amount of trivia, it was stunning but very enjoyable to listen to them.

by **SheikBen** Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:17 am

If I can chase the rabbit you set up, AC, I do not think favoring the death penalty while opposing abortion is hypocritical, even though I oppose the death penalty as it is presently applied (you seem to get it in the US for having bad lawyers rather than for murder, if more murderers got it I might actually favor it). If the death penalty were really a deterrent, I'd be all for it, but the motive seems to be vengeance rather than deterrence, and that I cannot get behind.

Not all killing is morally the same, and it surely is not in the Bible. The same Exodus that says "thou shalt not murder" (and the Hebrew is murder, not kill) also has commands of capital punishment for transgressors.

Just as imprisonment is not kidnapping, and sometimes war is necessary, not all killing is the same. Killing an innocent child is not the same as killing a murderer, or killing someone trying to get into your house.

At any rate, the death penalty for muderers is most certainly not the same as teh death penalty for innocent children.

by SamCogar Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:56 pm

SheikBen wrote:You guys might like this story. I used to work with people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities and whenever politics would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the 30 second ad spots and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself, depending on whatever ideology they had, the basis of which I could never quite tell outside of their family influences.

Mike, cognitive or cognition is the scientific term for "the process of thought" to knowing. And to know is to learn. And to express one’s learning is to quote/write either verbatim’lly or paraphrase’ically that which one has learned. And to write/quote paraphrase’ically requires one to think or thinking. Thus, people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities doesn’t mean they are incapable of learning anything, I suspect that it actually means they are mildly to moderately incapable of thinking (reasoning) about the things that they learn. And therein is the root cause of their cognitive disabilities. And that is because thinking and/or reasoning about a specific entity requires the subconscious mental ability to associate, compare and recall stored memory data of a similar nature of said entity or data that has been “linked” to data of a similar nature. Aka: If you see an unknown female with a specific dress, slacks, blouse, hairdo or hair color …. you will automatically think of your wife, mother or friend , whichever looks similar. Anyone with a “subject dependent” cognitive disability is limited in their ability to do said.

And said “recall ability” is a nurtured attribute that is not only people dependent, but is also subject dependent. Anyway, what I have been leading up to is, your above cited example of cognitive disabilities also applies to anyone who is specifically partisan concerning any subject and this is a direct result of their nurturing, be it family influence, peer influence, educational influence, or whatever. And political Party partisanship is most always nurtured at an early age by family influence. I, myself, am not one iota political Party partisan and I attribute that fact to the fact that, to my knowledge, politics were never discussed by either my mother or my father and to my knowledge neither one of them ever voted in any election. But now Religion and the Bible, …… OH MERCY, …. that’s a different story. And my nurturing in/on that subject is responsible for my stance on the subject.

And Michael, all the above was a prerequisite to my replying to your following post, to wit:

SheikBen wrote: You know, Sam, I think AC has a lot more independence than you give her credit for, and there is no surer way to make someone an extremist than to label them as such.

Michael, call it “independence” iffen you want to but in my opinion it is nothing more than “political Party partisanship”. And whether or not said partisanship is a result of nurturing or merely intentional I am not able to say at this point in time. And Mike, one can not make another person an “extremist”, their prior nurturing already dictated said.

SheikBen wrote: The only reason that I self-identified as a Republican in the past, and likely will do so again, is because whenever I would share my beliefs someone would label me a right-wing extremist. Well, that gets old really quick, and the only affect it has had is to completely turn me off to the liberals who paint me that way.

Mike, that is called learning or nurturing. You have learned that most every “lefty liberal” will call anyone that disagrees with them on politics ….. a “right-wing extremist”. And if you disagree with them on AGW or Climate Change they will call you a “denialist”. They are all a bunch of PC “looneys” that truly believe their “agenda” is more important than even common sense decisions. And don’t worry about being turned off to the liberals, it is of their doings. Their negative tactics is their only means of recruitment for their “cause” and it is good that you are turned off to them.

SheikBen wrote: I think you are making the same mistake with Andrea that a great many Chicago North Shore libs made with me.

Mike, I am only per say “fighting fire with fire”. It matters little what one says to those with cognitive disabilities and the only way to get their attention is to say something that will make them mad at, embarrassed or unhappy with them self. One’s embarrassment with their own actions or inactions is the greatest teacher of all.

by **ohio county** Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:31 am

Not to drag anybody back to the original premise of the thread but this is the guy who was an invited guest to the state dinner that made the Salahis fifteen minute celebrities:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/bob-creamer-architect-of-obamacare-and-his-pattern-of-corruption/

But they weren't a smokescreen...

by Andrea Cristobal Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:58 am

SamCogar wrote:
SheikBen wrote:You guys might like this story. I used to work with people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities and whenever politics would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the 30 second ad spots and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself, depending on whatever ideology they had, the basis of which I could never quite tell outside of their family influences.

Mike, cognitive or cognition is the scientific term for "the process of thought" to knowing. And to know is to learn. And to express one’s learning is to quote/write either verbatim’lly or paraphrase’ically that which one has learned. And to write/quote paraphrase’ically requires one to think or thinking. Thus, people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities doesn’t mean they are incapable of learning anything, I suspect that it actually means they are mildly to moderately incapable of thinking (reasoning) about the things that they learn. And therein is the root cause of their cognitive disabilities. And that is because thinking and/or reasoning about a specific entity requires the subconscious mental ability to associate, compare and recall stored memory data of a similar nature of said entity or data that has been “linked” to data of a similar nature. Aka: If you see an unknown female with a specific dress, slacks, blouse, hairdo or hair color …. you will automatically think of your wife, mother or friend , whichever looks similar. Anyone with a “subject dependent” cognitive disability is limited in their ability to do said.

And said “recall ability” is a nurtured attribute that is not only people dependent, but is also subject dependent. Anyway, what I have been leading up to is, your above cited example of cognitive disabilities also applies to anyone who is specifically partisan concerning any subject and this is a direct result of their nurturing, be it family influence, peer influence, educational influence, or whatever. And political Party partisanship is most always nurtured at an early age by family influence. I, myself, am not one iota political Party partisan and I attribute that fact to the fact that, to my knowledge, politics were never discussed by either my mother or my father and to my knowledge neither one of them ever voted in any election. But now Religion and the Bible, …… OH MERCY, …. that’s a different story. And my nurturing in/on that subject is responsible for my stance on the subject.

And Michael, all the above was a prerequisite to my replying to your following post, to wit:

SheikBen wrote: You know, Sam, I think AC has a lot more independence than you give her credit for, and there is no surer way to make someone an extremist than to label them as such.

Michael, call it “independence” iffen you want to but in my opinion it is nothing more than “political Party partisanship”. And whether or not said partisanship is a result of nurturing or merely intentional I am not able to say at this point in time. And Mike, one can not make another person an “extremist”, their prior nurturing already dictated said.

SheikBen wrote: The only reason that I self-identified as a Republican in the past, and likely will do so again, is because whenever I would share my beliefs someone would label me a right-wing extremist. Well, that gets old really quick, and the only affect it has had is to completely turn me off to the liberals who paint me that way.

Mike, that is called learning or nurturing. You have learned that most every “lefty liberal” will call anyone that disagrees with them on politics ….. a “right-wing extremist”. And if you disagree with them on AGW or Climate Change they will call you a “denialist”. They are all a bunch of PC “looneys” that truly believe their “agenda” is more important than even common sense decisions. And don’t worry about being turned off to the liberals, it is of their doings. Their negative tactics is their only means of recruitment for their “cause” and it is good that you are turned off to them.

SheikBen wrote: I think you are making the same mistake with Andrea that a great many Chicago North Shore libs made with me.

Mike, I am only per say “fighting fire with fire”. It matters little what one says to those with cognitive disabilities and the only way to get their attention is to say something that will make them mad at, embarrassed or unhappy with them self. One’s embarrassment with their own actions or inactions is the greatest teacher of all.

Sam that was a fascinating discertation on cognition. So when you defend Beck and the typical Republican arguments regarding the commerce clause and the constitution are you being INDEPENDANT MINDED? Didn't you call me a "bleeding heart liberal' in another post? Or does this discertation on cognition not apply to you?

by Andrea Cristobal Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:10 am

SheikBen wrote:If I can chase the rabbit you set up, AC, I do not think favoring the death penalty while opposing abortion is hypocritical, even though I oppose the death penalty as it is presently applied (you seem to get it in the US for having bad lawyers rather than for murder, if more murderers got it I might actually favor it). If the death penalty were really a deterrent, I'd be all for it, but the motive seems to be vengeance rather than deterrence, and that I cannot get behind.

Not all killing is morally the same, and it surely is not in the Bible. The same Exodus that says "thou shalt not murder" (and the Hebrew is murder, not kill) also has commands of capital punishment for transgressors.

Just as imprisonment is not kidnapping, and sometimes war is necessary, not all killing is the same. Killing an innocent child is not the same as killing a murderer, or killing someone trying to get into your house.

At any rate, the death penalty for muderers is most certainly not the same as teh death penalty for innocent children.

In my Catholic faith the death penalty is viewed in the same way as abortion. I once held their view. Many years ago now my ex and myself had flown out on a vacation. There was a case getting major attention at our destination. Three young men were on trial for having cut the heart out of a little boy while he was still alive. It was all over the news and very disturbing. One of the three was older and his eyes could stop a train. Totally cold, no emotion, no remorse. Not a blink when the pictures of the adorable little boy were shown. Like someone had extinguished his soul's light and there was just darkness there. That was the first time I had significantly differed with the Church's viewpoint on this subject. I would previously have said that 'life in prison' was enough. I believe now that in some cases not out of revenge, with DNA evidence proving conclusively they are the perpetrator, that the DP is the just punishment. I sometimes watch cases that involve heinous murders just to see if the same soulless look is present. Many times it is.

by TerryRC Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:56 am

Michael, call it “independence” iffen you want to but in my opinion it is nothing more than “political Party partisanship”. And whether or not said partisanship is a result of nurturing or merely intentional I am not able to say at this point in time. And Mike, one can not make another person an “extremist”, their prior nurturing already dictated said.

I see Sam is already getting on with the "liburals, hurr, hurrr...".

He speaks of independent thought and acts like any other Beck or Limbaugh worshiper.

Shocking.

by Andrea Cristobal Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:59 am

TerryRC wrote:Michael, call it “independence” iffen you want to but in my opinion it is nothing more than “political Party partisanship”. And whether or not said partisanship is a result of nurturing or merely intentional I am not able to say at this point in time. And Mike, one can not make another person an “extremist”, their prior nurturing already dictated said.

I see Sam is already getting on with the "liburals, hurr, hurrr...".

He speaks of independent thought and acts like any other Beck or Limbaugh worshiper.

Shocking.

That is the point I was attempting to make. I know of a place that sells altars. I could send him one posthaste if he would like.

by SamCogar Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:33 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Sam that was a fascinating discertation on cognition.

Andrea, it is quite obvious that you didn’t comprehend a word of my dissertation and that is because you don’t have a clue as to what I stated therein. If you had actually thought it was “fascinating” then you would have commented about why you thought it to be fascinating.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:So when you defend Beck and the typical Republican arguments regarding the commerce clause and the constitution are you being INDEPENDANT MINDED? Didn't you call me a "bleeding heart liberal' in another post? Or does this discertation on cognition not apply to you?

Andrea, remember Mikes story of, to wit:

You guys might like this story. I used to work with people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities and whenever politics would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the 30 second ad spots and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself,

Well “DUH”, do you not see the re-play of Michael’s story in your above comment wherein you are accusing me of ”defending Beck and the typical Republican arguments”?

Were you not quoting verbatim the “typical response” uttered by partisans in an attempt to defame their opponent? Any you have the gall to ask me if I’m being INDEPENDANTLY MINDED?.

People with cognitive disabilities, even in their wildest of dreams, can not think or even consider the possibility that anyone who is not a movie star, TV talking head, an elected Politician, a Degreed Professor, etc., can be capable of independent thought. And the reason for that is, they themselves are incapable of independent thought. If you can’t see the “red balloon” then you can’t very well be telling someone else to “look at that red balloon”.

Andrea, my above dissertation on cognition is solely the product of my independent thought and you will not read anything similar to it that was not authored by me. Especially from any Degreed Psychiatrists or Psychologists because they don’t have a clue as to how the human mind actually functions. They haven’t figured out why they are what they are …… but all of them are trying to tell other people the reasons those people are what they are.

by SamCogar Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:57 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
TerryRC wrote:I see Sam is already getting on with the "liburals, hurr, hurrr...".

He speaks of independent thought and acts like any other Beck or Limbaugh worshiper.

Shocking.

That is the point I was attempting to make. I know of a place that sells altars. I could send him one posthaste if he would like.

I can see the start of a short friendship between you two as you continue to quote verbatim and agree with each other on the talking points of those 30 second “sound bites” that you depend on for engaging in conversations.

Tis good to be witness to the truth of that ole adage of:

"My enemy's enemy is my friend".

lol!

.

.

by Andrea Cristobal Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:04 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:Sam that was a fascinating discertation on cognition.

Andrea, it is quite obvious that you didn’t comprehend a word of my dissertation and that is because you don’t have a clue as to what I stated therein. If you had actually thought it was “fascinating” then you would have commented about why you thought it to be fascinating.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:So when you defend Beck and the typical Republican arguments regarding the commerce clause and the constitution are you being INDEPENDANT MINDED? Didn't you call me a "bleeding heart liberal' in another post? Or does this discertation on cognition not apply to you?

Andrea, remember Mikes story of, to wit:

You guys might like this story. I used to work with people with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities and whenever politics would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the 30 second ad spots and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself,

Well “DUH”, do you not see the re-play of Michael’s story in your above comment wherein you are accusing me of ”defending Beck and the typical Republican arguments”?

Were you not quoting verbatim the “typical response” uttered by partisans in an attempt to defame their opponent? Any you have the gall to ask me if I’m being INDEPENDANTLY MINDED?.

People with cognitive disabilities, even in their wildest of dreams, can not think or even consider the possibility that anyone who is not a movie star, TV talking head, an elected Politician, a Degreed Professor, etc., can be capable of independent thought. And the reason for that is, they themselves are incapable of independent thought. If you can’t see the “red balloon” then you can’t very well be telling someone else to “look at that red balloon”.

Andrea, my above dissertation on cognition is solely the product of my independent thought and you will not read anything similar to it that was not authored by me. Especially from any Degreed Psychiatrists or Psychologists because they don’t have a clue as to how the human mind actually functions. They haven’t figured out why they are what they are …… but all of them are trying to tell other people the reasons those people are what they are.

I presume Sam that you have no knowledge of sarcasm. That dissertation was absolutely blindingly fascinating in its abject ridiculousness. We were talking about people with true cognitive disabilities and savants. Not "narrowminded personality traits" which is a phrase I am certain you understand. The two are totally different. Perhaps you should study a bit on developmental disabilities. Just for the fun of it I counted your entries on Sarah Palin and global warming. "Independant thinker" somehow doesn't seem a legitimate part of your resume to me.
Glenn Beck - Page 3 33948

by SamCogar Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:32 am

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I presume Sam that you have no knowledge of sarcasm. That dissertation was absolutely blindingly fascinating in its abject ridiculousness. We were talking about people with true cognitive disabilities and savants. Not "narrowminded personality traits" which is a phrase I am certain you understand. The two are totally different. Perhaps you should study a bit on developmental disabilities. Just for the fun of it I counted your entries on Sarah Palin and global warming. "Independant thinker" somehow doesn't seem a legitimate part of your resume to me.

Andrea, let me again refer you to Michael’s statement, to wit:

and whenever the subject of ----cognitive disabilities and savants---- would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the ----”experts” in developmental disabilities research ---- and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself

Thus it is no surprise to me that you found my dissertation to be abjectly ridiculous.

And relative to your "Independant thinker" comment concerning global warming, to wit:

and whenever the subject of ----human caused global warming---- would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the ----proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming---- and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself

Andrea, I earned my AB Degree in Biological and Physical Science 47 years ago and have learned much, much more since that time and it is most probably foolish on your part to be mouthing silly criticisms of my knowledge or abilities.

Andrea, there is really no difference between “cognitive disabilities” and "narrowminded personality traits" other than “to the eye of the beholder”.

Cognitive disabilities, loosely translated, means the inability to “recall and process mental thoughts”. Narrowmindedness, loosely translated, means the inability to “recall and mentally evaluate alternative thoughts”. DUH, if your husband was unable to comprehend your “point of view” then you would call him “narrowminded”, but if a child was unable to comprehend your “instructions” then you would diagnose the child as being “cognitive disabled”. Thus, “to the eye of the beholder”, the level of one’s cognitive abilities determines the “label” said beholder assigns/applies to them.

And Andrea, “YES”, I have quite an extensive knowledge of sarcasm, in both sensing and employing it. One should not attempt to employ sarcasm or satire unless they know what they are criticizing, otherwise it is only spiteful, defaming rhetoric used to “attack the messenger and not the message.”

Andrea, I can tell you lots of things about how your “conscious mind” works that you currently don’t have a clue about. Like how you “consciously” perceive sights, sounds and dreams, and even speak your conscious thoughts. But if you are going to be “narrowminded” about it then any more dissertations on my part would be an act of futility.

by **Stephanie** Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:51 pm

Cato wrote:A Question for Stephanie and Andrea. What is your issue with Glen Beck? Why I ask is that his general stance on Government is closely aligned to a libertarian point of view. He from what I see of the man he seem to teach using the absurd to make points, which sometimes I find distracting, however, I can find little fault with with vies of the problems governmetn creates and what the solution is.

Cato

Cato,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and in my opinion Beck is an obnoxious ass. He acts a fool, cries on camera with great regularity, and in general makes my skin crawl. I frequently agree with his position, not always but frequently. This does nothing to elevate my view of him. I dislike him a great deal.

by Andrea Cristobal Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:28 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:I presume Sam that you have no knowledge of sarcasm. That dissertation was absolutely blindingly fascinating in its abject ridiculousness. We were talking about people with true cognitive disabilities and savants. Not "narrowminded personality traits" which is a phrase I am certain you understand. The two are totally different. Perhaps you should study a bit on developmental disabilities. Just for the fun of it I counted your entries on Sarah Palin and global warming. "Independant thinker" somehow doesn't seem a legitimate part of your resume to me.

Andrea, let me again refer you to Michael’s statement, to wit:

and whenever the subject of ----cognitive disabilities and savants---- would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the ----”experts” in developmental disabilities research ---- and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself

Thus it is no surprise to me that you found my dissertation to be abjectly ridiculous.

And relative to your "Independant thinker" comment concerning global warming, to wit:

and whenever the subject of ----human caused global warming---- would come up, they could quote verbatim the talking points of the ----proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming---- and would do so as if it were the Gospel itself

Andrea, I earned my AB Degree in Biological and Physical Science 47 years ago and have learned much, much more since that time and it is most probably foolish on your part to be mouthing silly criticisms of my knowledge or abilities.

Andrea, there is really no difference between “cognitive disabilities” and "narrowminded personality traits" other than “to the eye of the beholder”.

Cognitive disabilities, loosely translated, means the inability to “recall and process mental thoughts”. Narrowmindedness, loosely translated, means the inability to “recall and mentally evaluate alternative thoughts”. DUH, if your husband was unable to comprehend your “point of view” then you would call him “narrowminded”, but if a child was unable to comprehend your “instructions” then you would diagnose the child as being “cognitive disabled”. Thus, “to the eye of the beholder”, the level of one’s cognitive abilities determines the “label” said beholder assigns/applies to them.

And Andrea, “YES”, I have quite an extensive knowledge of sarcasm, in both sensing and employing it. One should not attempt to employ sarcasm or satire unless they know what they are criticizing, otherwise it is only spiteful, defaming rhetoric used to “attack the messenger and not the message.”

Andrea, I can tell you lots of things about how your “conscious mind” works that you currently don’t have a clue about. Like how you “consciously” perceive sights, sounds and dreams, and even speak your conscious thoughts. But if you are going to be “narrowminded” about it then any more dissertations on my part would be an act of futility.

Cognitive disabilities and 'narrowmindedness are not one in the same thing Sam Cogar. Not even close. With your degree you should have a far better understanding of the principles than you do. I work with children and adults with disabilities every day. Cognitive disabilities are caused by neurological damage due to seizures, birth defects, etc. In other words there are physical reasons for them. Also genetic reasons. Narrowmindedness on the other hand is a state of mind that is self-afflicted. Self-afflicted by choice. You have no idea what I have a clue about, but I would say that when it comes to understanding cognition you are clueless. How is it that you don't label your own continual criticisms as defamation? Do you have a permanent case of the 'Poor Sams'? And changing the words in Michael's statement, doesn't make the wattage in the light bulb any brighter.

by SamCogar Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:36 pm

narrow–minded – (\-ˈmīn-dəd\) - adjective - lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NARROW-MINDED

narrow-minded (-mīn′did) – adjective - limited in outlook or lacking in tolerance; not liberal; bigoted; prejudiced
http://www.yourdictionary.com/narrow-minded

Urban Dictionary - narrow minded
Intolerant of another's views. This is a mentality that is often associated with cliques and coteries. A narrow-minded person will even accuse someone of being "stupid" or ((name some other bad trait here, even "narrow-minded" itself!)) the other person who expresses a viewpoint or reason for believing otherwise than the narrow-minded one's views. Or, in some cases, a narrow-minded person might even go to the extreme of primate-like behavior, such as throwing food or insults at the other person, because the narrow-minded one doesn't have a cohesive argument to counteract what the other had said in the discussion or debate.

Interesting thing: people who accuse others of being narrow-minded are often quite narrow-minded themselves.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=narrow%20minded

by SamCogar Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:20 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Cognitive disabilities and 'narrowmindedness are not one in the same thing Sam Cogar. Not even close.

Andrea, you are absolutely right ….. but only if I see the words “cognitive disabilities” the same as you do, as a “conjoined” term that only applies to a specific type of mental impairment (mental disability). To wit:

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Cognitive disabilities are caused by neurological damage due to seizures, birth defects, etc. In other words there are physical reasons for them. Also genetic reasons.

But I don’t see it the same as you do, and therein lies our disagreement.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: With your degree you should have a far better understanding of the principles than you do.

Andrea, I do have a far better understanding of “word usage” than you realize, especially science based wording.

Andrea, how do you interpret the terms “cognitive abilities” or ”cognitive inactivity”? Does “cognitive abilities” apply to everyone who is not afflicted with that specific type of “cognitive disability” that you are “stuck on”? Does ”cognitive inactivity” mean one is brain dead? It could, but it could also mean one was asleep. To wit:

cognitive – (\ˈkäg-nə-tiv\) - adjective - 1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/COGNITIVE

Andrea, any time the word “cognitive” is used it means thinking, reasoning, or remembering. Thus, you can say a cognitive horse or a cognitive dog but you can’t say a cognitive box-of-rocks.

And the definition of disabilities, to wit:

disability – noun - (pl. disabilities) - 1. a. The condition of being disabled; incapacity. 2. A disadvantage or deficiency,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disability

Andrea, “cognitive disabilities” generally means that one’s conscious intellectual activity is 1. incapacitated or diminished due to a physical mental condition, …. but it can also mean that one’s conscious intellectual activity is 2. disadvantaged or deficient as a result of their nurturing (learning).

Thus Andrea, the Political Correct way to tell someone they are ignorant, dumb or stupid would be to call them “cognitive disabled”.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: , but I would say that when it comes to understanding cognition you are clueless.

Well, iffen you still think so, …….. so be it.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Narrowmindedness on the other hand is a state of mind that is self-afflicted. Self-afflicted by choice.

Andrea, I will agree that it is self inflicted in the sense that it is a “mental attribute” and only the person them self can “program” their own mind …… but it is the environmental stimuli which dictates the “nature” of said self-programming and thus it’s really not “self-afflicted” but actually “nurtured”.

“You are what you are nurtured to be.”

Glenn Beck - Page 3 46059

.

by Cato Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:20 am

Stephanie wrote:
Cato wrote:A Question for Stephanie and Andrea. What is your issue with Glen Beck? Why I ask is that his general stance on Government is closely aligned to a libertarian point of view. He from what I see of the man he seem to teach using the absurd to make points, which sometimes I find distracting, however, I can find little fault with with vies of the problems governmetn creates and what the solution is.

Cato

Cato,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and in my opinion Beck is an obnoxious ass. He acts a fool, cries on camera with great regularity, and in general makes my skin crawl. I frequently agree with his position, not always but frequently. This does nothing to elevate my view of him. I dislike him a great deal.

Sorry, I missed this post earlier. I don't disagree with you in regard to his style. He's one of the reasons I very seldom watch any of the talking heads. I do however, agree with many of the things he points out.

by **ohio county** Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:19 pm

I've disliked Beck for years but at the same time I appreciate that his attention deficit disorder facilitates his taking complex issues (money supply, existence of God, Federal Reserve Bank, etc.) and simplifying so that even I can understand. That he is a whimpering boob is just a distraction.

by Andrea Cristobal Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:16 am

Unfortunately Sam I am not 'blinded by the bright light' of your reasoning. Not everything is about nurture. Much is about genetics. I still do not agree that cognitive disabilities and narrowmindedness are similar.

by SamCogar Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:46 am

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Unfortunately Sam I am not 'blinded by the bright light' of your reasoning. Not everything is about nurture. Much is about genetics. I still do not agree that cognitive disabilities and narrowmindedness are similar.

Andrea, in that you think "Much is about genetics" then please explain to me WHY there has been probably as much as a 5,000% increase in DIAGNOSED "cognitive disabilities" since the late 1970's?

Evolution is quick but only when measured over tens of thousands of years, ... ... not over 3+ decades.
geek

Andrea, do you know what the difference is between a "dream" and an "hallucination"?

I didn't think so. Razz

One most always knows for sure they were having a "dream" simply because they knew for sure they had just awoken from being asleep and was only seeing a fictitious "visual" picture that was created by their subconscious mind.

But when one's subconscious mind "injects" a dream figure into their actual "visual" picture then they know damn well they had been wide awake therefore its gotta justa hafta be an hallucination they are seeing.

Andrea, now you think about that one ....... some night when you're working late and the "buzzers" aren't bugging you too often.

And ps, Andrea, iffen you want to bedazzle one of your Doctor friends then pose the same question to them ........ and after they answer you ..... then cite my "difference" and watch their reaction. I'm sure it will be interesting.

.

by Andrea Cristobal Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:42 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:Unfortunately Sam I am not 'blinded by the bright light' of your reasoning. Not everything is about nurture. Much is about genetics. I still do not agree that cognitive disabilities and narrowmindedness are similar.

Andrea, in that you think "Much is about genetics" then please explain to me WHY there has been probably as much as a 5,000% increase in DIAGNOSED "cognitive disabilities" since the late 1970's?

Evolution is quick but only when measured over tens of thousands of years, ... ... not over 3+ decades.

Andrea, do you know what the difference is between a "dream" and an "hallucination"?

I didn't think so.

One most always knows for sure they were having a "dream" simply because they knew for sure they had just awoken from being asleep and was only seeing a fictitious "visual" picture that was created by their subconscious mind.

But when one's subconscious mind "injects" a dream figure into their actual "visual" picture then they know damn well they had been wide awake therefore its gotta justa hafta be an hallucination they are seeing.

Andrea, now you think about that one ....... some night when you're working late and the "buzzers" aren't bugging you too often.

And ps, Andrea, iffen you want to bedazzle one of your Doctor friends then pose the same question to them ........ and after they answer you ..... then cite my "difference" and watch their reaction. I'm sure it will be interesting.

.

Sam do you have a clue of what you are talking about? Cognitive disabilities could be rising for numerous reasons. Nurture is probably not one of them. It could be enviromental, diet related, no one knows for certain. Sometimes it has to do with the number of parents who do drugs. In some areas it is possible it could be pollutants. I'm not quite certain what hallucinations had to do with any of it. But I have to say Sam you truly do give me loads of good laughs. Have you always been so funny?

by SamCogar Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:55 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Sam do you have a clue of what you are talking about? Cognitive disabilities could be rising for numerous reasons. Nurture is probably not one of them. It could be enviromental, diet related, no one knows for certain. Sometimes it has to do with the number of parents who do drugs. In some areas it is possible it could be pollutants.?

Andrea Cristobal wrote: no one knows for certain

I do Andrea, and that's what I've been trying to tell you. But it is becoming apparent that your NURTURING ....... prevents you from even considering anything that you are not already familiar with. Most Creationists have the same problem with their Biblical beliefs in their God.

And uh, .... uh, ..... uh, ....... Andrea, ..... to wit:

Nurture - personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.

•The act of nourishing or nursing; tender care; education; training; That which nourishes; food; diet; The environmental influences that contribute to the development of an individual; see also nature; to nourish or nurse

http://www.google.com/search?&q=define:Nurture

Now, ya see, you were on the right track, you just didn't know what it was called.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I'm not quite certain what hallucinations had to do with any of it. But I have to say Sam you truly do give me loads of good laughs. Have you always been so funny?

Andrea, the next time you wake up in the middle of REM sleep ..... you think about what I said.

Or have you really and truly committed yourself to ....... NO MORE LEARNING.

,

by Sponsored content