shovland at mindspring.com
Mon Nov 1 17:38:56 UTC 2004
In the runup to the war Bush told us that Saddam
had large quantities of weapons of mass destruction,
even though there was no hard evidence of it from
the inspections going on at the time.
Members of Congress were called in to a special briefing
where they were told that Saddam was likely to set off a
nuke in Washington. Even if Bush did not give the
presentation, he is responsible for its content.
They often defend themselves by saying that "everyone"
believed that he had weapons, as if that belief makes it
a fact. But if you consult a list of logical fallacies, you
will find the fallacy of belief, which asserts (another fallacy)
that something is true if a large number of people
The Swifties who were not in the boat with Kerry accuse
him of lying.
From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:18 AM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons
Steve's point is a good one, but doesn't probe deeply enough. Actually,
I don't see conservatives accusing the left of lying. They accuse them
of being thougthless and irrational, denying their own thoughtless and
irrational sides, as Steve points out. As I mentioned, David Horowitz
clearly documents the use of lies by the left to achieve its aims,
although he was too honest to remain in the radical left. So the left
says "Lies" and the right says "Emotional idiots, ignorant of history."
RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend Bush since I don't like
him at all, but I do not think he has lied. I admit to a dislike of
Kerry that is probably over the top, but it is clear to me that he has
consistently lied from day one. He lied about his war record, he lied
saying we (most soldiers) had committed atrocities, and today he lies
about the draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying. Most
humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! (He said, 'We all got
geese' but there were only three geese for four men.What a weird guy.) I
am disgusted that the Democrats have no one to run behind better than
So each side does accuse the other. Of the Right, only Ann Coulter seems
to enjoy her own projections, and thus is not their slave. When she
writes, it is with a wink and a grin, as if to say, "We're all just
having fun here."
Steve Hovland wrote:
>I suspect that both sides are guilty of projection.
>You cannot assert that Kerry lies without recognizing
>that Bush does too. Assuming that both candidates
>embody the true state of the electorate to some degree,
>it doesn't say much for us when the truth becomes
>Bush clearly demonstrated black and white thinking
>when he said that on the matter of Iraq other countries
>were either with us or they were the enemy. His
>father demonstrated much more sophistication in
>building his coalition for the first war.
>Bush's advisors also do the same thing when they say we
>had no choice other than invading Iraq or letting Saddam
>run amuck. Saddam was in fact imprisoned in Baghdad,
>with 2/3 of Iraq's territory a no-fly zone and the most of
>the remainder under the control of an army he feared.
>There were many options that were not exercised.
>You also see this on the conservative talk shows. If
>someone from the left suggests that the benefit of
>getting rid of Saddam depends upon how much it costs,
>the conservative will assert that the cost doesn't matter,
>only the principle.
>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM
>To: The new improved paleopsych list
>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons
>These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects.
>Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side
>of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected
>unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of
>all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto
>which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar,
>accuses Bush of lying.)
>In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the
>acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed
>marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed
>all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the
>Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are
>not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they
>_will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that
>people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better
>when you obey them.
>I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at.
>My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting
>opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of
>opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes
>them so hateful?
>Steve Hovland wrote:
>>Sounds like conservatives :-)
>>From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM
>>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>Subject: [Paleopsych] demons
>>>>Borderline personality disorder is a disorder
>>characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism
>>called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable
>>to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind
>>at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking
>>to protect themselves from contradictory
>>feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<<
>>--Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off
>>aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>>paleopsych mailing list
>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>paleopsych mailing list
>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >>
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
<< File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >>
More information about the paleopsych