Conservatism = Sociopathic Behavior

[Johnfromokc]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...-loving-my-neighbor-and-despise-them-instead/

Dictionary.com defines a sociopath as: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Conservapedia says a sociopath is “someone with a personality disorder characterized by an antisocial behavior and an absence of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

This article made me think of all the rhetoric and talking points that come from the political right. Especially these:

No gay marriage – Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable (due to misguided religious influence or poor upbringing or both) so gay people should be punished because of my beliefs. Stoopid homos…

No welfare, food stamps or Medicaid – I’m not poor enough to qualify for these programs so my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for it. Stoopid poor people and by poor I really mean black…

No health care reform – Why should I help pay for other people who are sick when I’m not? Stoopid sick people…

No environmental protection – Environmental laws makes things more expensive for me and that’s bad. I also don’t understand the concept of long term impact; I want cheap gas and gadgets now! Stoopid…ah, you get the idea…

Don’t raise my taxes – EVER. The government can find its own money to pay for stuff.

Medicare – Young conservatives: Why should I help pay for old people and the disabled? Older conservatives: Keep your government hands off my Medicare!

Social Security – Young conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made, people should take care of themselves, not depend on handouts from people like me. Older conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made BUT DON’T YOU TOUCH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!

No abortion – The government should tell women what to do with their bodies because I don’t like abortion.

No prayer in school? – GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!! I like The Jesus™ so everyone should have to listen to my prayers. No Muslim prayers, though. That’s indoctrination

I'll highlight some key points from the article since many of our right wingers here have such short attention spans and don't like reading long posts:

The key words here are “moral responsibility” and “social conscience”. Conservative politics lack these essential characteristics. In their place we find greed, hate, lies, an inability to empathize and an overblown sense of entitlement and self importance. In other words: all the indicators of a seriously disturbed person. Except it’s a political philosophy and it has millions of disciples.

But Justin, you filthy liberal scum, how can you say that?

Well, that’s kind of easy. Who is the guiding light of conservatives (and Libertarians) all the way from corrupt CEOs down to easily manipulated Tea Party fanatics? Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand’s specific worldview was that “The pursuit of his (man’s) own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”http://www.offtopicz.net/#_edn1 This is in direct opposition to a functional humane society where the whole must be cohesive in order to provide for its weakest and most vulnerable. You’ll notice my inclusion of the word “humane”. You can have a perfectly functional society without a shred of humanity in it. Take, for example, the Industrial Age societies. They literally built the foundations for the world we know and yet they allowed or even encouraged child labor; essentially the slavery of children.

Interesting isn't it? Do you right wingers ever stop to ponder your own philosophy? That was my mistake as a former right winger - I actually stopped listening to the asshattery and started thinking logically.

Is this what you righties really want for America:

Ayn Rand’s ideal world is one where society has no say in your actions short of you physically assaulting another person. “The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force.”[ii] One is forced to wonder what she would make of Wall Street’s Epic Fail.

Rand was a big champion of no regulation at all. Close your eyes and imagine what Wall Street could do with even less regulation than it had before. Think of all the possibilities. Taste the freedom.

This last paragraph sums up conservolibertarians succinctly:

These people are sociopaths, pure and simple. As long as they get what they “deserve”, it doesn’t matter what happens to anyone else. Homeless families are not their problem. Malnourished children are not their problem. Uninsured sick people are not their problem. The elderly reduced to abject poverty (as they were before the advent of Social Security) are not their problem

 

[redliner]

No welfare, food stamps or Medicaid – I’m not poor enough to qualify for these programs so my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for it. Stoopid poor people and by poor I really mean black…

Why race ? Is that truely how they see things. Or how some perceive they think. Also john I clicked on the link and it was a 404 not found.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Why race ? Is that truely how they see things. Or how some perceive they think. Also john I clicked on the link and it was a 404 not found.

Link works for me. Might be a Canada issue?? Here it is again:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...g-my-neighbor-and-despise-them-instead/#_edn2

Conservatives will deny it, but race is a huge issue for many of them - Note: I said many not all.

Also keep in mind this article is one persons opinion based upon observation. I happen to largely agree with it. Most right wingers seem to have the attitude of "I got mine, so fuck you, get your own"!

I hope you will read the entire article if you can get the link to work. It is quite insightful as to how America has gotten itself into such an economic and moral mess.

 

[Azazel]

 

[Panacea]

I do not think all nor most conservatives are sociopaths.
I do find it interesting, for pure interest's sake without the need to draw many conclusions or make assertions, that sociopaths are so often conservatives.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I do not think all nor most conservatives are sociopaths.

Nor do I, but you can't argue their "I got mine" attitude. That attitude is sociopathic, although no conservo-libertarian would consider it so.

I do find it interesting, for pure interest's sake without the need to draw many conclusions or make assertions, that sociopaths are so often conservatives.

Hmmmm...Is that documented? It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[doombug]

Here's a definition Johnny: big·ot·ry /bigtrē/Noun: Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Describes this thread perfectly.

 

[Panacea]

Nor do I, but you can't argue their "I got mine" attitude. That attitude is sociopathic, although no conservo-libertarian would consider it so.

Hmmmm...Is that documented? It wouldn't surprise me.

I think it claims too much, because some types of conservatives feel their beliefs are pro-social. It can be a widely subjective term.

I've seen it claimed variously in my education, mostly to say those who are not pro-social can latch on to conservative fringe ideals that suit their beliefs.

 

[Accountable]

You're a trip, John. I see you've got that Republocrat practice of stretching a definition to fit your purpose down pat. You start with conservatives, then lump in libertarians, then claim they all follow an anarchist.

Why not just say "If you disagree with me, you're a sociopath!" ?

 

[Accountable]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...-loving-my-neighbor-and-despise-them-instead/

Page Not Found

The page you requested could not be found.

mmmmm

 

[Accountable]

It took some digging but I found another copy of the article:

http://thurmanhubbard.com/?p=6885

I apologize for thinking you were the one that linked all that up. You were just parroting your talking points.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Come on now Acc - don't cop out on me. If I recall correctly you have frequently stated something along the lines that you should not have to pay for anyones SS or MC.

Some very valid points were made in that article. While the article did stick to conservatives, libertarians are joined at the hip, separated only by drug legalization and military issues.

I think the comparison is quite fitting as I find it schizophrenic for working class Americans to vote conservo-libertarian against their own best economic interests.

Defend yourself man!

 

[Accountable]

Come on now Acc - don't cop out on me. If I recall correctly you have frequently stated something along the lines that you should not have to pay for anyones SS or MC.

No, you don't recall. You assume, since it fits your paradigm. I'm not going to make it easy for you. Find where I've written that & I'll figure out how to give you some tokens or something.

Some very valid points were made in that article. While the article did stick to conservatives, libertarians are joined at the hip, separated only by drug legalization and military issues.

I think the comparison is quite fitting as I find it schizophrenic for working class Americans to vote conservo-libertarian against their own best economic interests.

Defend yourself man!

Ignoring the oversimplified and inaccurate comparison - The article, and you, like to believe that if the government - specifically the federal government - doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. You, and the article's author, take that assumption and use it as imaginary support that because someone says the federal government shouldn't be doing such-and-such, then they must necessarily be declaring that it shouldn't be done at all. It simply isn't true, but it does make for a passionate show.

Have a happy New Year. Don't get caught making adult decisions Big Brother doesn't approve of.

 

[Johnfromokc]

No, you don't recall. You assume, since it fits your paradigm. I'm not going to make it easy for you. Find where I've written that & I'll figure out how to give you some tokens or something.

I'll pass - not in the hunting mood tonight. You're a working class Joe with a libertarian philosophy. That's close enough.

Ignoring the oversimplified and inaccurate comparison - The article, and you, like to believe that if the government - specifically the federal government - doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. You, and the article's author, take that assumption and use it as imaginary support that because someone says the federal government shouldn't be doing such-and-such, then they must necessarily be declaring that it shouldn't be done at all. It simply isn't true, but it does make for a passionate show.

Now you're confusing me. Have conservo-libertarians turned over a new leaf and come to support living wages and universal health care?

Surely you don't think the private sector and charity will get it done. They have a historical failure rate of 100% as far as doing what is right for the masses.

Have a happy New Year. Don't get caught making adult decisions Big Brother doesn't approve of.

Same to you. I don't even drink alcohol these days, at least not in the past year+. Weed makes me paranoid and I don't mess with any other substances.

I will, however indulge in some nice green & white teas and enjoy a good book.

 

[Alien Allen]

Come on now Acc - don't cop out on me. If I recall correctly you have frequently stated something along the lines that you should not have to pay for anyones SS or MC.

I don't recall him saying that. I think his comments and stance have been that those programs should be left up to the states. I know the liberal mindset is that means it would never happen. Which I would argue otherwise. The states are better equipped to deal with these issues IF that money which funds those programs never leave the states. A big problem is that we now have to beg the feds to get money back. And that begging comes with the price of lobbying and the politics that go with that. Look at what Robert Byrd did. An unfair amount of money went to West Virginia over the years. I think it is a fair assumption his political pull had everything to do with that.

 

[Accountable]

I'll pass - not in the hunting mood tonight. You're a working class Joe with a libertarian philosophy. That's close enough.

Now you're confusing me. Have conservo-libertarians turned over a new leaf and come to support living wages and universal health care?

Surely you don't think the private sector and charity will get it done. They have a historical failure rate of 100% as far as doing what is right for the masses.

I don't know. I've let my conservo-lebertarian membership dues lapse & they quit sending me the newsletter.

Your stat is meaningless, groundless, and probably proctological. It's also untrue. I've helped people in need. I'm sure you have, too. That blows your 100% failure rate right there. Yes the private sector and charity will get it done, but only if gov't will stop the unconstitutional charity. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, even more so when they know a person is really in need. Gov't assistance casts permanent doubt on that question of real need. People resent being forced to pay the gov't to care for the needy and still see needy people around. This is the harm to society that government programs do. They destroy neighborliness. Plus, federal programs of that nature are unconstitutional (*waits for John's blood pressure to drop back to normal and eyes to refocus*). If people insist on pushing their responsibility as citizens and neighbors onto the government, they can do it at the state or local level where it can be managed more efficiently and be more responsive to the people who are paying for it.

 

[Alien Allen]

guess I was wrong. Could of sworn your main point of contention was those programs should be left up to the states.

Damn you are one cold hearted son of a bitch

 

[Johnfromokc]

Your stat is meaningless, groundless, and probably proctological. It's also untrue. I've helped people in need. I'm sure you have, too. That blows your 100% failure rate right there.

We all have helped people and will continue to do so. I'm talking about the 100% failure of the conservo-libertarian philosophy - not the well meaning, yet misguided working class conservo-libs who have been suckered into that thought process by the Corpratocracies extremely well funded propaganda machine.

Yes the private sector and charity will get it done, but only if gov't will stop the unconstitutional charity. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, even more so when they know a person is really in need. Gov't assistance casts permanent doubt on that question of real need. People resent being forced to pay the gov't to care for the needy and still see needy people around. This is the harm to society that government programs do. They destroy neighborliness. Plus, federal programs of that nature are unconstitutional (*waits for John's blood pressure to drop back to normal and eyes to refocus*). If people insist on pushing their responsibility as citizens and neighbors onto the government, they can do it at the state or local level where it can be managed more efficiently and be more responsive to the people who are paying for it.

Take a moment and ponder your paragraph above. Read it again and really think about what you just said.

I'll wait ......................

​

What you just said made my point for me. Even with all the (alleged) unconstitutional government assistance, the private sector and charity STILL cannot get it done. Even with the multi-billion $$$$ tax exempt Christian Church machine - they still can't get it done.

So lets get constitutional in true conservo-libertarian fashion.........shut down all government assistance.

If the private sector, charity and the billion $$$$ religion industry can't get it done now when all they have to do is supplement the government shortfall - how do you suppose they might get it done with 100% of the burden placed upon them?

 

[Accountable]

guess I was wrong. Could of sworn your main point of contention was those programs should be left up to the states.

Damn you are one cold hearted son of a bitch

"Please, suh. Can I have a crumb to feed to my three starving babies?"
"Go away! I gave at the office. The tax office, that is. BWAHAhahahahaha!!"

I never feel so useful or alive as when I am helping people. It's a great feeling. In 2005 I worked for 4 months for no pay (I had other income) for the Red Cross helping Hurricane Katrina evacuees. I wouldn't trade that experience for the world. We are a stronger society when we as individuals help other individuals, rather than paying the gov't to do the job and considering our responsibilities met.

 

[Accountable]

We all have helped people and will continue to do so. I'm talking about the 100% failure of the conservo-libertarian philosophy - not the well meaning, yet misguided working class conservo-libs who have been suckered into that thought process by the Corpratocracies extremely well funded propaganda machine.

Really? Because earlier you said it was the failure of private sector and charity. Is it the responsibility of the "conservo-libertarian philosophy" to take care of the needy?

Take a moment and ponder your paragraph above. Read it again and really think about what you just said.

I'll wait ......................

Love that smiley. Send me the link.

​

What you just said made my point for me. Even with all the (alleged) unconstitutional government assistance, the private sector and charity STILL cannot get it done. Even with the multi-billion $$$$ tax exempt Christian Church machine - they still can't get it done.

So lets get constitutional in true conservo-libertarian fashion.........shut down all government assistance.

If the private sector, charity and the billion $$$$ religion industry can't get it done now when all they have to do is supplement the government shortfall - how do you suppose they might get it done with 100% of the burden placed upon them?

you misunderstand. Because the gov't is using tax dollars taken from the pockets of the hard-working citizens, the hard-working citizens figure they've paid already, so they don't need to help. So since they're still being asked to help, the natural reaction is resentment. After all, they've already paid, haven't they? And their payment hasn't fixed the problem, has it? Yes, shut down all government assistance, especially the unconstitutional assistance (If you want the government to take your responsibility for caring for your fellow man, push through an amendment), and watch the humanity of man helping man flourish. Stop focusing all your attention on the multinational corps. They matter as much as the king of Saudi Arabia as far as us helping our neighbors are concerned. Stop trying to force others to do the work you should be doing. Just do the work. The rest will take care of itself.