Ok... I was just reading a piece by Eric Alterman over at MSNBC.com. As I read through it I came upon an idea.... So let me frame the context;
Go here and read this short definition of Bulimia Nervosa. The main idea I had in mind was the binge/purge aspect of this mental disorder as it relates to food. Some of the highlights I found include:
*" Bulimia is characterized by episodes of binge-eating followed by inappropriate methods of weight control (purging)."
* "Binge eating is not a response to intense hunger. It is usually a response to depression, stress, or self esteem issues. During the binge episode, the individual experiences a loss of control. However, the sense of a loss of control is also followed by a short-lived calmness. The calmness is often followed by self-loathing. The cycle of overeating and purging usually becomes an obsession and is repeated often."
* "Also, individuals suffering from Bulimia often deny their condition."
Now, read the first section of this Alterman piece and consider these 'facts':
* "who knew that Bush’s team did nothing to prevent 9/11 despite considerable signals,"
* "let him get away at Tora-Bora,"
* "pulled agents out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq,"
* "recruited gazillions of potential terrorists for his organization with his chaos-inducing invasion of Iraq and spread more hatred of the United States than our worst enemies might have hoped for"
I came to realize that facts are to the liberal's mind what food is to bulimic's belly. Not something to be fully digested.
1 comment:
I guess I should be more aware of how I state things and make clearer that I don't dislike liberals in the sense of 'person', the world would be bleak without them, but it would be more accurate to say it is liberal ideology that I have a problem with. It is exemplified by the use of canned-ideas in your paragraph:
Bushco, Papa Bush, Bush's ol buddy Osama, it's all our fault, stealing oil, napalm is a WMD, Bechtel, Exxon, KBR/Halliburton... not an original thought in the lot. These slogans require no thinking and provide an inadequate argument because they cannot be derived by a fair and intellectaully honest digesting of the facts.
For instance, even though I know it is not factually true I will go along with you on depleted uranium and napalm as being WMD. I can almost see the argument because they do indeed cause mass destruction and horrible lingering wounds for surviors.
In return I ask that you concede that Saddam Hussein was himself a WMD because the amount of death and lingering agony he caused far exceeds that of any napalm use in Fallujah or spent shells in Afghanistan or Iraq.
What liberals believe to be an argument becomes just another pulse in the liberal echo chamber mentality that if you repeat the lie enough and enough people believe it then it somehow becomes the truth. No digesting of facts required.
These 'ideas' are naive and that is why I don't totally thrash your argument. It would be in one ear and out the other because someone has already made your mind up for you.
I apologize if you are a bit peeved for me trying to be inclusive of diverse opinions and used the link I got from clicking on your name the first time you visited.
I admire your courage for entering the arena, unarmed with life experience as you are, and arguing the liberal line so I won't 'insist' on a link to you.
Sorry if I hurt your inner child.
Post a Comment