AZ Congresswoman...12 others, shot

Reba said:
So, long story short, there is NO evidence that Loughner was influenced by anything Palin or any other right-wing pundits posted or said.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I cannot post exactly where or when I listened to her to saw the crosshairs on maps, but I remember thinking, Whoa. There is plenty of evidence. Not strong, perhaps, but evidence nonetheless.
 
darkdog said:
You're not gonna find it unless you find a website or TV channel that links directly into jillio's brain. That's because this is one of those special "jillio truths" that are only true in her head.

This Google search may be more useful: Google
Click to expand...

Shame you can't contibute anything worthwhile to the topic. Just stuck on throwing out ad hominems in a futile attempt to discredit one single poster.:roll: Indicative of a shaky positition.:cool2:
 
Reba said:
So, long story short, there is NO evidence that Loughner was influenced by anything Palin or any other right-wing pundits posted or said.
Click to expand...

From your perspective, perhaps. I personally have seen evidence that he was. Maybe I am looking at it from the perspective of a psychologist, and see influence where you don't.
 
Beowulf said:
I disagree. I cannot post exactly where or when I listened to her to saw the crosshairs on maps, but I remember thinking, Whoa. There is plenty of evidence. Not strong, perhaps, but evidence nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Evidence. And how that evidence was perceived by one who was mentally ill and delusional at the time is the issue.
 
jillio said:
From your perspective, perhaps. I personally have seen evidence that he was. Maybe I am looking at it from the perspective of a psychologist, and see influence where you don't.
Click to expand...

I would be most interested in seeing this. I am very much a non-psychologist. Would like to understand how it can be seen. We can assume the guy is nuts. I don't see how we can trace his nuttiness to media events.
 
saywhatkid said:
I would be most interested in seeing this. I am very much a non-psychologist. Would like to understand how it can be seen. We can assume the guy is nuts. I don't see how we can trace his nuttiness to media events.
Click to expand...

He was keeping diaries. I heard excerpts on the news. I'm sure that during the trial that will all come out.

No one is saying that media events caused his "nuttiness", as you put it. What we are saying is, he was in a delusional state, and there is documentation of a long history of mental illness. In his state of mind, he was more vulnerable to being influenced by the words of a public figure than someone without a mental illness is.
 
jillio said:
He was keeping diaries. I heard excerpts on the news. I'm sure that during the trial that will all come out.

No one is saying that media events caused his "nuttiness", as you put it. What we are saying is, he was in a delusional state, and there is documentation of a long history of mental illness. In his state of mind, he was more vulnerable to being influenced by the words of a public figure than someone without a mental illness is.
Click to expand...

I saw his "videos" and I use that term loosely here. The thing is, when someone is in a delusional state, they could latch onto anything as a guide. If he is schizophrenic, it could manifest itself in any number of ways, including inanimate objects. It could also be a trance-like obedience to Rush Limbaugh. Even if he had a ton of Rush materials, how can we point at Rush as the issue? My problem with the "entertainers" from the left and right has little to do with delusional people. My concerns are for the rest of us. The loud catcalls going across the great political divide are not promoting a unified America.
 
saywhatkid said:
I saw his "videos" and I use that term loosely here. The thing is, when someone is in a delusional state, they could latch onto anything as a guide. If he is schizophrenic, it could manifest itself in any number of ways, including inanimate objects. It could also be a trance-like obedience to Rush Limbaugh. Even if he had a ton of Rush materials, how can we point at Rush as the issue? My problem with the "entertainers" from the left and right has little to do with delusional people. My concerns are for the rest of us. The loud catcalls going across the great political divide arenot promoting a unified America.
Click to expand...

He is not schizophrenic. He suffers from a psychotic disorder, but he is not schizophrenic. Delusional individuals most often latch onto another person of notoriety. Think John Hinkley, for instance. Or Sirhan Sirhan. Or Lee harvey Oswald. And on and on. Celebrity stalkers abound. The vast majority are delusional, and believe that the celebrity is speaking directly to them when they appear in public.
 
saywhatkid said:
I saw his "videos" and I use that term loosely here. The thing is, when someone is in a delusional state, they could latch onto anything as a guide. If he is schizophrenic, it could manifest itself in any number of ways, including inanimate objects. It could also be a trance-like obedience to Rush Limbaugh. Even if he had a ton of Rush materials, how can we point at Rush as the issue? My problem with the "entertainers" from the left and right has little to do with delusional people. My concerns are for the rest of us. The loud catcalls going across the great political divide are not promoting a unified America.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin is not promoting a unified America. Particularly not with the inflammatory rhetoric she uses. And she is but one example.
 
jillio said:
He is not schizophrenic. He suffers from a psychotic disorder, but he is not schizophrenic. Delusional individuals most often latch onto another person of notoriety. Think John Hinkley, for instance. Or Sirhan Sirhan. Or Lee harvey Oswald. And on and on. Celebrity stalkers abound. The vast majority are delusional, and believe that the celebrity is speaking directly to them when they appear in public.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Sarah Palin is not promoting a unified America. Particularly not with the inflammatory rhetoric she uses. And she is but one example.
Click to expand...
Well, I am obviously out of my field discussing psychology here. I do know a bit about schizophrenia from someone I know. All of those killers you mentioned latched onto someone famous, but I cannot recall the blame being aimed at the person that was latched onto.

Palin is not really a serious actor in the political catcalling. Well, at least by me. She gets more camera time that she deserves, but it all revolves around money; both for her and for the people that broadcast her. Both political sides are guilty of fanning the flames. She just has a large "irritation factor" for many people.
 
jillio said:
From your perspective, perhaps. I personally have seen evidence that he was. Maybe I am looking at it from the perspective of a psychologist, and see influence where you don't.
Click to expand...
I haven't even seen any evidence provided by any psychologists. Where is it? I can't have any kind of perspective for something that's not been presented.
 
jillio said:
He was keeping diaries. I heard excerpts on the news. I'm sure that during the trial that will all come out.
Click to expand...
His diaries were about his dreams. None of the excerpts mentioned right wing rhetoric.
 
Facts.
 

Attachments

  • trutha.jpg
    trutha.jpg
    63.1 KB · Views: 19
jillio said:
Shame you can't contibute anything worthwhile to the topic. Just stuck on throwing out ad hominems in a futile attempt to discredit one single poster.:roll: Indicative of a shaky positition.:cool2:
Click to expand...
You know, there was once a time when I tried to have serious debates with you. I even went so far as to make graphs from government data to make my point clear. You just kept babbling something about "proportionate persective". Eventually, I gave up trying to seriously discuss issues with you and decided I'm better off having fun. After all, how on Earth is anyone supposed to have a serious debate with a person who makes up their own "facts" all the time? You've even go so far as to falsely claim that documents and books say things that they don't actually say. And you've done it over and over and over again. Also, how do you expect anyone to have a serious debate you when you can't even admit you're wrong on trivial matters such as the real spelling of the word "fallacious" or whether 26 states is a minority? Now you're continuing to spread a cruel and cynical smear that somehow the political right influenced Loughner to do what he did. You fail to provide any evidence except for this:
jillio said:
From your perspective, perhaps. I personally have seen evidence that he was. Maybe I am looking at it from the perspective of a psychologist, and see influence where you don't.
Click to expand...
You don't give any analysis- just claim you have special training that allows you to see things that are invisible to the rest of us. Why should anyone trust you? I remember when you claimed your psychology training allowed you to literally read my own intentions better than I can. Pardon me for rolling my eyes when you pull the psychology card. And you say I am on shaky ground.

However, I think I have a solution here. I'll be happy to have a serious debate (meaning serious on both sides) on any issue where we disagree if you can agree to some ground rules.

1. Make only assertions that are factually true. Double check if it's something you haven't heard in a while.

2. Provide a link or a source if any assertions are called into doubt. Don't just say "Google it". If you say something I never knew before, chances are I've already Googled it before asking your source. If it's on the news, it's almost certainly on the net, particularly if it's a national story. Government stats are also on the net. If it's a more esoteric piece of information that can only be found in a book or a professional journal, then cite that, but at least check the net first.

3. If I ask where in the source a fact or piece of data is, tell me specifically (i.e. page number, paragraph, table #, etc.). It's not because I'm lazy. If I'm asking, it's because I've been laboring to find it and can't.

4. If you do make a factual or reasoning mistake, just admit it and move on. I know you've paid lip service to that, but I've never actually seen you do it. Try it- it's not that bad.

5. No appeal to your own authority as a psychology/sociology/whatever wiz. Sure, you can use facts you've learned in your training, but don't just assert that you have some special perspective as a psychologist that I can't comprehend. Nobody buys that.

Of course, the same rules apply to me. I just want to know the person I'm debating is debating in good faith and I'm sure that's what you want, too.
 
darkdog said:
You know, there was once a time when I tried to have serious debates with you. I even went so far as to make graphs from government data to make my point clear. You just kept babbling something about "proportionate persective". Eventually, I gave up trying to seriously discuss issues with you and decided I'm better off having fun. After all, how on Earth is anyone supposed to have a serious debate with a person who makes up their own "facts" all the time? You've even go so far as to falsely claim that documents and books say things that they don't actually say. And you've done it over and over and over again. Also, how do you expect anyone to have a serious debate you when you can't even admit you're wrong on trivial matters such as the real spelling of the word "fallacious" or whether 26 states is a minority? Now you're continuing to spread a cruel and cynical smear that somehow the political right influenced Loughner to do what he did. You fail to provide any evidence except for this:

You don't give any analysis- just claim you have special training that allows you to see things that are invisible to the rest of us. Why should anyone trust you? I remember when you claimed your psychology training allowed you to literally read my own intentions better than I can. Pardon me for rolling my eyes when you pull the psychology card. And you say I am on shaky ground.

However, I think I have a solution here. I'll be happy to have a serious debate (meaning serious on both sides) on any issue where we disagree if you can agree to some ground rules.

1. Make only assertions that are factually true. Double check if it's something you haven't heard in a while.

2. Provide a link or a source if any assertions are called into doubt. Don't just say "Google it". If you say something I never knew before, chances are I've already Googled it before asking your source. If it's on the news, it's almost certainly on the net, particularly if it's a national story. Government stats are also on the net. If it's a more esoteric piece of information that can only be found in a book or a professional journal, then cite that, but at least check the net first.

3. If I ask where in the source a fact or piece of data is, tell me specifically (i.e. page number, paragraph, table #, etc.). It's not because I'm lazy. If I'm asking, it's because I've been laboring to find it and can't.

4. If you do make a factual or reasoning mistake, just admit it and move on. I know you've paid lip service to that, but I've never actually seen you do it. Try it- it's not that bad.

5. No appeal to your own authority as a psychology/sociology/whatever wiz. Sure, you can use facts you've learned in your training, but don't just assert that you have some special perspective as a psychologist that I can't comprehend. Nobody buys that.

Of course, the same rules apply to me. I just want to know the person I'm debating is debating in good faith and I'm sure that's what you want, too.
Click to expand...

Sources, please.
 
And don't forget.....Texas signed,Texas signed, Texas signed I've said it 5 times Texas signed....

:lol:
 
Back
Top