The State of the Modern Left: Throw Stuff at People With Whom You Disagree

57 Replies to “The State of the Modern Left: Throw Stuff at People With Whom You Disagree”

1. Black Mamba, thanks for bringing up Camille Paglia although I’ve just read excepts of her writings finding her books just too hard to get into. It was interesting to see everything she described in my downtown Vancouver practice.
   I reread my post today from my wife’s perspective (she doesn’t let me post under my own name) but rewriting it to conform to a female’s view of what is appropriate would have made it too long. This post is the additional material needed to make it female acceptable. For those who aren’t familiar with the concepts of “transference” and “counter transference” they are the effect of the doctor on the patient and patient on the doctor respectively. Initially they were applied in psychotherapy but are applicable to essentially all dyadic human interactions.
   One of the most useful things I learned in psychiatry was using my emotional reactions to a patient as clinical information. This takes place in a parallel manner to left-brained history taking and the R hemisphere communicates via somatic markers. With homosexual patients, I would often experience emotional reactions of irritation and rage which were likely as a result of some of their idiotic sexual practices which caused medical problems. Rather than stop their perversions, they would express irritation that the medical system wasn’t meeting their needs fast enough. I’m sure the gastroenterologist they were waiting to see was just as irritated as I was regarding the effects of non-physiologic overuse of certain lower portions of the body’s excretatory anatomy.
   If a patient causes an emotional reaction of irritation in me, they are likely to cause the same reaction in people who think similarly to me. Fortunately I haven’t had any of my depressed patients kill themselves as a result of my falling asleep on them and I made sure my receptionist never booked a depressed patient right after lunch. One time I couldn’t resist was a very depressed patient telling me how everyone found him boring and he was relating this in a soporiphic monotone and the next thing I remember him saying was “doctor are you asleep?” (I had nodded off). It explained why people avoided him but unfortunately nothing worked in the guy and personality transplants are still in the future. Ideally I should only see manic patients right after lunch.
   One of the most interesting things I’ve found as a result of doing medicine is using primarily non-verbal communication and looking at transference phenomena as communicated by patients body language. I guess I’m able to maintain a neutral expression as I process the counter transference emotional information as I’ve had surprisingly few homosexual patients walk out on me (the few that did were as a result of my saying “I think it’s time you went back to work”).
   The majority of my homosexual patients elicited similar counter transference phenomena to non-homosexual Vancouver patients (correcting for the incredibly high moonbat index in that city). The homosexual patients with mood or personality disorders elicited intensely negative counter transference phenomena and, in some of them, I could clearly see why someone who wasn’t familiar with the concept of counter transference would feel compelled to use a baseball bat to rearrange the patient’s skull anatomy. This, IMHO, doesn’t represent “gay bashing” but rather the effect of an incredibly irritating personality on an individual who has poorly developed frontal lobe inhibition of motor actions. It should be treated as a straightforward assault, not a “hate crime”.
   So, when I mentioned that homosexuals are disliked, I meant it in the sense that flagrant homosexuals induce negative counter transference phenomena in a large number of heterosexuals. As most people have well developed inhibitory pathways from their frontal lobes they don’t act on the negative emotions that are elicited. The political views of the majority of homosexuals are something else altogether and I consider them to be more of a perversion than their sexual proclivities.

2. Most of the comments here are irrelevant and miss the point. The woman committed assault on Michelle Bachman. As such, she could and should be charged with a criminal offense. Her sexual orientation or motives are utterly meaningless. And any discussions of these is similarly meaningless.
   And yes, dmorris and Oz are right. Her security people should all be summarily sacked for gross incompetence.
   She committed an indictable offense. End of story.

3. “The woman committed assault on Michelle Bachman. As such, she could and should be charged with a criminal offense.”
   Agreed. On a side note, I attended a wedding last week, and have now decided to have all the other attendees charged for throwing confetti at the bride and groom. I’ll let you know how it goes.

4. The fact remains: Jesus said never said a word against homosexuality.
   If it was as big an issue as some of you would have it, he would have. But he didn’t. So it isn’t.
   You can quote Paul all you like. But it isn’t called Paulianity. It’s called Christianity.
   Except Jesus specifically left his ministry to other people to teach and preach after he returned to Heaven. Your illogical argument would require that Jesus be around, preaching and teaching today, in order for the doctrines of Christianity to be valid. Stupid and wrong.
   As I said above, Jesus said nothing about abortion, either, yet the history of Christianity shows opposition to abortion and infanticide going back two thousand years.
   It’s a stupid argument, and you know it. Because you know what else Jesus never said? “Revel in your sin and celebrate diversity.”
   St. Paul’s letters were included in Scripture because he was carrying on what Christ taught. End of story. I trust the words of St. Paul more than you, who is conveniently spinning the Bible for your own politically correct ends.
   It’d be nice if folks like you — so quick to use the Jesus defense when it suits you — would look at the other stuff He DID say. Like: “Go and sin no more.”

5. Are you honestly arguing about what some middle-eastern peasant who’s been dead for almost 2,000 years thought about homosexuality and “sin”?
   Maybe for an encore you can discuss what Tutankhamun thought about gun control.

6. The history of any religious institution is irrelevant here. Christ himself had little respect for religious institutions in His day.
   And His teachings encourage His followers to be sceptical – at the very least – of religious institutions and those who claim to speak in God’s name today.
   Yeah, except for that little part where Christ says to St. Peter, “You are the rock on which I build my CHURCH.” And if you look at the history, the only Church that can follow its history back to the apostles is the Catholic Church. So their teachings are relevant to this discussion, thank you very much.
   Again, your argument hinges on Christ being alive today for His teachings to be relevant. Christ’s words are with us for ever because He specifically sent forth men to teach and preach IN HIS NAME and He specifically said that what they bind and loose on Earth shall be bound and loosed in Heaven. There is loads of Scriptural evidence in Christ’s teachings that back up the Catholic Church which means that it, and denominations that share most of its beliefs, are correct.
   Like I said, you, Beatrice, live in the 21st Century. Any Christian worth their salt is going to believe and follow what is in Scripture because it is the inspired Word of God (the Bible wasn’t just thrown together willy-nilly, after all). St. Paul included in that. St. Paul knew what Christ taught a little better than you.
   The ‘history of Christianity’ also includes wars and inquisitions – should these continue too?
   Oh, I could get into it about inquisitions, it’s just another one of those hysterical things that PC folk pull up to discredit Christianity, when — in reality — their views of the inquisitions (like so many other things) are wrong.
   As for war, Jesus said He came to divide in Scripture. He knew his ministry, and His teachings, were going to be controversial. And Jesus never explicitly says “War is wrong” so, using your standard, what’s your point?
   All my point is is that there are Christian doctrines and beliefs dating from 2,000 years ago founded on the teachings and practice of the apostles and early church — the people who best knew Christ and knew what He was about. Just because something isn’t explicitly forbidden in the Bible or praised in the Bible doesn’t mean it should/can’t be part of Christian doctrine.
   St. Paul is right. YOU, ma’am, are wrong. And the PC-ification of the Bible to fit homosexuality is just plain stupid.
   Are you honestly arguing about what some middle-eastern peasant who’s been dead for almost 2,000 years thought about homosexuality and “sin”?
   Yeah, I am. Christ was more than a middle-eastern peasant, He was the son of God. Good gracious, even Beatrice gets that one.

7. Either you didn’t read my last comment or you don’t understand it. Christ Himself said He and His word are alive right now. Have you not read the Gospels?
   It seems to me that you want to take the word of whoever came along after Christ and claimed to speak in His name, over the word of Christ Himself. According to that logic you can pretend that Christ taught whatever you want Him to teach…and strangely those ‘teaching’ correspond exactly with your prejudices. Surprise!
   Yes, I’ve read the Gospels.
   But your entire position is hinged on being a Biblical literalist. There is something called Tradition (capital T) that goes along.
   It would only fit my prejudices if the teachings changed NOW to address the issue of homosexuality. Which is what YOU’RE doing, to fit your politically correct leanings. It’s not what I’m doing. The central, core teachings of the Catholic Church have remained unchanged for 2,000 years, only being emphasized to address the sins and troubles of certain eras. Nothing is “added” willy nilly to fit prejudices. That claim is just a desperate attempt to discredit and it’s lame.
   And no, this doesn’t mean I take the word of everyone seriously when they say they preach in the name of Christ (remember Waco, Texas?). But it means I give precedence to the people who lived in the era of Christ and the early Christians. THEY knew what Christ taught; not everything Christ said or did was included in the Bible. It’s just not possible, logical, or rational to think the summation of Christ’s teachings are contained in pages that only cover days and months of his ministry.
   There are many times in the Bible where it says Jesus preached to the crowds without giving specifics of what was preached. That is why we rely on Tradition to pass along the teachings of the Christian faith…because YOU and I don’t know what He said. He could have easily addressed abortion and homosexuality when He preached, even if it wasn’t included in the Bible.
   Your point seems to be that we should take the word of all the people who came after Christ over Christ’s word itself.
   No, we should take the word of people Christ entrusted to preach in His name. THAT is something He EXPLICITLY does in Scripture: He says He wants the apostles to go out and preach, baptize in His name. So I do take the words of those who inherited this mission from Christ (Catholic bishops and priests, successors to the apostles whose lineage can be traced back to the time of Christ) seriously.
   It’s not a contradiction at all. Just logical, and — unlike your view — actually based in Scripture.