Liberalism is a mental disorder.
As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter has treated over 1,500 patients and examined over 2,700 civil and criminal cases. Turning his hand to political psychopathology, the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, has diagnosed an alarming percentage of the population as suffering from the grotesque form of mental derangement known by some as moonbattery.
Among Rossiter's observations:
Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.
The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.
Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure.
Side Score: 25
Side Score: 62
I really can't add much to what Rossiter said. He is a professional psychiatrist with no history of political activism. This is the opinion of a well respected professional.
I'm including a video, where Dr. Rossiter explains his views. Please watch it before voting.
Progressive thinking is the God Dam reason you are even on createdebate, and I mean the computer, the internet and all the technology you take for granted, Liberalism harbors progressive thinking, conservative thinking only hinders human progress, if there was no progressive thinking we would still have black slaves and all be riding around on horse back burning witches alive at the stake.
So no Conservatism is a metal disorder, it's called narcissism & cognitive dissonance to name a few.
Get the hell off a progressive technological achievement and reply back to me at my mailing address , whisper me for the info : )
Being a professional psychiatrist does not give him automatic credibility, and his statements do not reflect anything germane to the science or practice of psychiatry. One foundational tenet of the ethical practice of psychotherapy is the suspension of judgement with regards to worldviews. A worldview cannot be bifurcated into healthy or pathological categories without introducing a biased values judgement on the part of the clinician. What I as a practitioner would judge to be a pathological world view could differ greatly from that of another equally qualified and respected practitioner. Either way, the practitioner has an ethical responsibility to treat patients with respect and dignity, and to refrain from imposing values onto them. To convince someone to perceive the world the same way that you do is not to heal them, but rather to strip them of freedom and autonomy.
We've seen studies that liberals are more susceptible to certain types of mental illness. Note, depression and bipolar are quite different from sociopathy.
Conversely, extremely conservative viewpoints meet the criteria for sociopathy, and the extremely wealthy, who conservatives often revere, are more likely to demonstrate these traits as well.
Further, nothing from your excerpt sounds very scientific. To perform science one needs to a) understand what they are studying (not all liberals are socialists, for instance) and operate without bias (just TRY and tell me this isn't biased).
I never said liberals are immune to bias, and if I find bias in a purportedly scientific analysis I'll call it out regardless of whether it is "liberal" or "conservative".
But seriously, read that excerpt. He's creating two-dimensional strawmen. This sounds more like Limbaugh going on a spicy rant to attract listeners than someone who is interested in helping society or contributing to scientific knowledge.
When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.
Uh oh. Isn't this description self fulfilling for conservatives. Complaining about liberals having mental problems sounds like imaginary victims and imaginary villains. Plus, trying to treat it as a mental disorder sounds like trying to run someone else's life.
You just might have the worst case of naïve realism known to man.
EDIT: This fucking link refuses to work. Here's a description via wikipedia:
Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.
The three "tenets" of naive realism are:
1. That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially "unmediated" comprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
2. That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviors, and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful and open-minded fashion.
That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources—
1) the individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
2) the individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or...
3) the individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence, or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
I'll say it again, because you keep spreading this notion of "professional medical opinion" around like dog shit that's stuck to your shoe. A medical professional background is neither a necessary nor sufficient qualification to lay a values judgement across a group of people. Now please wipe off your shoe.
Wow. Finally someone talks sense! What a relief; anyway, I don't really care if he has qualifications from the top uni - you just need to use common sense. If he is going to delusion himself about diagnosing so many people he might want to look over his calculations. There are people who are clearly inquisitive and intelligent who are searching for answers to why people think differently from them and those who are intelligent and inquisitive, but genuinely lack the faculty to understand other people's point of view.