Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Newton Joseph, Ph.D

Posted by Anonymous User 
It is impossible to debate a Liberal
March 01, 2012 12:46AM
YOU ARE TYPING WORDS BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU!

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPEAK WITH A LIBERAL!

TUK10













































































Re: It is impossible to debate a Liberal
March 01, 2012 12:52AM
Now you're just falling back on chickenshit obfuscation, tuk. I thought you were better than that. I thought you were at least willing to defend what you are talking about. Has pb been giving you lessons or something?

It's perfectly possible to talk to a liberal. But not if you're so chickenshit that you have to pull this sort of malarkey, thereby supporting everything liberals accuse you folks of.

Anonymous User
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 01:32AM
Why do liberals and atheists use such foulish language in an argument? No class?
Sam
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 01:38AM
Tuk thinks he's being funny or clever parodying New10 but he's just coming across as typical of his kind. I love that Newty took no shite and put people in their proper pathological places. That's why he upset tuk, don and others here so much. He was an expert in brain disorder and didn't waste his time paying attention to the ravings of religious (and undecided) lunatics.
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 01:39AM
It's possibly an exasperated reaction to the frustration of dealing with people who act like morons; people who use lame stalling tactics and obfuscate around the fact that they are incapable of backing up the bullshit that they spew like tuk is here. pb gets that reaction from me all the time for the same reason.

Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 01:41AM
If he's just doing an impersonation of Newt, then I didn't catch it. Explains a bit though.

Sam
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 01:47AM
Why do conservatives and godists use such foolish language in an argument? No clue? Don, If the chickenshit fits, wear it. Fukkk, yeah!
Anonymous User
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 03:24AM
Upset, me?! I could have written a comic book about Newt. let's see, hmmmmmmmmmm. How about Fruity Newty? Or, "Joe Blow".
Perhaps "Tooten Newton" after a bean.

He said, "I counseled this guy for ten years and, finally, he said one word! I'll bet ol' Newty wrote that one up in Psychology Today.WOW!
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 03:29AM
Sam wrote, I love that Newty took no shite and put people in their proper pathological places.

Originally posted by New10
Quote

I think it is an error to debate religion with a Christian. Christianity
must be put into its proper perspective. I and many other psychotherapists*
see religion as a mental disorder.

This is why I can't take you seriously, Sam. I did a quick Google search and found one of New10's gems that he regularly posted here... If you can't see how utterly idiotic this quote from New10 really is, then all hope is lost.

Pondy,

Really? I thought it was obvious...
Sam
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 03:33AM
I see adherence to any religion as a mental disorder. All hope is lost? Hope for what?
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 04:21AM
The definition of psychologically normal will vary according to culture and worldview.

Quote

Different societies or cultures, even different individuals in a subculture, can disagree as to what constitutes optimal versus pathological biological and psychological functioning. Research has demonstrated that cultures vary in the relative importance placed on, for example, happiness, autonomy, or social relationships for pleasure. Likewise, the fact that a behavior pattern is valued, accepted, encouraged, or even statistically normative in a culture does not necessarily mean that it is conducive to optimal psychological functioning.

People in all cultures find some behaviors bizarre or even incomprehensible. But just what they feel is bizarre or incomprehensible is ambiguous and subjective. These differences in determination can become highly contentious. Religious, spiritual, or transpersonal experiences and beliefs are typically not defined as disordered, especially if widely shared, despite meeting many criteria of delusional or psychotic disorders. Even when a belief or experience can be shown to produce distress or disability—the ordinary standard for judging mental disorders—the presence of a strong cultural basis for that belief, experience, or interpretation of experience, generally disqualifies it from counting as evidence of mental disorder.

Look at the definition of a mental disorder...

Quote

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

[en.wikipedia.org]

If we were to agree to you and New10's definition, the vast majority of the history of the human race should be classified pathological. Without even a face to face consultation or medical checkup, you wish to classify mental illness by philosophical acceptance. If a person who has a different metaphysic and moral foundation and spiritual concept then you they are essentially a mental case. It's absurd.
Sam
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 04:25AM
It IS absurd how many people believe such tripe.
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 04:24PM
My apologies, tuk. Yes, really.

Sam
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 05:00PM
Religion is a special case of delusional thinking. I should say it has a privileged position where disorders are classified in the name of (over) tolerance these days. The newest DSM IV includes "sensitivity" to spiritual matters. Freud, Ellis, Skinner are my boys.
Anonymous User
Re: Newton Joseph, Ph.D
March 01, 2012 07:10PM
Sam:
the inclusion in the DSM IV means exactly the opposite of what you claim it does:

"Some recent developments suggest that this historical antagonism is waning. Studies of the health effects of religion and/or spirituality have linked it to reduced depression and anxiety, increased longevity, and other physical and psychological health benefits (7—9). DSM-IV added a diagnostic category for religious and spiritual problems, therein recognizing that religious/spiritual beliefs are not inherently pathological (10). The 1995—1996 edition of the Graduate Medical Education Directory stated that all psychiatric residencies must include didactic sessions on religion/spirituality (11). Additionally, after surveying 425 psychotherapists (71 of whom were psychiatrists), Bergin and Jensen noted "sizable personal investment in religion," which suggests a large degree of "unrecognized religiousness" in the profession (12, p. 6)." -The American Journal of Psychiatry, VOL. 164, No. 12
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!