"If we believe absurdities,
we shall commit atrocities."
I'm not so well, so I just repeat something I wrote that continues A bit of trouble at the forums of yesterday, followed by a link with material to psychoanalyse professor Simon Wessely, that continues ME: Update, MEdical sadism and some links and that will be considerably extended later in this place, with many thanks to the members of the Phoenix Forums about ME:
A. More about A bit of trouble at the forums:
B. Partial elucidation of professor Simon Wessely's many mental
A. More about A bit of trouble at the forums:
Here is a reply by me to a reply by a member of the the Phoenix Forums, that also touches on some more. This also continues something I wrote yesterday on this place.
Originally Posted by leaves
First paragraph: I think I formulated more carefully, with qualifications and reasons, but if you leave these out you get something like you summarized.
Second paragraph: Good, and it is not quite besides the point since I have three basic choices: say nothing; say it qualified, circumspectly, politely while keeping it anonymous, which is what I did; or name names, which is forbidden by the rules of the forum.
The point is that everyone on this forum deserves respectful treatment,
Not as I use terms. I'd say everyone deserves politeness - within broad limits and apart from special circumstances, e.g. as regards muggers, rapists and terrorists - but that respect is earned, or not.
As it happens, I respect most I've read on the forum, for their courage and honesty, at least, and often for other things, for there are some very smart, knowledgeable and/or funny and witty people here - but I do not award this blindly, e.g. because it is supposed to be the correct thing to do: I do this because I think, having taken the trouble to read them, that what they wrote was good.
EVEN those with psychological issues (for what its worth, I have yet to meet the first person that is without psychological issues)
Well... if the last is true merely saying someone has psychological issues would say nothing at all to distinguish him or her from everyone else, and therefore makes the term pretty pointless. So I don't use it in that way and - to name a name most readers of the forum know - I'd say Glenn Beck, of Fox fame, has psychological issues (I'm a psychologist) that absolutely none of the members of this forum have.
and EVEN those that have identity issues and enjoy spending their time and energy in a forum representing someone they are not (I predict few if any people are that way).
Here I mostly agree with you, in a qualified way, for if people on an anonymous forum pretend that they are other than they are, this will generally not be easy to prove with certainty, and so must remain a probablity. Your probabilities may differ from mine, but that's rationally quite possible, for each of us.
All opinions should be considered, also those of the brave that have opinions that differ from the majority. These people put themselves in a very vulnerable situation and enable us to reconsider our assumptions and premises. We don't all have to agree. Homogeneity, be gone.
I agree on the right to disagree, but I - for one - am just not willing to discuss all topics with all comers on a public or anonymous forum. It takes time and energy to discuss; there are many things I want to do with what remains of my life, and I have little energy; and I am - for example - not going to engage in mock-academic mock-objective discussions with anonymous persons I don't known the education, the age, the person, the person's outlook on life and social position, and what not, merely because he or she is an anonymous X on a forum on which I am an anonymous Y (though as I said: far more can be known about me via my site - also an intensely personal one - than can be found out about most on the forum, for which I don't blame them.)
Also, there are certain styles of written argumentation, that I may humbly claim myself to excel in, that are not possible to the full extent I am capable of it, as they are not fit for this forum. So there too I bow out - to which comes the added grief that I do not like the editor in which I have to write this (or have to use other editors and copy/paste, which is a hassle), that makes bowing out (even) easier.
Finally, as to "All opinions should be considered" - well... in principle, at some place and time, by some people. And being a logical philosopher also, I can assure you that even at the nominally right times and places this often turns out to be very difficult - you did write "All" - and something most people either can't do well, however smart, or choose not to do, for reasons of having, they feel, better things to do.
B. Partial elucidation of professor Simon Wessely's many mental issues
This needs a little introduction. Since October last, I have spend some time and trouble on analysing professor Simon Wessely's many mental issues, and I have several times written about this, e.g. in (and see ME: Documentation):
and lately in
The last was part of this thread on the Phoenix Forums about ME:
Wessely psychologises Chemical warfare
to which the last is a link.
Now... this led to some researching by members of the forum, it led to my ME: Update, MEdical sadism and some links, that led to more links about professor Simon Wessely's very strange ways and views, and led today to this, after more clear evidence that the man is a mad psychiatrist, with some very clear issues relating to hurting defenseless people and protecting those who do hurt defenseless people.
The whole thread - Wessely psychologises Chemical warfare - is quite amazing and strongly reminiscent in a number of ways of the Dutch psychiatric sadist Bastiaans, about whom there is more under the last link in Dutch - and don't fear, persons with ME: professor Bastiaans is safely dead, and didn't have anything to do with ME, that I know at least, but he too was a mad psychiatric rotter with a clear wish to hurt defenseless persons, in his case Dutch ex-concentration-camp inmates with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).
Here is my post of to dat in the last linked thread, that is presupposed:
This is an amazing thread with lots of facts I did not know but that certainly strongly support my analysis of the man. I'll probably work this over for my site.
I do have one elucidation. You wrote (I snip what I don't react to):
Originally Posted by Koan
He clearly isn't and seems to be compensating a lot. My own guess is that it may have to do with his father, who was in a train to Treblinka during WW II, which was a German death-camp ('Vernichtungslager', in German). The least this caused in many people who survived this (few) was PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). He may well have been maltreated by his father.
I don't think that excuses anything he did - and my father survived almost 4 years of German concentration- camp, but not for being Jewish, but for being a communist resistance fighter. These tended to survive the camps in better condition than people arrested for being Jewish.
As it happens, I am an atheist who is circumcised (not a common operation in Holland, as it is in the US), and I have known several Jewish Communist comrades of my father - "Jewish Bolsheviks": The most hated by the SS in the concentration-camps - who indeed were in the same camps as my father was, for the same reason (and who didn't let on they were of "an inferior race", in Goebbels' terms).
This is one of the reasons, by the way, I am no fan of 'human equality' all the way down, or 'respect' for anyone for being there, in an apparent human form: I know more than most of my generation and later ones about what happened in German concentration-camps, and there simply were human beasts, like dr. Mengele.
Anyway... Simon Wessely is a very despicable man, and the fact that there may be some sort of lame excuse and partial explanation changes nothing about it and is no exonaration or mitigation.
Also, if necessary I will needle him in this way, psychoanalytically perfectly justified also, on my site, for I despise people out on harming, hurting, denigrating, maltreating and deceiving people who did them no harm whatsoever. And I despise post-modern dr. MEngeles who can't even excuse themselves they did their misdeeds during a war, in a totalitarian state.
They make me sick with moral disgust, as indeed my father was sickened with moral disgust on seeing the razzias on the Jews in Amsterdam.
P.S. One reason Simon Wessely sickens up to the military so much may well be that after WW II many of the surviving Jews blamed themselves for not having resisted (more).