|
variation30 -> RE: Men I want to hear... (3/11/2008 2:19:39 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol At my advanced age, a chick will have encountered this kind of BS often, and she will be more than apt at deciphering the Freudian pain behind the dialectic [:(]. Men like that are suffering because a woman in their lives (usually, the Mother, with a capital "M") did something to shatter their ego. Usually, this trauma occurred in childhood.
Nothing a good bout of psychoanalysis can't expose rofl .
...wow.
being a bit of a young whipper snapper, I am used to what the internet does to people and their arguments. there are even certain laws that predict the outcomes of internet conversations. for instance, give me a TI-89 graphing calculator and I can show you the relationship between the length of the argument and the probability someone will claim the other debater is a 'nazi' (it increases rather exponentially). in essence, they give up on what the kids on the street call 'logic' and declare that the other person is obviously wrong by the virtue of them being some synonym for a heretic (nazi, bigot, misogynist, racist, liberal, commie, pervert, etc.). my favorite of these techniques is the good ol' arm chair psychoanalysis. you see, freud's use of psychoanalysis was the same as yours. it is not diagnosis...it is stigmatization. in some cases (see Karl Kraus), it was outright character assassination. as opposed to approaching and destroying the actual argument, the analysist fabricates a realm in which he, or in this instance, she, has a de jure superiority to the other person because of her insight and wisdom. she knows things about human psyche (without any objective reason to think such things, might I add) and can utterly invalidate any opposing argument by declaring that the person making the argument is...abnormal. this man does not think what he thinks for legitimate reasons, he thinks what he thinks because of a malfunction in his mind (in this case, a hypothetical inability to make up for a hypothetical occurance in his childhood) that perverts his thinking into the argument he makes...he is, in other words, incapable of coming to the 'normal' conclusion. incidentally enough, there is a high correlation between the 'normal' ("correct") opinion and the one the analysist holds to be true. it's mere coincidence, I'm sure.
the sad truth is that as humans, you either define or be defined (I feel obligated at this point to say that I am paraphrasing Szasz). because of this fact, your attack is generally accepted as a legitimate assessment of the situation. but I find it rather unfortunate that in the end you are hiding behind an (albeit very refined) ad hominem attack to pretend another individual's opinion is either invalid or of poor quality because they have, as you diagnose (i.e. pull out of your ass), a problem that forces them to think in this abhorrent way...that they simply don't have the faculties that you and other normal people (people with your opinion) possess.
but then again, with you being older than me, this is all probably just an act of rebellion in an attempt to usurp your role as a parent figure and validate my insecurities about my maturity, potency, penis size, self-worth, etc. against such a domineering and wise figure such as yourself...right?
|
|
|
|
