![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Toph on October 29, 2005, at 20:25:19
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Jakeman, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2005, at 0:54:35
>
> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. >Is Jakemen's comment a "view" or a fact, Bob?
CNN: special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday after announcing charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.
Posted by Declan on October 29, 2005, at 20:25:20
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by Toph on October 29, 2005, at 8:29:35
How is it possible to discuss something like the current administration's (foreign) policy without being offensive? Especially if there should be posters here from the axis of evil (just came to mind). They might find the use of such a term offensive. There's been no shortage of offense these last 6 years. It certainly is a challenge to find ways of discussing such things truthfully and civilly.
See you later Jake, it's a vitally important issue. Given where you live you probably think about it more than I do. Thanks for your post.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2005, at 20:58:00
In reply to Re: blocked for week, posted by Declan on October 29, 2005, at 14:58:03
> > Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
>
> Is Jakemen's comment a "view" or a fact, Bob?
>
> TophThe issue isn't whether it's a fact, but whether it's civil...
--
> How is it possible to discuss something like the current administration's (foreign) policy without being offensive? ... It certainly is a challenge to find ways of discussing such things truthfully and civilly.
>
> DeclanI agree, it can be a challenge! Maybe discuss what might be a better policy rather than what you think is wrong with theirs? Or criticize theirs, but constructively?
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 29, 2005, at 22:18:10
In reply to Re: discussing without being offensive, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2005, at 20:58:00
>
> The issue isn't whether it's a fact, but whether it's civil...
>
That does keep getting into the way of the truth, now doesn't it?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2005, at 9:17:33
In reply to Re: discussing without being offensive, posted by Toph on October 29, 2005, at 22:18:10
> > The issue isn't whether it's a fact, but whether it's civil...
>
> That does keep getting into the way of the truth, now doesn't it?There do continue to be conflicts between the two here. But there are other sites where civility doesn't get in the way... :-)
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 30, 2005, at 10:46:58
In reply to Re: discussing without being offensive, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2005, at 9:17:33
>
> There do continue to be conflicts between the two (truth v. civility) here. But there are other sites where civility doesn't get in the way... :-)
>
> BobI can understand how unfettered expression could lead to an enviroment whose mission is compromised. I guess, then, I would ask how do you keep from appearing as though you are being desciminatory or condescending by seeming to say, as in that movie, "you (Babblers) can't handle the truth!"?
Posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 13:35:25
In reply to Re: discussing without being offensive, posted by Toph on October 30, 2005, at 10:46:58
>
> >
> > There do continue to be conflicts between the two (truth v. civility) here. But there are other sites where civility doesn't get in the way... :-)
> >
>
Dr. Bob, I understand. This is a site in which truths must pass a 'civility' test. Have you read "1984"?If not, I recommend it highly. The Ministy of Truth described in that novel was a model of an organization that made sure that the only truths allowed were those that were to everyone's liking.
-z
>
Posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 13:36:38
In reply to the Ministry of Truth » Toph, posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 13:35:25
Posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 15:02:24
In reply to the Ministry of Truth » Toph, posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 13:35:25
One more point I would like to make: I see a close parallel between this civil devaluing of truth on a board run by a mental professional, and the fact that drug trials are industry-sponsored and hence tailored to produce results that avoid upsetting company execs whose moods would plummet if told that their new product was no better than placebo. It inspires great confidence that this view of stressing the positive is shared by members of the mental health community, who presumably have no financial stake in the products that pharmaceutical companies produce. And it is highly upsetting for patients to hear bad news, which can provoke relapses, 'side effects', loss of faith in the mental health system, etc.
My personal experience with mental helath professionals is that their credentials for the Ministry of Truth, if such a praiseworthy institution were ever established in this country (I hear that something like this was once attempted in the former Soviet Union, but I have a shaky grasp of history, since it is such a string of bad news- I practice what I preach, you see, and steer clear of disturbing information)would be unimpeachable.
By the way, 'unimpeachable' has a beautiful sound. It instills faith in the justice of our political system, and conjures up such similarly reassuring terms as 'unfalsifiable hypotheses' and the like, which are known to have speeded the progress of science since it was first observed that the sun revolved around the earth.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on October 30, 2005, at 16:50:39
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Truth, posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 15:02:24
You know, this is ONE board among dog knows how many on the internet. It's hardly the only mental health board. I don't find it useful to generalize the policies of THIS board to the mental health industry as a whole, or even to mental health boards on the internet.
There is a time and a place for everything. This board is NOT the time and the place for everything.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2005, at 16:59:01
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Truth, posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 15:02:24
> I would ask how do you keep from appearing as though you are being desciminatory or condescending by seeming to say, as in that movie, "you (Babblers) can't handle the truth!"?
>
> TophI'm not saying Babblers can't handle incivility, I just think it's nicer when they don't have to.
--
> The Ministy of Truth described in that novel was a model of an organization that made sure that the only truths allowed were those that were to everyone's liking.
People here, however, are free to consult other sources of information.
> One more point I would like to make: I see a close parallel between this civil devaluing of truth on a board run by a mental professional, and the fact that drug trials are industry-sponsored and hence tailored to produce results that avoid upsetting company execs
>
> -zIMO, there's open discussion here about both drugs and my own "product"...
Bob
Posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 17:38:05
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2005, at 16:59:01
> > I would ask how do you keep from appearing as though you are being desciminatory or condescending by seeming to say, as in that movie, "you (Babblers) can't handle the truth!"?
> >
> > Toph
>
> I'm not saying Babblers can't handle incivility, I just think it's nicer when they don't have to.
>
> --
>
> > The Ministy of Truth described in that novel was a model of an organization that made sure that the only truths allowed were those that were to everyone's liking.
>
> People here, however, are free to consult other sources of information.
>
> > One more point I would like to make: I see a close parallel between this civil devaluing of truth on a board run by a mental professional, and the fact that drug trials are industry-sponsored and hence tailored to produce results that avoid upsetting company execs
> >
> > -z
>
> IMO, there's open discussion here about both drugs and my own "product"...
>Hello Dr. Bob, and thank you for replying to my posts and Toph's.
I would say that the "product" here is extremely valuable.
It frightens me when the issue becomes 'truth vs. civility.'
It terrifies me.
-z
> Bob
Posted by Toph on October 30, 2005, at 21:19:23
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2005, at 16:59:01
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 7:20:58
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dr. Bob, posted by zeugma on October 30, 2005, at 17:38:05
Often "truth" is subjective.
But moreover, nearly anything can be said on this board. It just requires a bit more creativity to say it civilly. Altogether I think it would be a much better world if that were a skill widely used. Apart from less practical reasons, it's also true that people are much more likely to be open to other points of view if their own is treated with respect.
Posted by 10derHeart on October 31, 2005, at 15:39:27
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 7:20:58
>...people are much more likely to be open to other points of view if their own is treated with respect.
Precisely.
Thanks for posting that, Dinah.
Posted by Toph on October 31, 2005, at 16:26:12
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 7:20:58
> Often "truth" is subjective.
>
And what is "civil" is subjective also.
Posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 18:15:25
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 7:20:58
> Often "truth" is subjective.
is it? 'subjective' is one of those words that get cloudy, and 'truth' is another, although the prospect of the latter alarms me more. i admit, truths slip away all too easily. but life isn't perfect.
>
> But moreover, nearly anything can be said on this board. It just requires a bit more creativity to say it civilly. Altogether I think it would be a much better world if that were a skill widely used. Apart from less practical reasons, it's also true that people are much more likely to be open to other points of view if their own is treated with respect.>>perhaps i lack creativity, though if you imply such it well may be true, subjectively or otherwise, but nonethelesss something unflattering about me and hence a putdown, thus 'uncivil' by your definition (forgive me if i am wrong). but we are slipping badly here, both you and i, because you said 'it's true that other people are likely to...' and how am i to construe if your 'truth' is subjective and hence perhaps idiosyncratic to you? and if 'truth' is a problem, is only subjective, then how do even more contentious words like 'respect' get parsed? is it respectful to a person to lie to her about important matters? but what is a lie if truth is subjective?
i hope i am showing respect to you by saying what i think is true. it is my best attempt.
this poem IMO is relevant:
Thus
lose the way
virtue remainslose virtue
humanity remainslose humanity
righteousness remainslose righteousness
ceremony remainsdoing ceremonies
faithfulness
at its thinnestall disorder's
origin-Lao-tzu, trans. William Higginson
-z
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 18:37:24
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dinah, posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 18:15:25
No offense was meant to you, nor any comment on your creativity.
It was a general comment, not a specific one.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 18:38:27
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » Dinah, posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 18:15:25
sympathy...
i have sympathy all round.i don't like the idea that what we say is censored...
but then i don't like the idea that people can get away with being mean to posters, calling them names and stuf like that...
so... i guess there is a need for some rules. some limits. some restrictions on what it is okay to post.
or at least... lets turn that into a hypothetical... IF you want to foster a supportive environment where people feel relatively safe sharing things that are hard... THEN it would seem to me that there would need to be rules about not putting people down or making fun of them or whatever. And... So we are limited to a certain extent because of the stated purposes of the boards (support and education).
i think it is a hard one...
with respect to the block on politics. i was a little suprised that he got blocked for that.
but i guess... it might help to think that Bush and the current administration does still have some supporters out there. i don't really understand that one myself... i wonder if it has something to do with the lives being lost not being lost for no good reason... but i suppose it is fair to say that there still are some supporters out there. and some of them post to this site. and it has been noted that the politics board seems to already have a fairly liberal bias (which has led to conservatives not being so happy to read / post there etc)... and how are they going to feel when they read comments like those?it is a hard one.
it is really very hard.but i think...
same as dinah...
the world would be a better place if we learned to express our opinions in a way that is more sensitive to the opinions / feelings of others. thats not to say that we have to condone their beliefs or whatever, but it is to say that a little bit of kindness... can go a long way...i dunno
Posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 18:43:41
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility » zeugma, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2005, at 18:37:24
> No offense was meant to you, nor any comment on your creativity.
>
> It was a general comment, not a specific one.i did not take offense, as i saw you were making a general comment.
-z
Posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 19:29:14
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by alexandra_k on October 31, 2005, at 18:38:27
alexandra
alexandra.
support and education.
perhaps i cannot educate anyone.
but education? what is education? in the U.S. this is a bit of a contentious word, in kansas there was a ruling telling a biology textbook to rewrite itself, because it presented 'creation science', i.e. creation of Earth ex nihilo in one week, and there is a bit of dispute here nowadays as to whether this is acceptable science... i.e. the ruling found it unacceptable science, but many disagree, and we may wonder what education is when we dispute issues like these. could i teach a child
(assuming i were a science teacher)
A. creationism as a theory on par with standard accounts (assuming i were a proponent of the standard account), could i propound what i saw as a fairytale as an account on par with standard account
B. standard account as on par with creationism, if i believed that standard account was concocted to prove creation science wrong
you see we in the U.S. are bitterly divided over what science is, and science is a component of education, and the ultimate purpose of education is support? yes in a sense, to teach one to know:
education also proceeds by more painful routes. in school and out. you know what i mean.
but i hold you very close to my heart.
i have a great deal of respect for gardenergirl and dinah also.
i think it's in large part a U.S. thing. a bitter division between people. i believe dinah is american also, she may have a different view.
there is division and hate everywhere, not exclusive to america. and we have profited greatly in the past by our oceans.
support and education?
ok as you said you don't understand how Bush has supporters, but there are some on this board
and kindness, but it is eluding me, not how i could be kind to those i disagree, because i disagree on many matters with dinah and yet wish that i could be kinder to her in the sense that she deserves kindness, and i wish i were kinder to my friends
well i would like to preach to other than the converted, as they say. i have written on specific aspects of Bush's policy, and the relevant comments have not been answered by any advocates of said president's policies. but perhaps that is because any such advocates feel intimdated by the liberal bias of the politics board, or have other reasons for not replying.
fair enough...
we have a vice president, considered by able scholars the most powerful in history, given key mention in an indictment that details the outing of a member of the central Intelligence Agency of this nation, a most serious charge and one that compromises national security and hence makes a lot of people here upset
and also involves the Iraq war, i.e. that the CIA member was outed b/c her husband had concluded there were no WMD in Iraq, her husband an intelligence expert delegated by the CIA to investigate charges of uranium bought by Saddam Hussein, charges said CIA investigator concluded were spurious
now the CIA is doing a damage assessment. for obvious reasons this assessment will not turn up on page 5 of your local newspaer anytime soon, unless something goes very wrong.
there is nothing uncivil or unkind in what i have said. in my miserable way i am trying to support and educate
i am miserable about this situation
Bush supporters are welcome to give me reason not to be miserable
but then you know that word that i had trouble with, 'truth'
there are specific remarks that George bush made on january 16, 2003
which led to CIA director George Tenet resigning,
and we are told we are fighting a war on terror
the former head of the CIA unit searching for bin Laden wrote a book called "Imperial Hubris"
which it is said was not well received by the Bush Admisnistration.
I suppose it was not to their taste
quite a rant, i have never ranted like this before
dear alexandra
-z
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2005, at 6:21:47
In reply to Re: the Ministry of Civility, posted by zeugma on October 31, 2005, at 19:29:14
Hi all,
Enjoying the discussion. For the sake of keeping admin. admin-related, I redirected the political stuff to the Politics board.Here is a link: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/574039.html
Regards,
gg
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2005, at 7:14:12
In reply to Redirected to Politics Board » zeugma, posted by gardenergirl on November 1, 2005, at 6:21:47
Thanks gg. Should have done it myself, I guess.
I have enough sense not to read the politics board, but I was sucked in after seeing it unexpectedly.
And thanks to Dr. Bob for having a separate politics board.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.