The Obama (pbuh) cult mentality

[ms_ann_thrope]

Clinton's mother may have spoiled him as a child... which led to an addiction to external affirmations of self-worth... which led to Clinton being 'controlled' by JFK and MLK?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Clinton's mother may have spoiled him as a child... which led to an addiction to external affirmations of self-worth... which led to Clinton being 'controlled' by JFK and MLK?

No, because they served as examples of what could be achieved in terms of the acquisition of power, not so much as personal motivators. The people at the top of the motivational food chain are controlled by the desire for control itself, so that they and their followers have a symbiotic relationship.

[Kael]

Controlled by the desire? If you're going to take that direction, all you're saying is our desires control everything we do, negative and positive, from the desire to eat or sleep to the desire to learn to the desire to beat up someone you don't like. That is not what you were originally asserting. You said one who is motivated is ultimately controlled by the motivator. That's what you're supposed to be backing up here. Not taking tangents into philosophical territory about how desires control people.

I'm still waiting for an explanation or evidence supporting your original assertion.

Yes, it needs evidence. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by yguy

Because it's not true, or for some other reason?

I mean funny as in I think it's a bit strange, odd, weird to think that just because a person feels inspired by another person they are under that person's control. I've felt inspired by many, many people, living and dead throughout my life.

Originally Posted by yguy

So how do we differentiate between inspiration which is beneficial and that which is malignant?

What do you mean? Beneficial or malignant for whom? Our own selves?

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't think so. I think they're being given dreams, be they superficially noble or otherwise.

Are you saying you think the video was scripted? If so, then so what? If you don't think it was scripted, then what do you mean?

Originally Posted by yguy

Further, why do they need to go through all this rigamarole to be inspired to better themselves, when people do it all the time without any such quasi-religious fanfare?

I did not see anything quasi-religious about it. It was more like a dance thing.

Originally Posted by yguy

They've obviously been programmed. Did you not hear them reciting all those planks from the Anointed One's campaign platform? Even if they understand any of it, do you think any of them applied any critical thinking to any of it? Not a chance in hell.

Yes, I did hear that, and yes, they were reciting. But I would never have thought they were being "brainwashed". I don't know if they wrote the thing or were doing someone else's script. Perhaps they just wanted to take one or two of Obama's platforms to create their video with. How do you know? How do you know whether or not any of them understood what they were saying?

Originally Posted by yguy

Not in that sense these kids are. I might say Reagan is, but you never heard of any groups of white kids using him in that fashion, because he didn't appeal to the kind of people who would subject themselves to such obvious groupthink.

Oh, I get it, you're saying your inspirational figure is better than other people's. Is that right?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

What do you mean? Beneficial or malignant for whom? Our own selves?

The only way inspiration can be judged one way or the other is by the actions of the inspired, and even then, the larger part of the blame goes to the perpetrator, not the source of the inspiration, or at least it should. As it is said, incitement to riot is no excuse to riot.

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Oh, I get it, you're saying your inspirational figure is better than other people's. Is that right?

That's what I gathered he was saying, yes. It's ok for people to be inspired by Reagan, as he was some kind of political demigod, but Obama? What's the world coming to?!

[Rationalia]

I realize I have given more than my share of attention to His Trollship, but at this point, I'm wondering what it will take for yguy to finally wear out his welcome with actual freethinkers who come here regularly.

For anyone to preach Reagan dogma just as trickle-down finally hobbles the world economy is beyond ironic; it's obscene.

How about we bring down the curtain on his little stage for a while?

Just my opinion.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Kael

Yes, it needs evidence. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

Not if it is self-evident. All of yguy's "truths" are self-evident, to him at any rate.

Evidence? We (i.e., yguy) don't need no stinkin' evidence.

[erimir]

I've been pretty good about almost never responding to yguy over the past several months, and not actually letting him draw me into arguments.

I hope that I serve as an inspiration to others to do the same.

[freemonkey]

erimir almost never responds to yguy!!

erimir doesn't allow himself to be drawn iinto arguments with yguy!!

erimir hopes to be an inspiration to others!!

[erimir]

Bwahahahaha!

You have fallen right into my diabolical trap!

I now control you! Now bring me a Dr Pepper, minion!

[Plant Woman]

What yguy?

Originally Posted by Plant Woman

What yguy?

The one who got banned from the Hannity forums for being a hateful douchebag?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by erimir

Bwahahahaha!

You have fallen right into my diabolical trap!

I now control you! Now bring me a Dr Pepper, minion!

___

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

The one who got banned from the Hannity forums for being a hateful douchebag?

That makes me wonder how long Sean Hannity would last on his own forums.

[ChuckF]

I wasn't convinced that the Hannity forums yguy was our yguy until I got to this post:

While I would never suggest that anyone (other than perhaps an unrepentent traitor to America)1 should commit suicide,

That's our boy!

I am kinda surprised that the Hannity forums are such bliss ninnies though. That hardly merits a bannination.

1. i.e. virtually everyone

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

You said one who is motivated is ultimately controlled by the motivator.

No, I asked:

How do you allow yourself to be motivated by another person without that person being in control?

That's what you're supposed to be backing up here.

This is not a debate. This is a discussion as a result of which the light either goes on or it doesn't - and for a dogmatic atheist, it won't. If you see no possibility that the first will happen, you're wasting your time here.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

The one who got banned from the Hannity forums for [telling the unvarnished truth]?

It's hardly news that many nominal Christians have a problem with it.

But thanks for being interested enough to dig up dirt on me. Sorry I can't reciprocate.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

erimir doesn't allow himself to be drawn iinto arguments with yguy!!

Not to be a buzzkill, but that probably has less to do with his self-control than with the fact that I've had him on ignore since last year.

[Adam]

Is it just me, or does Obama need to stop flying around the country and just do all his campaigning via satellite? Do you have any idea how hard it is to figure which way I'm supposed to face during morning prayer when he's in a different goddamm city every day?

[ChuckF]

I use one of these:

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by yguy

No, I asked:

How do you allow yourself to be motivated by another person without that person being in control?

Like I said: funny, odd, strange, weird way to look at it.

What are you really trying to say, yguy? Do you believe that anything we do or desire to do that hasn't come only from within is because of someone else's will? How do we know what has come from within and not from our family or a book or something?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

What are you really trying to say, yguy? Do you believe that anything we do or desire to do that hasn't come only from within is because of someone else's will?

Remember that this started with me responding to a presumed atheist. To anyone who acknowledges the metaphysical realm, I can point out that no one is really self-motivating. We're either motivated by the what is right, which exists independently of ourselves, or by whatever services our selfish desires, which also exists independently. If you're inclined towards the latter, you look outside yourself for satisfaction; otherwise, you look within.

How do we know what has come from within and not from our family or a book or something?

Great question. You'll forgive me, I hope for going Socratic on you. At least once in your life someone imposed his or her will on you as a means of aggrandizing or maintaining his or her self image, or at least tried to. Did you know it was wrong the first time you saw it happening? Did you need somebody to tell you it was wrong? If the answers are yes and no, then whatever told you it was wrong came from within; and that internal "truth detector" is there to this day, though you may choose at times to ignore it.

That help any?

[Adam]

Perhaps this will help:

Originally Posted by shorter yguy

You don't know human psychology! I do!

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by yguy

Remember that this started with me responding to a presumed atheist. To anyone who acknowledges the metaphysical realm, I can point out that no one is really self-motivating. We're either motivated by the what is right, which exists independently of ourselves, or by whatever services our selfish desires, which also exists independently. If you're inclined towards the latter, you look outside yourself for satisfaction; otherwise, you look within.

But yguy, the majority of people in the world acknowledge a metaphysical realm. Which of them are right?

Originally Posted by yguy

We're either motivated by the what is right, which exists independently of ourselves, or by whatever services our selfish desires, which also exists independently. If you're inclined towards the latter, you look outside yourself for satisfaction; otherwise, you look within.

That statement seems contradictory. Even if we acknowledge what is "right" (by which I assume you mean GODTM) motivation still comes from without, yet that is not really from without, as compared with the truly without, which is selfish desires, which we really get from someone (or something) without who is actually trying to control us, because we allow ourselves to be controlled from without by not looking within..... I'm confused.....

[yguy]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

But yguy, the majority of people in the world acknowledge a metaphysical realm. Which of them are right?

The question is too broad. Right about what?

And in what sense? That of believing the facts about the metaphysical, or of demonstrating understanding thereof?

And if I were to tell you which ones are right, why would you believe me?

That statement seems contradictory.

Such an appearance is, AFAIK, an unavoidable consequence of the paradoxical nature of human existence. Have you not noticed, for instance, that it takes honesty to admit dishonesty? How can they coexist in the same person? How can a well meaning person get tricked into lying except by some intelligent entity that is inimical to his nature? And how, having become ensnared in his own lies, can he see his dishonesty except it be shown him by a light he cannot contrive himself?

Even if we acknowledge what is "right" (by which I assume you mean GODTM)

No, I do not. You can only trademark what you own.

..... I'm confused.....

That means that either I'm presenting this incompetently or you're confusing yourself by trying to analyze what I'm saying. Even if I present it perfectly, that will lead you away from understanding. You'd do better to leave it alone for the time being.