Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

madinamerica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#81

Post by chris_mahan »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #67
chris_mahan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, weren't the people who fought to make America independent upset with the King's Authority? Would you not say, today, that they were anti-authorianists? Would you not say that an oppressive government would use such a "medical condition" to confiscate guns from people who disagreed with it? Think hard about this, and ask yourself what you would have done in 1774: sided with the Revolutionaries, or sided with the…

That's a poor question. The Revolutionaries were really just opportunists. They could have received the representation they wanted in parliament, however they saw the chance to start their own government, a new one, built by them, however they wanted. I'm not saying it was a bad thing that they decided to focus their efforts on starting a new government instead of working with their current one, but they didn't have…

Royalist! Traitor!

You defy the very premise of the United States of America's existence: The God-given right to live free from the oppression of a Draconian Regime!

(I kid, I kid, I like to hear people's opinions)

But it's got to strike you as interesting that I have taken many history classes, along with reading many historical books, and still evidently lack the profound knowledge of the 1770s that you have. I wonder whether my classes and books were somehow deficient, perhaps as they were written and taught by the victors, the same sort of people who benefited from these Colonial Opportunists, and may thus be unwilling to besmirch their hallowed reputations...

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#82

Post by thecoffman »

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #76
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?

I think you would find that there are a subset of people, myself included, that don't find that notion so insane. If you accept the idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to overthrow their government then having the government restrict what citizens can and cannot purchase is somewhat nonsensical.

Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thing. "Weapons of war" like ships and artillery were privately owned in this country as recently as the civil war.

Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#83

Post by bjhoops1 »

codezero wrote: post #75
bjhoops1 wrote: post #18

I have a 13-year-old brother with ODD. And let me tell you, there is more to it than a healthy does of anti-authoritarianism. We adopted my brother when he was 15 months old, and in his first year of life we suspect he was frequently neglected, leading to attachment issues. Basically, when an infant's needs are not met, they get distressed, and the more often this occurs, the more those neurological pathways become i…

I am actually really curious, in what ways is it rewarding outside of loving anyone else?

I can't say it's more rewarding on the whole, but I didn't want people to think that it is less rewarding.

However, there is also a bit of an effect where someone you care about is not particularly thoughtful, so when they do go out of their way to be kind or help you out, it feels especially good and shows that they really do care about you. If that makes sense..

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#84

Post by DamnYuppie »

alan_cx wrote: post #59
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and…

When 40% of women in the U.S own a firearm it isn't all about being macho. Also only 55% of males own a firearm. The machismo factor is played up in the media and in Hollywood but most free thinking people question such motives and at least attempt to see through propaganda.

Regardless I find your position to be a bit naive and fails to fully realize how governments progress and the impacts they have on their citizenry. Just because a government isn't actively out to get you ATM doesn't mean they don't possess the overwhelming means to do so and that people should have the means to defend themselves against that if such an occasion arises.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#85

Post by stretchwithme »

tokenadult wrote: post #6

I don't like this article's groundless speculation about Albert Einstein, who is used as an unwilling poster child for dozens of causes without support in Einstein's actual biography. I have carefully read Einstein's longest autobiographical writing, and cite it on my personal website, http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html and while it is indisputable that Einstein blew off some of his school homework, it…

The nice thing about dead people is that they rarely object to how they are used.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#86

Post by chris_mahan »

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #76
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?

Alas, you are right. At the time, muskets were the best infantry weapons, and the British soldiers were armed with them, and the colonials got cannons as soon as possible.

I don't think it would be clearly insane.

My assumption is that the US political landscape would look a lot different if the citizens of the United States were indeed allowed to own any weapon they chose and paid for. I don't know if things would be better; they would definitely be different.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#87

Post by Jtsummers »

thecoffman wrote: post #77
alan_cx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and…

It is sad that the sort of bigoted opinions you're espousing here are what us firearms enthusiasts have to endure. It has nothing to do with machismo, nothing to do with Obama, and nothing to do with birther garbage. The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right. As for naming incidents in the last 100 years where armed resistan…

An issue facing firearm enthusiasts is that the most vocal (or at least the ones getting the most press) are in those camps. It's the same problem that faces many other groups, the extremists and zealots are the loudest and the ones people outside the group see. Any reasonable voice gets drowned out.

> The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement though. The 1st amendments's protections on speech, assembly and the press strikes me as a more important collection oy rights. It's what prevents us from needing to pull out our weapons and go to war against our government. Especially these days, with our technology and ability to disseminate information. I won't make the claim that many of the travesties of the past couldn't be repeated today in the US, but they'll be a lot harder to accomplish. Also, given the relatively short period US presidents and congresspersons stay in office, the voters actually have a chance to accomplish something if they'd show up in greater numbers and vote along something other than party lines.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#88

Post by rayiner »

clicks wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #56

So in a species that depends on pack/tribe behavior for survival, how is an inability to follow authority not a mental illness?

Okay, so let's go down that line a little bit more. In a species (alongside a whole host of other species) that depended on rape for survival, how is an inability to rape not a mental illness? [1] In a species that depended on rigidly defined gender roles of women child rearing and men being hunters, how is aberrant behavior not a mental illness? I think what's happening is you're falling prey to appeal to nature fal…

The rape analogy is misplaced because humans, unlike say ducks, do not primarily reproduce through rape.

Also, appeal to nature fallacy is not applicable because I'm not making a "good" versus "bad" conclusion. I'm thinking of "mental illness" in terms of whether it's an evolutionary mal-adaptation, not in moral terms.

And while it is true that loners, outliers, and dropouts often contribute great value to society, it is also true that they also often do great harm to society (the bell curve is a bitch). Moreover, the bulk of collective social value is produced by people following the pack/tribe. What happens to the total productivity of society if everyone acts like the loners, outliers, and dropouts?

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#89

Post by bjhoops1 »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #8
chris_mahan wrote: post #5

Wait, let me guess... As such, they are not allowed to buy weapons, right? How convenient...

Please tell me you don't actually want these folks armed.

EDIT: to clarify, by "these folks" I mean people who are both mentally ill and anti-authoritarian.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#90

Post by csense »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #65
betterunix wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a child will not be brought to a therapist for following the rules; only a child who violates rules too frequently will ever see the inside of a psychiatrist's office. A child who always does what they are told will be rewarded , and will likely be rewarded further if their reaction to their rewards is, "What are my next set of instructions?"

This reminds me of a poem my favorite Math professor used to share, about a little boy who was always instructed exactly how to draw a picture of a flower: http://home.bresnan.net/~cabreras/theboy.htm

This "poem" is depressing.

Off topic: It's never made sense to me why people call things that don't rhyme "poems." As far as I'm concerned, this is an essay, not a poem.

Post reply on HN