args

Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

Solarman, your attempt at critiquing the extreme left, no matter how valid it may or may not be, is entirely undermined when you simultaneously make ridiculous statements like "I really beleive [sic] that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this." You just make your own arguments seem ridiculous when you engage in such hyperbole. Exaggerating your criticisms to such extremes makes you seem to observers to be "foaming at the mouth"at least as much as those you critique. If you really want to convince anyone of anything at all, you would be wise to seek the "high ground" and be reasoned, moderate, balanced, and calm in your criticism, rather than responding to hate with more hate. Let's be clear about this. Real mental illnesses are not sociologically unique. They are, at least in principle, historically and culturally universal. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is specifically about a particular 21st-century politician--George W. Bush--and that in itself, regardless of any other issue, makes it inappropriate and useless for inclusion in the DSM, regardless of the other facts of the matter. Suppose there were a lot of people in the 1st century B.C. who'd been driven to apparent "derangement" by their hatred of Julius Caesar, going to ridiculous excesses in criticizing him--would that justify including "Julius Caesar Derangement Syndrome" in the DSM? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not just some trivia book listing every mistaken or exaggerated belief which anyone has ever subscribed to. All of your arguments thus far have been beside-the-point, factually questionable, logically unconnected, rambling, and full of hate ("clinically insane dumbocraps"? are you serious?), hero worship (why should it matter if Bush is a "very genuinely nice person"? most good people would make terrible presidents), and blatant partisanship ("the leftist agruments [sic] are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil"?)--and pretty much everything _except_ even a smidgen of an attempt at the level of discipline and neutrality which even the soft sciences, like psychology, make. Your conclusions simply fail to follow from any of your premises, even ignoring how dubious many of those premises ("Stalinist tactics"? really now?) are. Your digressions, ranting, and overgeneralizations destroy your own argument much more effectively than I ever could. That aside, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well, and a happy New Year! :)