Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Congratulations

Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). Bugler 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--Aschlafly 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

An apology

I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel! UlyssesNZ 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks DLerner

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "censoring classroom prayer THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--Aschlafly 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

your welcome. DLerner 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

The liberal response

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't think of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The obesity epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" and Morgan Spurlock's "Don't Eat this Book".DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - NewCrusader
<Reply> I agree that is a problem. However, liberals tend to be fatter that conservatives. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a lot of fat people... DLerner 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) </reply>
I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach Intelligent Design]) lie. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. Carptrash 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
No, his post has 119 words. Kallium 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
there are no real differences between boys and girls

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals several differences, especially in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Your claim is based on the fact that since statistical averages indicate that on the whole, boys perform in math better than girls, that tenet holds for the individuals. This is the Part-whole fallacy: it is akin to saying "The clock is big, therefore the clock's parts are big". By this logic, it is impossible to climb Mt. Everest, because statistically, most people don't.
Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - NewCrusader
humans are just another type of animal

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of mammal, and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - NewCrusader
No one uses that to argue that you are the same as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal does not mean you are a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal by definition refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.Kallium 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
all there is is what you see

Not true, we teach about bacteria too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were they responsible for mental illness? DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
death can somehow be good

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, Of Mice and Men (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.
Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --Benp 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. Kallium 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
denying self-defense, mentally and physically

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. Talmud) DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in Bernard Goetz.

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder. To me this line of argument reeks of "lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods"

I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach abstinence. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence ONLY Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - NewCrusader
insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The inquisition comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the auto de fe any day. DLerner 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

classroom prayer would promote mental stability Says who? Maybe you should add [Citation Needed]?

I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--Aschlafly 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have you looked yet? Kallium 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. JamalG 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

DLerner 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Reversion

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--Aschlafly 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". BeReasonable 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

You are suffering from that well-documented delusion Liberal denial, BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. Bugler 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--Aschlafly 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The cited source says that at a neurological level mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. BeReasonable 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--Aschlafly 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.Userafw 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.
Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--Aschlafly 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --DinsdaleP 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, (this was after I'd graduated from college) which primarily benefited me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. Moreover, Wicca does indeed allow for self-defense, unlike some brands of Christianity, which teach to "turn the other cheek". It is probably telling that the part I studied most when I was in Wicca was the part about psychic self-defense. Prayer, by the way, is also considered by Wiccans and pagans to be a form of magic, since it raises and directs energy for a purpose. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. By the way, remember perfect love casts out fear.Userafw 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Causation fail

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-Gcarhart 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--Aschlafly 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-Gcarhart 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-Gcarhart 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to censorship, your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--Aschlafly 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does that shut down the inquiry?
I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-Gcarhart

Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did...

The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates. Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons:
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons.
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology. Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

UlyssesNZ 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--Aschlafly 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --UlyssesNZ 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Reversion of edits

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. JohnyGoodman 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--Aschlafly 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--Aschlafly 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. JohnyGoodman 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. Kallium 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.JohnyGoodman 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#

I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in Liberals. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. Bugler 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. Kallium 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.JohnyGoodman 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the {{facts}} template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. Userafw 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Stephen Fry

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. BetsyNewson 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I doubt private schools in the U.K. are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the U.K. are as leftist as public schools in the U.S.--Aschlafly 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).
Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. Ajkgordon 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--Aschlafly 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. Kallium 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--Aschlafly 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings causing mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, influence and cause are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single cause by providing an exaggerated list. Kallium 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. Jamal Greene 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:


Uppingham A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning………… Spiritual Life


Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. …… (http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

BetsyNewson 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

The 1944 Education Act prescribes a daily act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. Bugler 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--Aschlafly 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. Ajkgordon 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. Ajkgordon 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. Bugler 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! BetsyNewson 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).
Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) Ajkgordon 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". JohnyGoodman 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--Aschlafly 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a product or expression of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. JohnyGoodman 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Why the reversion?

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that? --StanleyB 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--Aschlafly 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:

This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness increase in line with an expanding and ageing population.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services" "With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years, the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on mental health services and budgets."--StanleyB 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--Aschlafly 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.JohnyGoodman 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--Aschlafly 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Johnny, you didn't clearly explain it, you merely stated it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --Ed Poor Talk 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

Connection

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.
   * lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]
Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.
   * there are no real differences between boys and girls
I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.
   * humans are just another type of animal
Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.
   * all there is is what you see
Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.
   * conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions
You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.
   * self-inflicted death can somehow be good
Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.
   * denying self-defense, mentally and physically
Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.
   * denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness
You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).
   * insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability 
Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. Jirby 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I could not help but notice

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that Margaret Thatcher has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Barry Goldwater, and Chuck Heston died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? Carptrash 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or anything else), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! Kallium 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

How can someone come to such a delusional position as the left wing? Mental illness, poor childhood and so on is the only real reason why they would take up an atheist leftwing viewpoint. (See the article on causes of atheism). Also, if someone is involved in the left wing they will undoubtedly become affected by all the delusional viewpoints imposed on them. So being a left winger is probably a pretty good explanation for mental illness. If you're left wing then you'll become mentally ill, if you're mentally ill you'll become left wing. How can anyone challenge that logic? Only if they're a delusional mentally ill ideologically blinded disruptive leftist radical of course.

89%

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. Human 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools