Well This is Depressing

Post Reply New Topic

It depends. Whether a treatment works tells the most about his disability, but I'm fairly certain that he was never officially diagnosed with intellectual disability, firstly because he'd be borderline and secondly because it'd probably hurt his feelings if he was setup for an appointment for something like that. I also don't think he gets treatment as he's pretty secluded. I only said he was obese, just cause.

There is no way to know if an ID person has ADD/ADHD as most will fail tests that involve paying attention, it becomes pointless. ID should disqualify someone from attention deficit disorder criteria as getting them tested for it is impossible. An ID might have it or might not but you'll just never know.

Do you have a citation for that? Because it does not match what I have read at all. It's possible to be diagnosed with both and it's possible to establish that inattention and hyperactivity exceed what would be expected for a person with intellectual disability.

There is also add-pi which I never even heard about until the past year. In the past I never would have even thought I might have adhd because I'm not hyper.

From what Michael Savage says he seems to have a typical ableist attitude that mental problems are behavioral issues that people just need to get over. I quit listening to him because all of the anti gay and anti women stuff I heard him say.

Fnord doesn't care, he is so full of academic snobbery that merely the mention of a certificate will have him defending someone to the hilt no matter what they have said. You can't argue with someone like that.

Fnord, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because he has these degrees does not mean his logic is sound on all things.

What is the basis for Mr. Savage's claim Fnord? Did he do an unbiased scientific analysis using double blind tests and the scientific method himself?

Trust me, I have tried to argue with him and question his reasoning. All you will experience is frustration and futility but I guess I am just a glutton for punishment.

Indeed. Were it not for my meds I might not bother, they do have some benefits!

Michael Savage is a horrible radio personality who says horrible things the lower the ratings are getting, in an attempt for an increase of publicity and ratings, in my opinion.

He's said hateful things about various groups (including NT.) Ignoring everything he says is a good habit.

Some of his history.

More Savage hate speech history.

This blogger doesn't care for Mr Savage.

Excuse me, kiddies, but I never defended what he said, only his right to say it and the fact that he has more credibility than you do to back up his claims, right or wrong.

Get over yourselves, please.

Again, you're making a fallacious claim of the appeal to authority.

It is true that he is a legitimate expert. I will grant you this.

If we're going to appeal to people with degrees I will bite.

Is there a consensus amongst the legitimate experts on Savage's claims??? Who are the other legitimate experts who state what he says and what is the scientific proof that savage's comments is logically sound? Has it been peer reviewed and done with the scientific method? Savage makes a claim of 99%. Where are Savage's statistical studies? You demand scientific proof from one group but not from another Fnord. Why is this?

Oh, for the luvva...

I am not saying that he is right. I'm saying that if you want to refute his claims and shut him up, then you'll have to have more credibility than he has - especially among his own fans.

There are a lot of people who believe this kind of crap, and if you want them to learn the truth, then you're going to have to convince them that you know what you're talking about.

Fnord is, in his own inimitable style, merely hitting nails squarely on the head. Now, before I get buried in an avalanche of outrage.....

1. Savage is PAID to be a right-wing demagogue.
2. The link "about Michael Savage" is something called "copy". It is written to promote, that is "big up" Savage.
3. I note it says he "holds" 2 degrees, yet only mentions "earning" his PhD. I don't know whether he "earned" his degrees or whether they are honorary - (I have a friend who was "awarded" a BA and an MBA from Cambridge University by virtue of working in the procurement department for a number of years, not by studying)

These pieces of paper give him "credibility" via the "authority" that they are perceived to convey, to the uneducated.

Propaganda designed to ensure we view some as our "betters" or "superiors" has been around for a squillion years, and is one of the ways that the "elite" control "the masses". The job of media is not to tell us news or reveal universal truths, but to polarise opinions and sell advertising.

The manipulation of emotions is key to controlling people - Wizards First Rule - People will believe a lie because they WANT to, or FEAR not to. (Yes, I read bad fantasy fiction - sorry )

I like to sneak solid facts into a discourse while people are being amused by the pretty words surrounding them, it's one of the ways I can revel in my narcissism, feel a bit clever, and do something I like to think I have a modicum of talent for.

(Having seen the rough edge of Fnord's wit on various threads, I sincerely hope that I'm not speaking out of turn when I say) Fnord, you seem largely to deal in simple straightforward facts, served without seasoning or sauce, from your own point of view, which although unpalatable in their bluntness to some, are in fact perfectly valid when viewed through the monocle of objectivity, whether the audience feel that more gentleness is merited or not. Would this be a wildly erroneous assessment of your communicative style?

That is correct.

Unfortunately, dealing in simple, straightforward facts seems to invoke more ire than if I just go along with the crowd - "bluntness" seems more "offensive" to some people than posts like "docter savige is a royl suxor and he can kis my a$$".

I misunderstood. The thing is though I am ignorant on many matters of various subjects at hand. Oh Fnord, how can I refute what know not nor understand? How can I refute something if I lack wisdom or understanding in this matter? Mr. Savage is a man who has excellent knowledge and wisdom about different areas that I do not understand. He is a sage of our times of intellectual and wise giants. Yes, he has more credibility than I; this I will acknowledge.

I seek not to refute him but to understand him and gain his knowledge, his wisdom and understanding.

You see, he came up with this quantified number of 99%. I would love to know what his methods were that he used to come up with this number as it makes no sense to me and I am not wise or knowledgeable enough to understand. How does Mr. Savage, the wisest of all the wise, logically come to any of his beliefs?

To be fair, it took even someone as generous of spirit as me some time to realise this. You do know, don't you, that it appears you post your "distilled" thoughts first and only explain your reasoning once you get exasperated by lack of apparent understanding?

Is this an unconscious process, or do you just enjoy poking the collective beast? Go on, you can tell me

@Cubedemon, your post has popped up while I was typing this one, and I'm going to take the liberty of providing you with my answer:

Savage is playing to an audience, who will not question his assertions. because they believe (in) HIM which is all that matters in the context in which he performs. We have a radio presenter called Jeremy Vine in the UK who's job is similar, although the approach is "terribly British" and rather understated in comparison.

You, I and anyone else capable of using our grey matter analytically can see the ridiculousness of his "beliefs", however, I refer you to my previous post regarding paid demagoguery, the purpose of the media and the Wizard's first rule.

Savage's LIVING is rooted in being an arrogant, polarising buttplug. In this world, who shouts first and loudest is believed, it's as simple as that. He performs for a mob of the kind of people who shout "Yeah, what he said!" who will all join and defend his garbage against your common sense, so he doesn't need to justify himself.

You can equate it to a socially skilled bully polarising the class to shout down and belittle the small group of like-minded misfits, despite knowing that they are actually right. The average man in the street is unfortunately mostly a self-centred right wing ignoramus, which is why papers like the Daily Mail exist to exploit this demographic.

Savage is a racist. Every time (perhaps four or five times-- and far too many at that) that I have listened to him speak on the air, he has been spewing vitriolic white supremacist propaganda. That behavior alone is enough to discredit anything he has to say on any subject, unless it is proven by some other source.

His followers are idiots who like to support people who argue for what they already believe, so rational argument to convince them or the errors of his positions are a waste of time.

No one should be surprised when his hatred finds other targets like other non-white peoples, women, children, or the disabled.

Whenever I listen to him, he inspires an intense hatred in me that I do not enjoy, so I am careful to limit my exposure to this source of toxic memes.