• Rick Santorum Forcing His Children To Cuddle With A Fetus Not Weird, Say Psychologists
    174 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Spooter;34087965]And do you have a doctorate in Psychology? Is that why you're making such stern factual judgement on their actions' psychological impact?[/QUOTE] And how are you defending them so vehemently without that same doctorate? That argument goes both ways.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34087965]Uh, again, where does it say he "forced" his family to "tote the dead body around"? Oh yeah [B][I]NOWHERE[/I][/B]. Unless I misread the article the idea that he forced this on his family is [I]myth[/I] it is a complete and utter [I]fabrication[/I]. And do you have a doctorate in Psychology? Is that why you're making such stern factual judgement on their actions' psychological impact? This isn't a trick question.[/QUOTE] shhhhhh that is enough bolds and italics [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] You can hug a corpse after it is no longer a person, sure, but bringing it home and doing stuff with it just seems a tad insane. Sorry.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;34088029]And how are you defending them so vehemently without that same doctorate? That argument goes both ways.[/QUOTE] A fair point. I'm not qualified to make statements on their mental health any more than the person who I criticized. But since the article is about [I]people who do have extensive education in Psychology saying that this is fine[/I] I'm kind of on their side. [QUOTE=person11;34088043]You can hug a corpse after it is no longer a person, sure, but bringing it home and doing stuff with it just seems a tad insane. Sorry.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you do have a point. I tend to question people's sanity when they mourn differently then I do too.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34087965]Uh, again, where does it say he "forced" his family to "tote the dead body around"? Oh yeah [B][I]NOWHERE[/I][/B]. Unless I misread the article the idea that he forced this on his family is [I]myth[/I] it is a complete and utter [I]fabrication[/I]. And do you have a doctorate in Psychology? Is that why you're making such stern factual judgement on their actions' psychological impact? This isn't a trick question.[/QUOTE] You're extremely over-complicating the situation here. [highlight]They kept a dead body lying around their house for days, slept with it, and circumcised it.[/highlight] You don't needs a degree to realize how seriously fucked up that is. If it's so normal, then why don't people do it naturally?
I was going to let this side, until I read that he circumcised the fetus. Seriously, who the hell circumcises a dead fetus? Edit: Apparently, he never circumcised the baby. Oops.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34088068] Yeah, you do have a point. I tend to question people's sanity when they mourn differently then I do too.[/QUOTE] You could say someone who ties a bunch of strings to a corpse and makes it do a puppet show is just "mourning differently" Or someone who eats people has "alternative culinary tastes."
[QUOTE=Spooter;34088068]A fair point. I'm not qualified to make statements on their mental health any more than the person who I criticized. But since the article is about [I]people who do have extensive education in Psychology saying that this is fine[/I] I'm kind of on their side. Yeah, you do have a point. I tend to question people's sanity when they mourn differently then I do too.[/QUOTE] Alright alright your italicizing stuff doesn't really help your point. This reminds me of this guy who stuffed his lover's corpse and slowly replaced parts of it as it rotted, and had sex with it. Nope, can't judge that guy's sanity because he is grieving.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34088088]You're extremely over-complicating the situation here. [highlight]They kept a dead body lying around their house for days, slept with it, and circumcised it.[/highlight] You don't needs a degree to realize how seriously fucked up that is. If it's so normal, then why don't people do it naturally?[/QUOTE] You're making shit up about the situation here! Nowhere does it say they kept the body for days, (one expert mentioned that they can do that) or that they slept with it! And I guess I'm crazy, because I'm tapping plastic thingies on another plastic thingy to communicate through the air! I'm doing it to communicate with a being represented by a frowning blue hedgehog! You don't needs a degree to realize how seriously fucked up that is, why don't people do it naturally? [QUOTE=person11;34088135]Alright alright your italicizing stuff doesn't really help your point. This reminds me of this guy who stuffed his lover's corpse and slowly replaced parts of it as it rotted, and had sex with it. Nope, can't judge that guy's sanity because he is grieving.[/QUOTE] Well, if you want to compare that with a family hugging a corpse to say goodbye, go ahead.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34088157]You're making shit up about the situation here! Nowhere does it say they kept the body for days, (one expert mentioned that they can do that) or that they slept with it! And I guess I'm crazy, because I'm tapping plastic thingies on another plastic thingy to communicate through the air! I'm doing it to communicate with a being represented by a frowning blue hedgehog! You don't needs a degree to realize how seriously fucked up that is, why don't people do it naturally?[/QUOTE] Stop using 2nd grade copycat tactics in your argument, you look like a fucking 9 year old. Of course the article in the OP won't mention it, it focuses more on the "experts'" point of views. The family members themselves talked about what they did. Once again, you're mystifying the process of typing a message to someone over the Internet to make your convoluted point appear more valid.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34088088]You're extremely over-complicating the situation here. [highlight]They kept a dead body lying around their house for days, slept with it, and circumcised it.[/highlight] You don't needs a degree to realize how seriously fucked up that is. If it's so normal, then why don't people do it naturally?[/QUOTE] the process of grieving that we're used to is far more cultural than natural.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34088275]Stop using 2nd grade copycat tactics in your argument, you look like a fucking 9 year old. Of course the article in the OP won't mention it, it focuses more on the "experts'" point of views. The family members themselves talked about what they did. Once again, you're mystifying the process of typing a message to someone over the Internet to make your convoluted point appear more valid.[/QUOTE] Fine, I won't make my arguments parallel to yours with different examples to show how ridiculous yours are. Yeah, it focuses on "experts" point of views. I mean, what do they know? It's not like they have extensive education on the subject that far surpasses everyone in this thread combined. Can you find me where the family members said that they did those things? Because then I'll totally drop the accusation that you're making this shit up. I'm mystifying the process to show that judging things on how "natural" they are is fucking stupid. Hold on, isn't homosexuality being "unnatural" one of the key points that social conservatives make to show that homosexuals are insane?
standing around staring at a loved one's dead body made up to look like they're asleep can have pretty bad mental repercussions too. especially when you're forced to attend, which happens often. how is this any different, really? because they slept with it and gave it a name? who gives a fuck?
[QUOTE=TheHydra;34088374]standing around staring at a loved one's dead body made up to look like they're asleep can have pretty bad mental repercussions too. especially when you're forced to attend, which happens often. how is this any different, really? because they slept with it and gave it a name? who gives a fuck?[/QUOTE] Exactly. This is all based off of the fact that it's unusual and makes people uncomfortable, not that it's actually any more damaging.
there are other things to focus on, such as his disgusting policies on gay marriage, or santorum meaning a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is often the byproduct of anal sex.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;34085645]In other news, psychology has been proven to be pseudoscience.[/QUOTE] That's a bit crude to generalize all psychological fields with what Dr.David Diamond "studies". What David J. Diamond studies I believe is Psychodynamics, which you can call a blatant pseudoscience. Also how does ABC go about saying Psychologist[B]s[/B] when there was only one psychologist cited for it and another blatantly against it.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34088356]Fine, I won't make my arguments parallel to yours with different examples to show how ridiculous yours are. Yeah, it focuses on "experts" point of views. I mean, what do they know? It's not like they have extensive education on the subject that far surpasses everyone in this thread combined. Can you find me where the family members said that they did those things? Because then I'll totally drop the accusation that you're making this shit up. I'm mystifying the process to show that judging things on how "natural" they are is fucking stupid. Hold on, isn't homosexuality being "unnatural" one of the key points that social conservatives make to show that homosexuals are insane?[/QUOTE] Karen Santorum even wrote a book about the experience, entitled [i]Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum[/i]. She specifically talking about sleeping with the corpse, then playing with it in front of the kids "the show them that it was real", then circumcising it. If I can't form an opinion because I don't have my Doctorate, how can you? Experts have made tons of false assumptions concerning numerous topics for centuries, agreeing with them doesn't make you instantaneously right.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34088620]Karen Santorum even wrote a book about the experience, entitled [i]Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum[/i]. She specifically talking about sleeping with the corpse, then playing with it in front of the kids "the show them that it was real", then circumcising it. If I can't form an opinion because I don't have my Doctorate, how can you? Experts have made tons of false assumptions concerning numerous topics for centuries, agreeing with them doesn't make you instantaneously right.[/QUOTE] Fine, I drop the accusation that you're fabricating anything. Because I'm forming my opinion based on the more educated views of experts on the subject. Yes, it doesn't make me instantly right, and I never made any claim that they were omniscent, but they certainly know more about it than I do until I see evidence otherwise. Is it really so awful of me to suggest that people not want to crucify this family for how they chose to grieve? Especially since there's little to no evidence that their kids were as psychologicaly scarred as some people would like to suggest.
[QUOTE=wewt!;34084506] I can't decide whether or not I'd bone his daughter[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvgXnzwwZsM[/media] that sums up my feelings
It's strange, but I don't fault him. He just lost his fucking baby, there is no "normal' way to grieve a death like that. I dislike Santorum just as much as the next guy, but whatever weird things he did while mourning the death of his newborn child I don't care about. It's none of our business.
Holy shit, could the thread title be any more insulting? I love how the OP removed the word "grieving" from the headline, and instead replaced it, as if suggesting that the Santorum's taking the baby home wasn't grieving at all, but rather a sign of insanity. We fucking get it. Rick Santorum is a complete flip-flopping, hypocritical, bigoted, corporate jet flying sleezebag. You don't have to look very far to find something to prove that. But taking this kind of shit... for fucks sake, there's no "normal" way to grieve over the loss of a stillborn child... or any loss, for that matter. Pfft, and you guys go on tangents about how evil Fox News is. This is the EXACT shit Fox News does. And you've just done it. ANd you're one of the ones who insults certain Facepunchers for posting Fox News articles all the time. [b] HYPOCRITE[/b]
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34088907]Holy shit, could the thread title be any more insulting? I love how the OP removed the word "grieving" from the headline, and instead replaced it, as if suggesting that the Santorum's taking the baby home wasn't grieving at all, but rather a sign of insanity. Pfft, and you guys go on tangents about how evil Fox News is. This is the EXACT shit Fox News does. And you've just done it. Just disgusting.[/QUOTE] It's unsanitary you don't have your kids cuddle up next to former uncle Joe. Furthermore did the kids have any choice in cuddling with the fetus? Does a person's grievance rightfully undermine another persons rights?
[QUOTE=Spooter;34088769]Fine, I drop the accusation that you're fabricating anything. Because I'm forming my opinion based on the more educated views of experts on the subject. Yes, it doesn't make me instantly right, and I never made any claim that they were omniscent, but they certainly know more about it than I do until I see evidence otherwise. Is it really so awful of me to suggest that people not want to crucify this family for how they chose to grieve? Especially since there's little to no evidence that their kids were as psychologicaly scarred as some people would like to suggest.[/QUOTE] Just as a general means of respect for the dead, playing with a corpse a day after its death is hardly any way to observe the death of a loved one. The fact that the siblings were so readily cuddling a dead body raises a huge flag.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34088907]Holy shit, could the thread title be any more insulting? I love how the OP removed the word "grieving" from the headline, and instead replaced it, as if suggesting that the Santorum's taking the baby home wasn't grieving at all, but rather a sign of insanity. We fucking get it. Rick Santorum is a complete flip-flopping, hypocritical, bigoted, corporate jet flying sleezebag. You don't have to look very far to find something to prove that. But taking this kind of shit... for fucks sake, there's no "normal" way to grieve over the loss of a stillborn child... or any loss, for that matter. Pfft, and you guys go on tangents about how evil Fox News is. This is the EXACT shit Fox News does. And you've just done it. ANd you're one of the ones who insults certain Facepunchers for posting Fox News articles all the time. [b] HYPOCRITE[/b][/QUOTE] I sort of agree with you, but this dude: [QUOTE=Thlis;34088969]It's unsanitary you don't have your kids cuddle up next to former uncle Joe.[/QUOTE] Has a point.
As a mother I understand what was going through the heads of Rick and his spouse when they did this and fully support him.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34089025]Just as a general means of respect for the dead, playing with a corpse a day after its death is hardly any way to observe the death of a loved one. The fact that the siblings were so readily cuddling a dead body raises a huge flag.[/QUOTE] Where do you get the authority to determine what's respectful? It's their loved one.
[QUOTE=Thlis;34088969]It's unsanitary you don't have your kids cuddle up next to former uncle Joe. Furthermore did the kids have any choice in cuddling with the fetus? Does a person's grievance rightfully undermine another persons rights?[/QUOTE] Except we're not talking about their "former Uncle Joe." You're just trying to invent hypothetical premises that are completely irreverent to try to prove your point. We're talking about a stillborn baby. A stillborn baby bathed and probably covered in chemicals to slow decomposition. And I don't see how anyone's rights are being "undermined..." last time I checked, minors legal rights and obligations are managed by the child's legal parents or guardians. I'm not saying it's morally right to force the kids to touch the baby, but arguing that it infringes a minor's rights is a slippery slope sort of issue, because where do you draw that sort of line between being a parent and "infringing rights?"
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34089185]Except we're not talking about their "former Uncle Joe." You're just trying to invent hypothetical premises that are completely irreverent to try to prove your point. We're talking about a stillborn baby. A stillborn baby bathed and probably covered in chemicals to haste decomposition. And I don't see how anyone's rights are being "undermined..." last time I checked, minors legal rights and obligations are managed by the child's legal parents or guardians. I'm not saying it's morally right to force the kids to touch the baby, but arguing that it infringes a minor's rights is a slippery slope sort of issue, because where do you draw that sort of line between being a parent and "infringing rights?"[/QUOTE] What's the difference between Uncle Joe and a still born fetus (which hopefully is not covered in chemicals in order to hasten decomposition). Also how is it completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34089153]Where do you get the authority to determine what's respectful? It's their loved one.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that finds the circumcision of a dead body a horrendous act.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;34089427]I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that finds the circumcision of a dead body a horrendous act.[/QUOTE] Except the Santorum's baby was never circumcised. The stillborn baby of a Washington Post columnist was. Where's that Bad Reading rating? :sigh:
This guy is a fucking psychopath.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.