The Sarcasm Olympics

With Dilbert creator Scott Adams tipped for gold with this post :

A Feeling I’m Being Had

I was happy to hear that NYC didn’t allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech.

Which naturally had to lead to a clarification for his countrymen :

Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.
 
1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

Thanks to Stef for bringing that internet gem to my attention. Nuts!

Update : Mr Adams has posted a further riposte to his earlier posts which highlight a common feature of modern debate which I see a lot amongst modern politicians, the press and equally worryingly the less tolerant bloggers. Its something we should all guard against. Well said Mr Adams.

What Qualifies as a Mental Problem?

This post will come off sounding argumentative, but I don’t intend it that way. It’s based on a genuine curiosity. After reading the comments to my posts for the past few days, it’s clear that people fall into some interesting categories. This made me wonder who gets to decide when a certain way of thinking qualifies as a genuine mental problem.
 
For example, as many of you noted about your fellow posters, a common way of thinking goes like this:
 
“If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!”
 
Is that a form of mental problem, or does the fact that it describes how the majority of the population forms political opinions make it good mental health by definition? That’s a serious question.
 
Suppose we give this way of thinking a name. Let’s call it ripperitis. Sometimes labeling things is enough to change how we deal with them. Perhaps having a name for the condition will allow scientists to get funding to find a cure. I hope so, because it would give me something new to say to end political debates.
 
“Well, Bob, based on your rant, I’d say you have a bad case of ripperitis. I hear they’re working on a pill that lets people like you appreciate the complexity of arguments.”
 
And then Bob would say, “If you think drugs are such a great idea, why don’t you go marry a cocaine dealer in a civil union?”

…oh and don’t miss this gem of a comment.