he is so emotionless i’ve been starting to suspect he had a lobotomy.
i’m more likely to believe he is a compulsive liar and a sociopath.
At this point, to me, Carson is an inverse appeal to authority. Meaning that, if he says a thing, anything, automatically assume that it is false unless corroborated by conclusive evidence, and the standards for that evidence being conclusive will be higher.
(also in that category are Ray Comfort, Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter, and a few others of that ilk)
If their names are fake, then the people are too, because the brain is mysterious.
Was one of them named Joseph and really really into wheat futures?
Is the jury still out on whether he takes beta blockers all the time? Because just the way he talks and moves looks to me like the guy is always on some kind of sedative. He doesn’t look calm or emotionally suppressed. He looks and sounds like chunks of his brain have shut down. And if you listen to what he’s actually saying, it seems to me very tempting to conclude that chunks of his brain never grew in the first place.
Actually, I understand his logic here, “the names were changed to protect the innocent”, except he didn’t actually say that in the book, apparently, which is kind of suspect.
I’d say his unsubstantiated beliefs about the pyramids, and his fondness for flatulence-producing “glyconutrients” are more troubling; why not just elect a Scientologist who touts the benefits of his e-meter readings, or someone who believes the “hollow Earth” theory.
Is Hillary a 3.37 and Carson a 1.47 out of 100?
Nice person. Bad temper. Moments of extreme violence.
I think the whole thing is fictitious, meant to curry favor with the Republican voters. Come on, what Republican wouldn’t vote for a guy with a violent temper who actually really truly acted on that temper impulsively and fucked some people up - I mean, A REAL MAN, HE WILL LEAD US!!!
Shhhhhh! No more pyramids, please.
I’m still laughing my ass off yesterday’s “we don’t know if pyramids were tombs for sure” discussion.
You know, we really don’t know this book is an autobiography. Sure everyone says it is, but where’s the evidence for that?
Are you saying it could just as well be a manual on storing wheat products, considering the little evidence we have? Ⅰ for one think this theory is just as likely as any other (e.g. It being written by aliens).
What I’m saying is that we have no way of verifying the accounts of these stories! We just can’t take them at face value!
I’m not a proponent of the grain-storage-manual hypothesis, but we just can’t rule it out! We’ve been told since this book came out that it’s an autobiography of Ben Carson, but nobody’s really looked into it, and it’s quite unscientific to not question whether it could even be the autobiography of Herman Cain!
Yeah, that’s why I, too choose to remain skeptical on this issue. I’m not simply going to believe a theory the “authorities” continue to peddle based on not much more than millennia-old hearsay.
I mean it’s a large book, right? It could just as well contain a lot of information on handling, processing and storing grain. The “autobiography” theory is fairly new and came around only in the past couple of decades. Show me the evidence! I have not seen anything from the inside of it that tells me it’s about Ben Carson.
What’s more likely, a large book that’s just about some guy with minor significance or a useful manual that can help a lot of people stay fed and well-stocked on grain?
Are we sure this “autobiography” exists? I wasn’t there when it was written, so I can’t ever be sure…
Well, we can be sure it doesn’t have any allegory or metaphor in it- every word is meant to be taken as literal truth.
He’s just saying those names are fake to throw the non-believers off the scent. Stay strong and have faith.
The other day I heard a very bare-bones autobiography of Carson in which he described himself as a kid who had a violent temper, realized he had a problem, and worked to overcome it. I didn’t believe reading the Bible was the only thing that did it but saying he realized he had a problem and dealt with it was the most reasonable and appealing thing I’ve ever heard him say.
Of course it didn’t change my mind about him because I believed the full story was a lot more complicated. And I was right.
Literal truth is a very good theory. But calling a plain book an autobiography is merely speculation.