International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

Skeptic Ginger 14th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12954226)
It was a joke, based on the Yale Group's position that they can diagnose NPD via the subject's Twitter feed. I honestly have no idea what the actual contagion vectors are, for NPD. I doubt Dr Lee does, either.


Again, this is the same tired claim we've been debating since the inception of this thread. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

What would make it convincing is some peer-reviewed research that supports it.

Twitter the only evidence? Tired claim of NPD?

:rolleyes:

Belz... 14th January 2020 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12954278)
I think we are running the risk of losing our sense of humor over the president being madder than a loon which has been suffering from longterm mercury poisoning.

And is just about as eloquent.

Bob001 15th January 2020 12:07 PM

At some point willful ignorance by itself becomes a psychiatric disorder:
Quote:

President Trump reveals himself as woefully uninformed about the basics of geography, incorrectly telling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “It’s not like you’ve got China on your border.” He toys with awarding himself the Medal of Freedom.

And, according to a new book by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig, Trump does not seem to grasp the fundamental history surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Hey, John, what’s this all about? What’s this a tour of?” Trump asks his then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, as the men prepare to take a private tour of the USS Arizona Memorial, which commemorates the December 1941 Japanese surprise attack in the Pacific that pulled the United States into World War II.

“Trump had heard the phrase ‘Pearl Harbor’ and appeared to understand that he was visiting the scene of a historic battle, but he did not seem to know much else,” write the authors, later quoting a former senior White House adviser who concludes: “He was at times dangerously uninformed.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...85d_story.html

theprestige 15th January 2020 12:20 PM

I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Bob001 15th January 2020 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Sounds like the "dangerously uniformed" assessment refers more broadly to his core knowledge of the world and his basic information-processing ability. But it's hard to understand how a 72-year-old man who grew up around veterans and who watched Pearl Harbor commemoration ceremonies every year wouldn't know a little more than he does.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Because those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it?

A 73 year old college educated man who is ignorant of the most basic facts of one of the most important events in US...no...world history....yet is the most powerful man in the world is not a good combination. It is a dangerous one.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12955262)
Sounds like the "dangerously uniformed" assessment refers more broadly to his core knowledge of the world and his basic information-processing ability. But it's hard to understand how a 72-year-old man who grew up around veterans and who watched Pearl Harbor commemoration ceremonies every year wouldn't know a little more than he does.

Nothing that does not affect Trump directly is worth knowing about. Narcissism 101.

Steve 15th January 2020 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Of course you are. Because using one quoted snippet of a yet to be published book is easiest way for you to distract from the substance of the quote. Trump knows nothing about Pearl Harbor history (among myriad other things) and is perfectly acceptable for the president of the USA.

theprestige 15th January 2020 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12955267)
Because those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it?

At least he'll have the carriers out at sea when Japan comes back to bomb Pearl Harbor the next time. Where's he going to get some battleships, though?

The Great Zaganza 15th January 2020 01:29 PM

Trump will keep our navy in Pearl Habor until we have taken all the pearls!

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955314)
At least he'll have the carriers out at sea when Japan comes back to bomb Pearl Harbor the next time. Where's he going to get some battleships, though?

Your inability to understand the meaning behind the quote is noted.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.


When it is representative of a more general ignorance.

xjx388 15th January 2020 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955511)
When it is representative of a more general ignorance.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955527)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.


Go ahead and just try quoting me where I said it does.

You will fail.

Steve 15th January 2020 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955511)
When it is representative of a more general ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955527)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Hard to believe that anyone would post anything the least little bit off topic in this thread, isn’t it?

xjx388 15th January 2020 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955535)
Go ahead and just try quoting me where I said it does.



You will fail.

I said it has nothing to do with mental illness, the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about his general ignorance, there are plenty of threads for that.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12955542)
Hard to believe that anyone would post anything the least little bit off topic in this thread, isn’t it?

I'M SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I TELLS YA! :shocked:

Ladewig 15th January 2020 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955314)
At least he'll have the carriers out at sea when Japan comes back to bomb Pearl Harbor the next time. Where's he going to get some battleships, though?

(A) This man can single-handedly launch nukes
(B) This man does not understand the significance of Pearl Harbor in America’s history.
(C) This man believes he is a genius nonpareil who doesn’t need to
ask for advice on any subject whatsoever. (When asked who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, President Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff."

A+B+C= danger.


As I’ve said before, if I walk up to the scene of an auto accident and see a bone sticking out of someone’s leg, I don’t think my lack of formal medical training means I am out of line in saying, “dude, you should see a doctor about that.”

Similarly, I think it is appropriate to look at President Trump’s statements and behavior and say, “dude, you should see a panel of doctors about that.”

......
On foreign policy he is consulting himself because he has “a big brain” and he’s “said a lot of stuff.” I’m not qualified to comment on possible mental illnesses. I do, however, feel it is not inappropriate to say this guy does not have a firm grip on mental hygiene.

theprestige 15th January 2020 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladewig (Post 12955586)
(A) This man can single-handedly launch nukes
(B) This man does not understand the significance of Pearl Harbor in America’s history.
(C) This man believes he is a genius nonpareil who doesn’t need to
ask for advice on any subject whatsoever. (When asked who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, President Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff."

A+B+C= danger.


As I’ve said before, if I walk up to the scene of an auto accident and see a bone sticking out of someone’s leg, I don’t think my lack of formal medical training means I am out of line in saying, “dude, you should see a doctor about that.”

Similarly, I think it is appropriate to look at President Trump’s statements and behavior and say, “dude, you should see a panel of doctors about that.”

......
On foreign policy he is consulting himself because he has “a big brain” and he’s “said a lot of stuff.” I’m not qualified to comment on possible mental illnesses. I do, however, feel it is not inappropriate to say this guy does not have a firm grip on mental hygiene.

Makes sense to me. If you voted against him on that basis, I wouldn't think it odd or irrational.

So. What did the Yale group tell you, that you hadn't already figured out on your own?

xjx388 15th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12955542)
Hard to believe that anyone would post anything the least little bit off topic in this thread, isn’t it?


I don’t get what you are complaining about. “Dangerously mentally ill” has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Being mentally ill doesn’t make you ignorant or dangerous; being ignorant doesn’t make you dangerous or mentally ill.

Which is one of the big problems with using the “mentally ill,” label in the first place: it perpetuates untrue and harmful stereotypes.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955589)
Makes sense to me. If you voted against him on that basis, I wouldn't think it odd or irrational.

So. What did the Yale group tell you, that you hadn't already figured out on your own?

When I had all the symptoms of a gall bladder attack and suspected that's what it was, I still went to the doctor who confirmed it.

theprestige 15th January 2020 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12955596)
When I had all the symptoms of a gall bladder attack and suspected that's what it was, I still went to the doctor who confirmed it.

Did you seek a psychiatric opinion before casting your vote against Donald Trump?

Have you *ever* found it necessary to get a psychiatric diagnosis of a politician, before or after making up your own mind about them?

Cabbage 15th January 2020 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955549)
I said it has nothing to do with mental illness, the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about his general ignorance, there are plenty of threads for that.


I simply responded to others who were already talking about general ignorance....


.....you know, just like you are doing right now.


LOL!

Cabbage 15th January 2020 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955589)
Makes sense to me. If you voted against him on that basis, I wouldn't think it odd or irrational.

So. What did the Yale group tell you, that you hadn't already figured out on your own?


You keep on bringing that up as if you seem to think it is a necessary condition to justify the Yale group's approach.



It is not.

Skeptic Ginger 15th January 2020 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955225)
I'm having a hard time imagining how someone could be "dangerously uninformed" about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.

I'm having a hard time imagining how any person over 50 could possibly be uninformed about the history of the Pearl Harbor attack.:jaw-dropp

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955602)
Did you seek a psychiatric opinion before casting your vote against Donald Trump?

Have you *ever* found it necessary to get a psychiatric diagnosis of a politician, before or after making up your own mind about them?

Of course. I went to The Candidates' Psychiatric Evaluations. Available online or at Barnes and Nobles. Doesn't everyone? :rolleyes:

I didn't vote for Trump because I thought he was mentally ill. I didn't vote for him because I thought he was a disgusting, lying, cheating, bullying, corrupt, childish, narcissistic POS.

Steve 15th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955592)
I don’t get what you are complaining about. “Dangerously mentally ill” has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Being mentally ill doesn’t make you ignorant or dangerous; being ignorant doesn’t make you dangerous or mentally ill.

Which is one of the big problems with using the “mentally ill,” label in the first place: it perpetuates untrue and harmful stereotypes.

Of course you don’t get what I am complaining about. Because I am not complaining. You came in on the tail end of a minor derail and made incorrect assumptions. Just as you did with this post. You should confirm context prior to your knee-jerk posts.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955589)
Makes sense to me. If you voted against him on that basis, I wouldn't think it odd or irrational.

So. What did the Yale group tell you, that you hadn't already figured out on your own?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955627)
You keep on bringing that up as if you seem to think it is a necessary condition to justify the Yale group's approach.

It is not.

That. :thumbsup:

theprestige 15th January 2020 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955627)
You keep on bringing that up as if you seem to think it is a necessary condition to justify the Yale group's approach.



It is not.

Obviously I disagree. The Yale group broke from the ethical rules of their profession, to make an unorthodox and public diagnosis. They cited their duty to warn as the justification for this. If the thing they're warning about is already understood and accounted for by the public, then it fatally undermines their justification.

In my opinion.

What do you think justifies setting aside the Goldwater rule, in this case?

Skeptic Ginger 15th January 2020 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955527)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Not unless one's mental illness has affected one's ability to learn.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955647)
Obviously I disagree. The Yale group broke from the ethical rules of their profession, to make an unorthodox and public diagnosis. They cited their duty to warn as the justification for this. If the thing they're warning about is already understood and accounted for by the public, then it fatally undermines their justification.

In my opinion.

What do you think justifies setting aside the Goldwater rule, in this case?

Oh, come on. Everything you just said or questioned has been discussed over and over again. Go read the 2 + continuations of this thread again.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955647)
Obviously I disagree. The Yale group broke from the ethical rules of their profession, to make an unorthodox and public diagnosis. They cited their duty to warn as the justification for this. If the thing they're warning about is already understood and accounted for by the public, then it fatally undermines their justification.

In my opinion.

What do you think justifies setting aside the Goldwater rule, in this case?


You addressed your question to Ladewig, not the general public. If you wanted the general public to answer then maybe you should organize a poll or something?

And anyway, if I tell someone something they already know, that does not negate my motivation for speaking in the first place. You seem to have this backwards.

marting 15th January 2020 07:28 PM

When I was a kid, a neighbor strongly objected when we mentioned we dropped atomic bombs on Japan in WW2. Just refused to believe it saying the USA would never use nuclear weapons first. It was just inconceivable to her. She would have been about 14 y/o in 1945 so go figure.

Not like it wasn't in the news at the time. One can only wonder how malleable memory is. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.

Stacyhs 15th January 2020 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marting (Post 12955699)
When I was a kid, a neighbor strongly objected when we mentioned we dropped atomic bombs on Japan in WW2. Just refused to believe it saying the USA would never use nuclear weapons first. It was just inconceivable to her. She would have been about 14 y/o in 1945 so go figure.

Not like it wasn't in the news at the time. One can only wonder how malleable memory is. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.

She reminds me of people I've seen on TV denying Trump lies.

xjx388 15th January 2020 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955625)
I simply responded to others who were already talking about general ignorance....





.....you know, just like you are doing right now.





LOL!


Not really...see, I assumed that you guys were trying to tie Trump’s ignorance to his dangerous mental illness. Silly me for thinking that and trying to keep to the topic.

Like I said general Trump bashing is ——->

Bob001 15th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955527)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Actually it clearly does, if the ignorance is the result of Trump's delusion that he already knows everything. The story cited the example of Trump and Rex Tillerson: Tillerson has known and negotiated with V. Putin since the '90s. But when he tried to share his knowledge and experience with the new President, Trump cut him off and ultimately fired him. Ignorance is bad enough by itself, but everybody can read a book or take a class. It's the inability to recognize ignorance that makes it a psychiatric illness. And he's got the launch codes.

xjx388 15th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955690)
You addressed your question to Ladewig, not the general public. If you wanted the general public to answer then maybe you should organize a poll or something?



And anyway, if I tell someone something they already know, that does not negate my motivation for speaking in the first place. You seem to have this backwards.



You, Random Internet Personality #3456094451. You are not a mental health professional and so ...

xjx388 15th January 2020 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12955724)
Actually it clearly does, if the ignorance is the result of Trump's delusion that he already knows everything. The story cited the example of Trump and Rex Tillerson: Tillerson has known and negotiated with V. Putin since the '90s. But when he tried to share his knowledege and experience with the new President, Trump cut him off and ultimately fired him. Ignorance is bad enough by itself, but everybody can read a book or take a class. It's the inability to recognize ignorance that makes it a psychiatric illness. And he's got the launch codes.



IF....

Ignorance + Incompetence =/= mental illness and it’s the lumping together of the two that is the problem.

Bob001 15th January 2020 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955727)
IF....

Ignorance + Incompetence =/= mental illness and it’s the lumping together of the two that is the problem.

You don't seem willing to even acknowledge the possibility that ignorance + incompetence can be the result of identifiable mental illness.

theprestige 15th January 2020 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955690)
You addressed your question to Ladewig, not the general public. If you wanted the general public to answer then maybe you should organize a poll or something?

And anyway, if I tell someone something they already know, that does not negate my motivation for speaking in the first place. You seem to have this backwards.

It does if your motivation was to tell them something they didn't already know.

It does if your motivation was to get them to change their mind with new information.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.