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)

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, isnít 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, isnít 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 Americaís history.
(C) This man believes he is a genius nonpareil who doesnít need to
ask for advice on any subject whatsoever. (When asked who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, President Trump responded, ďIím speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and Iíve said a lot of things. I know what Iím doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time Iíll 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 Iíve said before, if I walk up to the scene of an auto accident and see a bone sticking out of someoneís leg, I donít think my lack of formal medical training means I am out of line in saying, ďdude, you should see a doctor about that.Ē

Similarly, I think it is appropriate to look at President Trumpís statements and behavior and say, ďdude, you should see a panel of doctors about that.Ē

......
On foreign policy he is consulting himself because he has ďa big brainĒ and heís ďsaid a lot of stuff.Ē Iím 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, isnít it?


I donít get what you are complaining about. ďDangerously mentally illĒ has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Being mentally ill doesnít make you ignorant or dangerous; being ignorant doesnít make you dangerous or mentally ill.

Which is one of the big problems with using the ďmentally ill,Ē 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 donít get what you are complaining about. ďDangerously mentally illĒ has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Being mentally ill doesnít make you ignorant or dangerous; being ignorant doesnít make you dangerous or mentally ill.

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

Of course you donít 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 Trumpís 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 óó->

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 itís 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 itís 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.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955720)
Not really...see, I assumed that you guys were trying to tie Trumpís 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 óó->


For someone who claims to not like Trump you sure do get all huffy when someone dares to bash him. Maybe try relaxing a bit?

Cabbage 15th January 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955725)
You, Random Internet Personality #3456094451. You are not a mental health professional and so ...


....and so....what? Did you have a thought when you began? Because evidently it escaped you by the end of the sentence.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955729)
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.


It is not the speakers' responsibility to investigate these things before speaking.....

....and maybe you already knew that, but that doesn't negate the fact that I wanted to tell you so.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955729)
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.


In addition, both of these statements are simply factually incorrect. If I am motivated to tell you something you don't already know, and then it turns out you already knew what I told you, that does not change the fact that I had that motivation (ie, it does not negate the motivation). You could argue that my actions to satisfy the motivation were misplaced, but the motivation itself was still there--It has not been negated.

Again, you have this entirely backwards.

xjx388 15th January 2020 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12955728)
You don't seem willing to even acknowledge the possibility that ignorance + incompetence can be the result of identifiable mental illness.



Why would I? Itís sufficient for me to observe the incompetence and ignorance.

xjx388 15th January 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955743)
For someone who claims to not like Trump you sure do get all huffy when someone dares to bash him. Maybe try relaxing a bit?



No.

Mental health is not a reason to bash someone. Once again, another demonstration of the damage done by the Yale Group.

theprestige 15th January 2020 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955746)
It is not the speakers' responsibility to investigate these things before speaking.....

....and maybe you already knew that, but that doesn't negate the fact that I wanted to tell you so.

I think that only you can be responsible for checking your motivations, and determining whether the thing you're going to do is necessary.

theprestige 15th January 2020 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955751)
In addition, both of these statements are simply factually incorrect. If I am motivated to tell you something you don't already know, and then it turns out you already knew what I told you, that does not change the fact that I had that motivation (ie, it does not negate the motivation). You could argue that my actions to satisfy the motivation were misplaced, but the motivation itself was still there--It has not been negated.

Again, you have this entirely backwards.

But this is inane.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955765)
No.

Mental health is not a reason to bash someone. Once again, another demonstration of the damage done by the Yale Group.


Irrelevant, as mental health is not the reason Trump is being bashed.

And you damn well know that.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955767)
I think that only you can be responsible for checking your motivations, and determining whether the thing you're going to do is necessary.


And part of that responsibility is most certainly not ascertaining whether any one of hundreds of millions of people have or have not already heard what you are trying to tell them.

Just go ahead and tell them anyway.

Ladewig 15th January 2020 09:48 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?

To me, the issue isnít whether or not to vote for him. To me, the issue is what mechanism is in place to deal with a president whose mental faculties are beginning to fail because of senility, Alzheimerís, or a mental disorder.

If President Trump were suffering from narcissistic personality disorder that greatly impaired his ability to serve his country, then the 25th Amendment would be useless if he surrounded himself with enablers and people who were afraid to speak up. Even if his doctor were convinced that the President were a danger to himself and others, and the doctor brought in 8 specialists with Republican leanings who independently drew the same conclusion, there would be no way to remove President Trump from office.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955769)
But this is inane.


Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "motivation" means.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12955769)
But this is inane.


Here, let me give you a simple analogy to make this easier for you to understand.

Say someone puts on 250 pair of underwear simultaneously. Their motivation is to set the world record for most underwear worn simultaneously.

Someone comes around and says, "Hey, that can't be your motivation: The record is already 266 pair!" This, however, is irrelevant and incorrect (the part about motivation, not the part about the record): The former person may have been misinformed, but the motivation was still to set a record. Knowledge that comes after the fact doesn't change that motivation.

Similarly, if I am motivated to tell you something you've never heard before, but then it turns out you've already heard what I had to tell you, that does not negate the motivation--The motivation was still there. You can't change that.

xjx388 15th January 2020 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955805)
Irrelevant, as mental health is not the reason Trump is being bashed.



And you damn well know that.



I do indeed. Which makes such bashing irrelevant to this thread.

xjx388 15th January 2020 11:11 PM

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955815)
Here, let me give you a simple analogy to make this easier for you to understand.

Say someone puts on 250 pair of underwear simultaneously. Their motivation is to set the world record for most underwear worn simultaneously.

Someone comes around and says, "Hey, that can't be your motivation: The record is already 266 pair!" This, however, is irrelevant and incorrect (the part about motivation, not the part about the record): The former person may have been misinformed, but the motivation was still to set a record. Knowledge that comes after the fact doesn't change that motivation.

Similarly, if I am motivated to tell you something you've never heard before, but then it turns out you've already heard what I had to tell you, that does not negate the motivation--The motivation was still there. You can't change that.



But who cares what you have to say? The point of this thread is whether or not we should care about what the Yale Group has to say. Your motivations are completely irrelevant.

So yeah, a Bonfire of Inanity.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955849)
I do indeed. Which makes such bashing irrelevant to this thread.


Then you should take back this comment

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955765)
Mental health is not a reason to bash someone.


since you now acknowledge mental health is not the reason Trump is being bashed.

Cabbage 15th January 2020 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955853)
But who cares what you have to say? The point of this thread is whether or not we should care about what the Yale Group has to say. Your motivations are completely irrelevant.

So yeah, a Bonfire of Inanity.



.....(sigh)......


Take it up with theprestige--He was the one making claims about motivations/justifications being necessary.

And my motivations were never a subject at all. Are you having trouble following the conversation?

And for someone who dares to ask who cares what I have to say, you sure do have habit of bitching about what I do say. An awful lot, in fact. LOL!

Cabbage 16th January 2020 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12955763)
Why would I? Itís sufficient for me to observe the incompetence and ignorance.


Nevertheless, it demonstrates you are wrong when you claim his ignorance isn't relevant to the thread.

xjx388 16th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12955872)
.....(sigh)......





Take it up with theprestige--He was the one making claims about motivations/justifications being necessary.



And my motivations were never a subject at all. Are you having trouble following the conversation?

No, but you obviously are. Theprestige, was talking about the motivations of the Yale Group and their justifications for speaking out, which are germane. You keep giving analogies about yourself telling people something which is not germane -what you -a random layperson- tell people and why you tell them tells us nothing about the ethics of the Yale Group


Quote:

And for someone who dares to ask who cares what I have to say, you sure do have habit of bitching about what I do say. An awful lot, in fact. LOL!
I donít care, in the context of this thread, what you say about Trump. I do care about the arguments you make in this thread about the Yale Group.

xjx388 16th January 2020 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cabbage (Post 12956049)
Nevertheless, it demonstrates you are wrong when you claim his ignorance isn't relevant to the thread.



His ignorance and any mental illness he might have are completely separate issues. Itís just plain wrong to connect the two. Therefore, pointing out his ignorance is indeed irrelevant to this thread.

Unless of course, you are trying to connect the two, which is completely wrongheaded, unfair to people with mental illness and a major reason why the APA has an ethical rule against the kinds of statements the Yale Group is making.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.