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 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330170)

Minoosh 14th July 2018 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12362220)
Suffering is not a function of income, once your basic needs have been met.

My friend's basic needs included trading in wives after 5-7 years. The rest was food, rent and tickets to concerts/sporting events etc. to prove he lived an enviable life.

There was the element of self-punishment. I don't know if that applies to Trump because I don't know how it feels to be so transparently desperate for attention.

Leftus 15th July 2018 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362342)
He won because of two things, Russian help we are hearing more and more about, and the ability to convince people he's the magic man. His narcissism has a lot to do with how skilled of a conman he is.

Probably should have been a bit more strict on who was allowed to vote? Perhaps some requirement for ID?

Quote:

Not even close.
Yeah, not sure where I got the idea that you fit everything into your preconceived notions and complete denial that you could possibly be wrong. It can't be anything else, can it? His election is proof of a mental disorder? He can't be a conman without being mentally ill?

Does the converse work as well? All mentally ill people are conmen? Or does this only work when it fits your narrative?

WilliamSeger 15th July 2018 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362207)
... Were he really suffering from this mental disorder, he wouldn't have ran as a populist. Can't be a populist and a narcissist as well.


Trump is not a populist; he's a pseudo-populist demagogue who wants to be a dictator, and throughout history such scumbags have always been narcissists. Anyway, the real danger with Trump is that his malignant NPD behavior is "comorbid" with paranoid delusions, and I notice that Trumpers don't like to talk about that.

xjx388 15th July 2018 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362333)
No one made this straw argument.



Lol you just did in the post I quoted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roboramma 15th July 2018 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12361994)
So I guess your response begs an obvious question: why did you want a **** show?

That doesn't seem like the obvious question. Or, well, the answer seems pretty obvious from what he wrote: that **** show was better than the alternative.

I'm not saying I agree, but that seems like a pretty obvious reading of his post.

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12362666)
Probably should have been a bit more strict on who was allowed to vote? Perhaps some requirement for ID?

Yeah, not sure where I got the idea that you fit everything into your preconceived notions and complete denial that you could possibly be wrong. It can't be anything else, can it? His election is proof of a mental disorder? He can't be a conman without being mentally ill?

Does the converse work as well? All mentally ill people are conmen? Or does this only work when it fits your narrative?

There's nothing here but straw and nonsense.

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362755)
Lol you just did in the post I quoted.

If you post a quote maybe I can help you understand the actual arguments.

SOdhner 15th July 2018 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362162)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362111)
It's a fallacy that because Trump is rich and he won the Presidency that he can't be suffering from a mental disorder.

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.

It's also a fallacy to say that Trump's actions can ONLY be explained by a "pathologic self absorption."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362333)
No one made this straw argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362755)
Lol you just did in the post I quoted.

I'm not seeing that.

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12362761)
That doesn't seem like the obvious question. Or, well, the answer seems pretty obvious from what he wrote: that **** show was better than the alternative.

I'm not saying I agree, but that seems like a pretty obvious reading of his post.

I hope that's not it, because to prefer someone who says things like "much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people" over a conventional politician like Clinton is very very stupid.

xjx388 15th July 2018 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362342)
Listen to you. Spouting off like you have significant expertise: "the gold-standard since the inception of the profession".

Yup, I’m a pretty smart guy!



Quote:

He won because of two things, Russian help we are hearing more and more about, and the ability to convince people he's the magic man. His narcissism has a lot to do with how skilled of a conman he is.
And a lot to do with the success of most politicians and businesspeople...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

xjx388 15th July 2018 10:38 AM

Happy to oblige, SG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362111)

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.


They “make sense” in other “lights,” not “only . . .pathological self absorption.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362854)
Happy to oblige, SG

They “make sense” in other “lights,” not “only . . .pathological self absorption.”

I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.

The highlighted part is the part you missed. Do you need me to elaborate on how the examples I posted don't mean all of Trump's actions ever?

Those actions were very specific such as his obsession with the crowd size at his inauguration and his inability to address Russian interference in the election because to him it would mean his 'win' wasn't valid.

theprestige 15th July 2018 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12361994)
So I guess your response begs an obvious question: why did you want a **** show?

You're begging the question that I want a **** show.

Even when you seem to be trying to talk to me about what I think, you still talk like you already know. You have a stereotype in mind, and you just can't resist trying to force me into it.

theprestige 15th July 2018 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Norseman (Post 12361912)
Pretty *********** disgusting and a contemptible attitude to take.

I feel you were going to feel disgusted and contemptuous no matter what I did. So your expressions of contempt and disgust do nothing to make me reconsider my positions. Do you have any other conversational strategies you want to try?

theprestige 15th July 2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahFence (Post 12361923)
And they're absolutely right.

You know this how?

Actually, do you even know how the 25th Amendment works? The Yale group obviously doesn't. Trump could counter their clever stratagem with a simple tweet.

xjx388 15th July 2018 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362901)
I have posted a number of examples in the thread where Trump's actions only make sense in light of pathologic self absorption.



The highlighted part is the part you missed. Do you need me to elaborate on how the examples I posted don't mean all of Trump's actions ever?



Those actions were very specific such as his obsession with the crowd size at his inauguration and his inability to address Russian interference in the election because to him it would mean his 'win' wasn't valid.


Those particular actions are not “only “ explainable by pathological self-absorption. Garden variety self-absorption will do. So will other non-pathology explanations.

What is labeling his actions pathological contributing to the discussion? The only thing to be gained from that is that you (generally, but the OP Psychs in particular) think it provides a basis to have him removed under the 25th amendment because his pathology makes him dangerous. But, as we have seen, it does not. So what else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12362922)
You're begging the question that I want a **** show.

Even when you seem to be trying to talk to me about what I think, you still talk like you already know. You have a stereotype in mind, and you just can't resist trying to force me into it.

I'm totally confused. You voted for Trump expecting a **** show. You got your **** show. You admit you don't regret your vote.

So why did you vote for a guy you knew would be a **** show?

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362959)
Those particular actions are not “only “ explainable by pathological self-absorption. Garden variety self-absorption will do. So will other non-pathology explanations.

Nope. The nature of something like Trump's obsession over inaugural crowd attendance was pathologic in nature.

The fact you can't tell the difference between a pathologically self-absorbed obsession and garden variety self-absorption illustrates the problem. You don't seem to recognize there is a difference.

What is it you think a psychiatrist is doing when they look at the NPD criteria in the DSM to determine when someone has a disorder and when someone is simply on the extreme end of non-pathologic narcissism? You seem to think there is no way to determine pathology from non-pathology.

Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean someone educated and experienced in personality disorders can't.


Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12362959)
What is labeling his actions pathological contributing to the discussion? The only thing to be gained from that is that you (generally, but the OP Psychs in particular) think it provides a basis to have him removed under the 25th amendment because his pathology makes him dangerous. But, as we have seen, it does not. So what else?

I've addressed this. A year ago the news media was still discussing Trump becoming presidential. I said it wasn't going to happen because he was incapable. And, it turned out he was incapable.

The sooner people recognize it's pathology and Trump cannot override it, the sooner they will quit expecting him to act differently.

Leftus 15th July 2018 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12362701)
Trump is not a populist; he's a pseudo-populist demagogue who wants to be a dictator, and throughout history such scumbags have always been narcissists. Anyway, the real danger with Trump is that his malignant NPD behavior is "comorbid" with paranoid delusions, and I notice that Trumpers don't like to talk about that.

I'm not a Trumper, never been a fan. I'm not a fan of people diagnosing mental conditions that also, somehow, coincide with their own personal beliefs. He is different and must be burnt at the stake after all.

When you say he wants to be a dictator, I've not seen it. I've seen someone who has been in the private sector trying to fit that experience into the public sector. He has not tried to abolish the Congress nor the Supreme court. He has not exceeded his authority any more than any of those who came before. Did Obama try to become a dictator when he tried to create laws with "a pen and a phone?"

It's the assume the worst nonsense that is tiresome.

Leftus 15th July 2018 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12362992)
The fact you can't tell the difference between a pathologically self-absorbed obsession and garden variety self-absorption illustrates the problem. You don't seem to recognize there is a difference.

It's only there because you want it to be there. Maybe you even need it to be there. The chance it's not there? Inconceivable.

Stacyhs 15th July 2018 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363219)
It's only there because you want it to be there. Maybe you even need it to be there. The chance it's not there? Inconceivable.

Out of curiosity, what would it take for you to think Trump's narcissism goes way beyond "garden variety self-absorption"?

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363219)
It's only there because you want it to be there. Maybe you even need it to be there. The chance it's not there? Inconceivable.

So only Republicans or pro-Trumpers can draw conclusions about Trump's behavior? :rolleyes:

Roboramma 15th July 2018 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12362810)
I hope that's not it, because to prefer someone who says things like "much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people" over a conventional politician like Clinton is very very stupid.

That's a judgement that you are making based on the totality of what you know about both of those people and your own views about various issues, and how those things interact. If your views were different, or the facts of those people were different, you might make a different judgement, even knowing that it would lead to a **** show.

Steve 15th July 2018 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12363239)
So only Republicans or pro-Trumpers can draw conclusions about Trump's behavior? :rolleyes:

If there is one thing I have learned from this thread it' that medical professionals are not allowed to. People who can search Wikipedia told me so.

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12363246)
If there is one thing I have learned from this thread it' that medical professionals are not allowed to. People who can search Wikipedia told me so.

:D

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12363245)
That's a judgement that you are making based on the totality of what you know about both of those people and your own views about various issues, and how those things interact. If your views were different, or the facts of those people were different, you might make a different judgement, even knowing that it would lead to a **** show.

The facts can't be different. They are the set of beliefs that are true. The facts we know form the basis of the conclusion that preferring Trump over Clinton, knowing his presidency will be a **** show, is as dumb as believing in the Christian Hell or YEC. It's one thing to have voted for Trump out of desperation in denial about what kind of person he reality is- it's quite another to have known what he was all about, and still preferred him over a person like Clinton. There's no excusing that level of idiocy. Oh, and sticking by your vote, knowing everything that has happened so far. I can't fathom the kind of reality denial that would take.

theprestige 15th July 2018 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12362972)
I'm totally confused.

The concept of the lesser of two evils shouldn't be that confusing.

Quote:

You voted for Trump expecting a **** show. You got your **** show. You admit you don't regret your vote.

So why did you vote for a guy you knew would be a **** show?
1. I consider politics to be a **** show regardless.

2. I didn't want another professional, establishment politician.

3. I had faith that the American institutions of government would survive four years of amateur hour.

4. Supreme Court picks.

xjx388 15th July 2018 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12363239)
So only Republicans or pro-Trumpers can draw conclusions about Trump's behavior? :rolleyes:

Anyone can draw their own conclusions, just as we all did before the Yale group came along. People who wear their white coats to give their opinions a veneer of credibility is where I roll my eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12363276)
The concept of the lesser of two evils shouldn't be that confusing.



1. I consider politics to be a **** show regardless.

2. I didn't want another professional, establishment politician.

3. I had faith that the American institutions of government would survive four years of amateur hour.

4. Supreme Court picks.

You would gamble with putting a person into power you know is unfit to be president, like Trump, for some SOCTUS picks and to stick to the "establishment"? Really? This is why I'll always regard Trumpkins as deplorables. That kind of thinking is simply deplorable.

xjx388 15th July 2018 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12363273)
The facts can't be different. They are the set of beliefs that are true. The facts we know form the basis of the conclusion that preferring Trump over Clinton, knowing his presidency will be a **** show, is as dumb as believing in the Christian Hell or YEC. It's one thing to have voted for Trump out of desperation in denial about what kind of person he reality is- it's quite another to have known what he was all about, and still preferred him over a person like Clinton. There's no excusing that level of idiocy. Oh, and sticking by your vote, knowing everything that has happened so far. I can't fathom the kind of reality denial that would take.

Facts = the set of beliefs we know are true? That’s a very weird definition of facts. Christians have a set of beliefs they know are true, for instance. In politics, facts often take a backseat to ideology.

It could be argued that Clinton would have been a bigger **** show than Trump -from a certain point of view. Her and the Dems having the ability to choose two (maybe three) SCOTUS justices for example. That might be worth risking an otherwise **** show presidency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bob001 15th July 2018 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12363276)
......

2. I didn't want another professional, establishment politician.
......


You're probably smart enough not to get cut open by an amateur surgeon, or have your teeth fixed by an amateur dentist, or get into an airliner flown by an amateur pilot. You probably wouldn't want an amateur police officer investigating the murder of a loved one. But you think it's okay to turn over the government of a nation of 320 million people to a grossly unfit amateur? Why? Government is a profession. People spend their lives learning to do it well, or at least competently. Thinking like yours has landed us where we are.

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12363283)
Facts = the set of beliefs we know are true?

That is not what I said.

Quote:

That’s a very weird definition of facts. Christians have a set of beliefs they know are true, for instance. In politics, facts often take a backseat to ideology.
You inserted a crucial word that I didn't use: know.

Quote:

It could be argued that Clinton would have been a bigger **** show than Trump -from a certain point of view.
That point of view is deranged.

Quote:

Her and the Dems having the ability to choose two (maybe three) SCOTUS justices for example. That might be worth risking an otherwise **** show presidency.
No, it wouldn't. Voting for a racist, misogynist, narcissistic moron as leader of the free world isn't excused by ANY fears one may have had about Clinton.

theprestige 15th July 2018 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12363279)
You would gamble with putting a person into power you know is unfit to be president, like Trump, for some SOCTUS picks and to stick to the "establishment"? Really? This is why I'll always regard Trumpkins as deplorables. That kind of thinking is simply deplorable.

There's a lot more to it than that, but this isn't the thread to get into it. However, it does illustrate a couple points. One being that you find it very difficult to actually have a conversation with a conservative. We can't even go two exchanges without you struggling with knee-jerk stereotypes and outright name-calling. As a champion of the establishment, you give me very little reason to coddle its ambition.

Also, I think they're all, by and large, unfit to be president. My choices were a professionally political, venal and corrupt progressive; versus an amateur, venal and corrupt opportunist.

Slings and Arrows 15th July 2018 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12363289)
Voting for a racist, misogynist, narcissistic moron as leader of the free world isn't excused by ANY fears one may have had about Clinton.


You forgot to mention homophobe, xenophobe, and Islamophobe. And in some instances (Maxine Waters for example), he's even a vaginaphobe.

Skeptic Ginger 15th July 2018 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12363277)
Anyone can draw their own conclusions, just as we all did before the Yale group came along. People who wear their white coats to give their opinions a veneer of credibility is where I roll my eyes.

Given the complaint was addressed to my politics, do you have evidence the psychiatrists raising the alarm are partisan? :rolleyes:

WilliamSeger 15th July 2018 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363215)
I'm not a Trumper, never been a fan. I'm not a fan of people diagnosing mental conditions that also, somehow, coincide with their own personal beliefs.


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you think Democrats should also ignore Trump's obvious mental health issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363215)
He is different and must be burnt at the stake after all.


At this point I'd settle for him returning to the set of his original TV show so I wouldn't have to watch any more of this new one, but if he turns out to be one of the witches Mueller is hunting....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363215)
When you say he wants to be a dictator, I've not seen it. I've seen someone who has been in the private sector trying to fit that experience into the public sector. He has not tried to abolish the Congress nor the Supreme court. He has not exceeded his authority any more than any of those who came before. Did Obama try to become a dictator when he tried to create laws with "a pen and a phone?"


No offense, but if you think Trump is a garden variety narcissist, it would appear that you have not seen a lot that some of us have. However, I can help you with this one: Everything President Trump Has Said That Sounds Like He Longs to be a Dictator (No, Really)

In the case of Donald Trump, it might be more accurate to say that he wants to be the producer, director, script writer, and star of the Trump Show where he plays a dictator. I haven't seen much interest in actually running a government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12363215)
It's the assume the worst nonsense that is tiresome.


Well, I find the attempts to normalize Trump's behavior to be tiresome.

theprestige 15th July 2018 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12363316)
Given the complaint was addressed to my politics, do you have evidence the psychiatrists raising the alarm are partisan? :rolleyes:

Other evidence besides them breaking with the ethical standards of their profession, you mean? What would you accept as evidence?

xjx388 15th July 2018 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12363289)
That is not what I said. You inserted a crucial word that I didn't use: know.

Yes, I apologize. But what you did say was equivalent to my paraphrase. You said “set of beliefs that are true.” Still a weird definition of facts. “Beliefs,” is the problem word. Facts are not beliefs. God is a belief; death is a fact.

Quote:

That point of view is deranged.
That’s a belief too.

Quote:

No, it wouldn't. Voting for a racist, misogynist, narcissistic moron as leader of the free world isn't excused by ANY fears one may have had about Clinton.
This too.

This whole thread is an attempt to turn beliefs into facts -to turn run of the mill criticism of Trump into hard facts using medical authority.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fudbucker 15th July 2018 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12363354)
Yes, I apologize. But what you did say was equivalent to my paraphrase. You said “set of beliefs that are true.” Still a weird definition of facts. “Beliefs,” is the problem word. Facts are not beliefs. God is a belief; death is a fact.

That’s a belief too.

This too.

This whole thread is an attempt to turn beliefs into facts -to turn run of the mill criticism of Trump into hard facts using medical authority.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course those are beliefs of mine. It's a tautology that to know a fact, one must believe the fact to be true. My beliefs happen to be true. The GOP has devolved into a creepy cult of personality.

xjx388 16th July 2018 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker (Post 12363400)
Of course those are beliefs of mine. It's a tautology that to know a fact, one must believe the fact to be true. My beliefs happen to be true. The GOP has devolved into a creepy cult of personality.

A fact is something that is true regardless of what you believe. "My beliefs happen to be true," is something you hear from woo peddlers of all stripes. Fundamentally, that's what we have here -something that some believe is true (Trump is dangerously mentally ill) and an attempt to use the statements of the Yale group to turn that belief into a fact.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 AM.

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