Originally Posted by xjx388
Yes, trying to buttress your arguments by insisting that an ethics
rule is based on imaginary science is definitely pseudo-science. It's one thing to have a different opinion about the ethics here, but simply refusing to acknowledge
any ethical dilemma here is either irrational devotion to a dogma that won't allow any such thing, or it's ordinary disingenuous argument, so I'm actually giving you the benefit of a doubt. On the one hand, you can't credibly deny that the Yale group is right -- anyone (with the possible exception of theprestige) can see that if Trump isn't
NPD, then there's no such thing -- but on the other you want to claim that it's just politically motivated so it doesn't really mean anything. I have to wonder why you are so concerned about protecting a profession if you really don't really believe it serves any useful purpose.