IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 3rd January 2020, 10:23 PM   #3241
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,751
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Again, put it in a PM, not an open forum, if you don't want open discussion.

You seem to be developing a personal problem with my arguments.
Seriously TP, those posts quoted the specific person I was replying to. Sometimes, that's how it goes.

You should probably get over it.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 03:52 AM   #3242
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,041
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
- Trump may have pathologic narcissism.
- Determining this one way or the other is not necessary for voters, the Cabinet, Congress, or anyone else to make a reasonable decision about whether they are okay with him being president.
If he were dying of cancer, do you think voters would have a right to know? If so, why would a psychiatric condition have a different response from a physical one?


Quote:
- The Yale Group probably can't claim a proper diagnosis without a proper in-person exam.
Yes, they can. This is the most desperate and oft repeated (because it's unassailable) objection. Of course a diagnosis can be acheived without a formal face to face. Especially when the subjects behaviour is as odd as Trump's has been.

If someone's naked at the corner store and ******** on the frozen food, an exam is not required for their employer to say "You're alright mate, don't come in tomorrow and we'd like you to get some help before you come back". Who employs Donald? Do they not have the same right when he starts (only just metaphorically) ******** all over the Presidency.



Quote:
- Regardless, they shouldn't use their authority as medical professionals to make claims about their remote diagnosis of the president.
See above.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 09:08 AM   #3243
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If he were dying of cancer, do you think voters would have a right to know? If so, why would a psychiatric condition have a different response from a physical one?









Yes, they can. This is the most desperate and oft repeated (because it's unassailable) objection. Of course a diagnosis can be acheived without a formal face to face. Especially when the subjects behaviour is as odd as Trump's has been.



If someone's naked at the corner store and ******** on the frozen food, an exam is not required for their employer to say "You're alright mate, don't come in tomorrow and we'd like you to get some help before you come back". Who employs Donald? Do they not have the same right when he starts (only just metaphorically) ******** all over the Presidency.











See above.


When an employee is ******** all over the frozen food, the manager isn’t likely to have a shrink look at the surveillance video and give him a medical opinion before taking action. A shrink isn’t going to review video of the employee at work and say, “yes, it’s obvious this person suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and you should fire them because they are dangerous.”

No, the manager is going to take action according to the policies of the store and the laws of the State.

Under the Constitution we have set policies in place and we are the store owners. We have management, when it comes to “supervising” the President, in the form of the Cabinet, the VP and Congress. They are the ones minding the store, so to speak. Indeed, Congress is acting right now (not very well, if you ask me, but that’s another thread). If the managers we elected to act in this case aren’t acting as we, the owners, want him to, it’s on us to change management.

Now if you want to change the system, I’m all ears.

In any case, an employment relationship analogy doesn’t really work here. If we were employers, we wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people with mental illness. We couldn’t ask if they were mentally ill on the application and if their illness was affecting their work, we would have to make reasonable accommodations. We couldn’t fire him for being mentally ill.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 09:55 AM   #3244
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If he were dying of cancer, do you think voters would have a right to know? If so, why would a psychiatric condition have a different response from a physical one?




Yes, they can. This is the most desperate and oft repeated (because it's unassailable) objection. Of course a diagnosis can be acheived without a formal face to face. Especially when the subjects behaviour is as odd as Trump's has been.

If someone's naked at the corner store and ******** on the frozen food, an exam is not required for their employer to say "You're alright mate, don't come in tomorrow and we'd like you to get some help before you come back". Who employs Donald? Do they not have the same right when he starts (only just metaphorically) ******** all over the Presidency.





See above.
I don't see anything new or interesting here. We both know our points of disagreement. We've both been through our respective arguments multiple times. Do you see any reason to go around the same mulberry bush again?

Say something new. Who do you think should have the authority to declare the president incapable of doing the job?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 10:09 AM   #3245
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,041
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Say something new.
You first.



Quote:
Who do you think should have the authority to declare the president incapable of doing the job?
I don't know. It's not at all important to my point. The current system is broken. It's abundantly obvious that this is so. That you, and some few others, can't see this is just gobsmacking to me.


The two primary problems are:

The system wasn't built to deal with party politics.

The system is predicated on the belief that it is impossible for anyone to be a neutral party.

The US system of government (like the UK one) is broken. The mechanism for removing a lunatic from office does not and will never work. It's a problem. You don't seem to be able to accept that it is.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 11:15 AM   #3246
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You first.











I don't know. It's not at all important to my point. The current system is broken. It's abundantly obvious that this is so. That you, and some few others, can't see this is just gobsmacking to me.





The two primary problems are:



The system wasn't built to deal with party politics.



The system is predicated on the belief that it is impossible for anyone to be a neutral party.



The US system of government (like the UK one) is broken. The mechanism for removing a lunatic from office does not and will never work. It's a problem. You don't seem to be able to accept that it is.


The point of this thread isn’t whether or not our system is broken. There’s a thread for that. Here, we are discussing the actions of the Yale Group.

Do you think we can fix our system by allowing random mental health professionals to declare that the President needs a consult and that such declaration should be binding? If not, then what’s your fix for this particular problem? I can say that I definitely don’t think some random group of professionals should have any influence at all.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 11:17 AM   #3247
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,041
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The point of this thread isn’t whether or not our system is broken. There’s a thread for that. Here, we are discussing the actions of the Yale Group.
Who died and made you king of thread drift?

You think I'm off topic? Then report me.


It's all very related. It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand. The question stands.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 11:17 AM   #3248
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You first.





I don't know. It's not at all important to my point. The current system is broken. It's abundantly obvious that this is so. That you, and some few others, can't see this is just gobsmacking to me.


The two primary problems are:

The system wasn't built to deal with party politics.

The system is predicated on the belief that it is impossible for anyone to be a neutral party.

The US system of government (like the UK one) is broken. The mechanism for removing a lunatic from office does not and will never work. It's a problem. You don't seem to be able to accept that it is.
What mechanism would you propose?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 11:22 AM   #3249
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,041
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What mechanism would you propose?
You think I need to have a solution before we can acknowledge there's a problem?

I don't agree.


EDIT: Is this question a tacit admission that there actually is a problem?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 4th January 2020 at 11:30 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 11:54 AM   #3250
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You think I need to have a solution before we can acknowledge there's a problem?
I'm saying it's not necessary to couple the two as closely as you have.

You can point out a flaw you see in the system and propose a fix for it, without needing to agree on a specific instance of the problem your fix is intended to solve or avoid.

Quote:
EDIT: Is this question a tacit admission that there actually is a problem?
No it is not.

Let's bring this back on topic. The Yale group argues that Donald Trump is too crazy to be president, and should be removed for that reason.

There are only three Constitutional methods for removing a president: elections, impeachment, and the 25th amendment.

Presumably you agree with the Yale group, that Donald Trump should be removed from office on account of how crazy he is. The Yale group originally proposed that the 25th amendment should be applied for this purpose. Do you agree with them about that?

If not, what method would you propose, to remove a president you believe is too crazy to hold office?

Like if you could pick up a Time Phone, dial the Founding Fathers, and recommend a constitutional article to address this contingency, what would you tell them? Doesn't have to be fully fleshed out - those guys know how to draft constitutional stuff. Just the basic outline sketch of how you think this problem could be averted by a (slightly) better system of government.

Note that you can answer all these questions based on your own belief that the president is too crazy to hold office, and your own belief that the current system doesn't solve that problem. You don't need me to agree with your beliefs, for you to reason from them and propose solutions based on them.

Last edited by theprestige; 4th January 2020 at 11:56 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 12:04 PM   #3251
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
The current system is broken.
Just to clarify one thing: I don't agree that the current system is broken.

What I think is that the current system is limited. I think it's limited by human nature, and by the simple fact that there are zero better options. Democracy, for all its limitations, for all its crappy little tradeoffs and systemic injustices, is still the least-bad, least-limited system of government there is.

Call it "broken" instead of "limited" if you like, but to me it doesn't make sense to call something broken if it's actually working as well as possible and there's no practical improvement to make.

If you can think of a way to remove a president for being too crazy, that improves on the three methods already laid out in the Constitution, I'd like to hear it. Even if I don't agree that Trump is too crazy to need removing, I can still see the value of providing for such a contingency.

Plus, if you have a method that works better than the current ones, then it's not so important whether I agree with you or not. It doesn't really hurt you to say how you think the Yale Group's recommendation should be handled. Or could be handled, in a better system.

---

ETA: I mean, seriously, what's your point?

You want the president gone. Other people don't.

You don't want to rely on elections to resolve that disagreement.

You don't want to rely on impeachment to resolve it.

You don't want to rely on the Cabinet to resolve it.

How do you want it resolved?

Last edited by theprestige; 4th January 2020 at 12:09 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 12:46 PM   #3252
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The point of this thread isn’t whether or not our system is broken. There’s a thread for that. Here, we are discussing the actions of the Yale Group.

Do you think we can fix our system by allowing random mental health professionals to declare that the President needs a consult and that such declaration should be binding? If not, then what’s your fix for this particular problem? I can say that I definitely don’t think some random group of professionals should have any influence at all.

"Binding" in what sense? And has someone here said it should be binding? (I don't know, I'm asking: I don't recall anyone saying it should be binding, but I may have missed or forgotten such a thing).

Anyway, my point is: I think the majority of people here (that have such an interest regarding Trump) don't want such an alarm to be binding as much as they want people, Trump supporters in particular, to pay sincere attention to the alarm.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 01:21 PM   #3253
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Anyway, my point is: I think the majority of people here (that have such an interest regarding Trump) don't want such an alarm to be binding as much as they want people, Trump supporters in particular, to pay sincere attention to the alarm.
What does "pay sincere attention to the alarm" look like, in your expectation?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 01:24 PM   #3254
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does "pay sincere attention to the alarm" look like, in your expectation?

It doesn't "look like" anything. I can't read people's minds.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 06:05 PM   #3255
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Who died and made you king of thread drift?
Same person who made JJ THE King of Beepers.

Quote:
You think I'm off topic? Then report me.
Not so much off topic but distracting.


Quote:
It's all very related. It's extremely relevant to the topic at hand. The question stands.
No, the system isn’t broken simply because some people aren’t getting their way. You want to subject Trump to some process that doesn’t exist. So what process would you like to see introduced?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 06:08 PM   #3256
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
It doesn't "look like" anything. I can't read people's minds.
Well, if it helps, I've been paying sincere attention to the alarm for years.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 06:19 PM   #3257
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
"Binding" in what sense? And has someone here said it should be binding? (I don't know, I'm asking: I don't recall anyone saying it should be binding, but I may have missed or forgotten such a thing).
No one here has said anything about binding. I’m asking: is that what you want? By “binding” I mean: if a group of professionals publicly declares that the President is mentally ill, should this force some kind of action on the part of The VP, the Cabinet or Congress?

I’d like to know what the Yale Group is supposed to be accomplishing other than selling books and movies.



Quote:
Anyway, my point is: I think the majority of people here (that have such an interest regarding Trump) don't want such an alarm to be binding as much as they want people, Trump supporters in particular, to pay sincere attention to the alarm.
On what basis should we pay sincere attention to the alarm and what does that mean in practical terms.

These professionals speak and I’m just supposed to accept it on their say so and start calling my Congress critters? Doesn’t sound very skeptical.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 4th January 2020 at 06:23 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 06:51 PM   #3258
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
No one here has said anything about binding. I’m asking: is that what you want? By “binding” I mean: if a group of professionals publicly declares that the President is mentally ill, should this force some kind of action on the part of The VP, the Cabinet or Congress?

I’d like to know what the Yale Group is supposed to be accomplishing other than selling books and movies.

I already addressed what I want, and no, I don't want this to actually force action. Paying sincere attention would be sufficient for me.





Quote:
On what basis should we pay sincere attention to the alarm and what does that mean in practical terms.

On the basis that these are medical professionals that feel the alarm is important enough to supersede considerations of professional ethics. And for "what does that mean in practical terms", are you asking what will be the result? You know I can't answer that, outside of the result we're already seeing.

Quote:
These professionals speak and I’m just supposed to accept it on their say so and start calling my Congress critters? Doesn’t sound very skeptical.

Strawman. I never said that and you damn well know I didn't. When I say "Pay sincere attention", there's more that I'm considering beyond the alarm being raised. Theprestige asked a little while ago what paying sincere attention would look like, and I continue to claim that's impossible to know. On the other hand, the fact that so many Trump supporters deny reality (such as one that I saw who refused to believe Trump ever said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and not lose any support) makes it absolutely clear that a hell of a lot of Trump supporters aren't paying sincere attention to the alarm or anything else. I may not be able to recognize when they are paying sincere attention, but I can certainly recognize some instances when they are not.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 07:52 PM   #3259
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I already addressed what I want, and no, I don't want this to actually force action. Paying sincere attention would be sufficient for me.

















On the basis that these are medical professionals that feel the alarm is important enough to supersede considerations of professional ethics.
On what basis should I accept their authority as medical professionals? Why should I accept their breach of ethics? This is a quintessential appeal to authority. The fact that they have advanced degrees and high positions does not mean that their every utterance is imbued with Truth. And it certainly doesn’t mean that they have latitude in making up their own ethical rules or practice medicine non-standardly.

When Dr. Oz speaks in his TV show, not only do I not accept his authority, I question his ability to practice medicine at all. Professionals like Oz have muddied the waters for what a valid medical opinion is -“What Astrological Sign Can Tell You About Your Health” ain’t it-and the members of the Yale Group are doing the same thing.
Quote:
And for "what does that mean in practical terms", are you asking what will be the result? You know I can't answer that, outside of the result we're already seeing.
You want us to do something that you can’t even define?

Quote:
Strawman. I never said that and you damn well know I didn't.
Im trying to suss out what you are asking me to do.
Quote:
When I say "Pay sincere attention", there's more that I'm considering beyond the alarm being raised. Theprestige asked a little while ago what paying sincere attention would look like, and I continue to claim that's impossible to know. On the other hand, the fact that so many Trump supporters deny reality (such as one that I saw who refused to believe Trump ever said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and not lose any support) makes it absolutely clear that a hell of a lot of Trump supporters aren't paying sincere attention to the alarm or anything else. I may not be able to recognize when they are paying sincere attention, but I can certainly recognize some instances when they are not.
Right. “Paying sincere attention,” sounds a lot like “accept what the Yale Group says as the Truth.”


But you can’t even tell me what I’m supposed to do with that Truth. You object to the idea that you want me to actively do something like call my Congresscritter. As such, it only serves to reinforce the idea that what the Yale Group is doing is ultimately meaningless. And I don’t think professionals should be breaching ethics for meaningless reasons.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 08:29 PM   #3260
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
On what basis should I accept their authority as medical professionals? Why should I accept their breach of ethics? This is a quintessential appeal to authority. The fact that they have advanced degrees and high positions does not mean that their every utterance is imbued with Truth. And it certainly doesn’t mean that they have latitude in making up their own ethical rules or practice medicine non-standardly.

You are getting yourself confused here. I never said "They are authorities and therefore everything they say is true", but thanks for yet another strawman demonstration. I said, "They are authorities and therefore you should pay sincere attention to them". It's still your prerogative to reject what they say. But, being authorities, their claims should not simply be dismissed; this isn't "appeal to authority".

Quote:
When Dr. Oz speaks in his TV show, not only do I not accept his authority, I question his ability to practice medicine at all. Professionals like Oz have muddied the waters for what a valid medical opinion is -“What Astrological Sign Can Tell You About Your Health” ain’t it-and the members of the Yale Group are doing the same thing.You want us to do something that you can’t even define?

Absolutely irrelevant to the credibility of anyone other than Oz, but thanks for sharing. Are you attempting some sort of hasty generalization here?

Quote:
Im trying to suss out what you are asking me to do.

That's funny, because I'm trying to suss out why you keep strawmanning my position.


Quote:
Right. “Paying sincere attention,” sounds a lot like “accept what the Yale Group says as the Truth.”

No, it would be more accurate to state that it means "Don't casually dismiss it".


Quote:
But you can’t even tell me what I’m supposed to do with that Truth.

You got that from me saying I'm not sure what you're asking???? A reasonable person would, you know, clarify. Could you try that instead? Please?

And why do you keep using the word "Truth"? I didn't use it. Is it simply your pet strawman that you're having trouble letting go?


Quote:
You object to the idea that you want me to actively do something like call my Congresscritter. As such, it only serves to reinforce the idea that what the Yale Group is doing is ultimately meaningless. And I don’t think professionals should be breaching ethics for meaningless reasons.

Then you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. Just like you're not paying attention to what (or why) these doctors are saying.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 10:29 PM   #3261
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You are getting yourself confused here. I never said "They are authorities and therefore everything they say is true", but thanks for yet another strawman demonstration.
Its impossible to strawman you because you are all over the place.

You very clearly drew a connection between the denial of reality you experience with Trump supporters and your “pay sincere attention,” idea. You don’t know what sincere attention looks like but OTOH you know what denial of reality looks like. The only conclusion I can draw from that is: “not paying sincere attention,” : “denying reality.” If that’s not what you meant, you need to be a lot clearer.

Quote:
I said, "They are authorities and therefore you should pay sincere attention to them". It's still your prerogative to reject what they say. But, being authorities, their claims should not simply be dismissed; this isn't "appeal to authority".
. Do you think I’m not paying attention to them? Do you think I’m not sincere in my position? Do you think I’ve just casually dismissed them?



Quote:
Absolutely irrelevant to the credibility of anyone other than Oz, but thanks for sharing. Are you attempting some sort of hasty generalization here?
Dr Oz makes public his professional opinions about non-standard medical practice, which hits on ethical issues. This also describes the Yale Group.

Quote:
No, it would be more accurate to state that it means "Don't casually dismiss it".
What if I consider the ethical issues, do some research on the positions pro and con and then dismiss it...is that casual or considered?



Quote:
You got that from me saying I'm not sure what you're asking???? A reasonable person would, you know, clarify. Could you try that instead? Please?



And why do you keep using the word "Truth"? I didn't use it. Is it simply your pet strawman that you're having trouble letting go?
You used “reality.” I substituted “truth.” If I deny reality am I not also denying the truth?



Quote:
Then you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. Just like you're not paying attention to what (or why) these doctors are saying.
Like I said: I am paying attention. I just don’t agree with them.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 4th January 2020 at 10:32 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 12:02 AM   #3262
Cabbage
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Its impossible to strawman you because you are all over the place.

Except, curiously, frequently I've never said the things you claim I do. Strawman.

Quote:
You very clearly drew a connection between the denial of reality you experience with Trump supporters and your “pay sincere attention,” idea. You don’t know what sincere attention looks like but OTOH you know what denial of reality looks like. The only conclusion I can draw from that is: “not paying sincere attention,” : “denying reality.” If that’s not what you meant, you need to be a lot clearer.

I've explained it, you're simply not thinking it through clearly. I'll try again. Please sincerely listen this time:

I don't know what sincere attention looks like. It's internal to the individual. Someone could sincerely listen to what the psychiatrists/psychologists/whatever (PPW) are saying, listen but honestly disagree, and I would be unable to determine if they took it sincerely or not. Their position was not changed, but that does not imply they didn't give the PPW a sincere listen.

Are you with me so far?

On the other hand, when I see a Trump fan base that has established a pattern of ignoring facts that are contrary to their imaginary narrative, and that furthermore go on to scoff, insult, and dismiss PPW, it's quite clear that they are merely following a pattern of not sincerely paying attention to anything that challenges their Trump! MAGA mindset.


Quote:
Do you think I’m not paying attention to them? Do you think I’m not sincere in my position? Do you think I’ve just casually dismissed them?

No, I do not think that. I really have no idea whether you have or not.



Quote:
Dr Oz makes public his professional opinions about non-standard medical practice, which hits on ethical issues. This also describes the Yale Group.

That does not imply that Oz is representative of the Yale Group's credibility. I don't know what you might call it, but that's clearly a fallacy you're employing there, trying to transfer properties of Oz to the Yale Group on a flimsy association.

Quote:
What if I consider the ethical issues, do some research on the positions pro and con and then dismiss it...is that casual or considered?

That sounds like you're researching the ethical issues while entirely ignoring the alarm being raised on Trump, so of course that would be casually dismissive (as you presented it). It's not really clear what you're trying to say here, honestly: There's some ambiguity regarding Trump alarm and ethical issues. For which are you researching the pros and cons?



Quote:
You used “reality.” I substituted “truth.” If I deny reality am I not also denying the truth?

I used "reality" to describe that which Trump supporters have a habit of ignoring. I did not use it with respect to the Trump alarm being raised by PPW--I referred to that as an alarm worth sincere consideration, not "Truth".

Why must you always strawman me so?





Quote:
Like I said: I am paying attention. I just don’t agree with them.

Honestly, you're not doing a very good job of paying attention to me (what with the strawmanning and your issues with even understanding the fact that you strawmanned me) so, to tell the truth, you don't have a good track record for that.

Last edited by Cabbage; 5th January 2020 at 12:05 AM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 02:10 AM   #3263
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,969
All this talk of the system being "broken" is valid from my viewpoint. Just a couple of points.

The Constitution does not state it, but the infamous DOJ memo declaring that a President cannot be indicted while in office is revealing itself as a wrong decision. This effectively puts the POTUS above the law as long as he can stay in office.

The reliance upon impeachment or the 25th amendment solution to rid the Office of an unfit Prez does not account for party political partisanship.

The Goldwater Rule has become a weapon against any valid observation of unfitness that could present a danger.

Bit by bit, society has both ceded power and built up a formidable array of defences that an unscrupulous POTUS and enablers/supporters can too easily wield in order to shield against any just recourse.

If any good should come from this wreck of an Administration, it should be a codification into Law robust policy against the lamentable oversights permitting a rogue Presidency.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 09:43 AM   #3264
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,733
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
What if I consider the ethical issues, do some research on the positions pro and con and then dismiss it...is that casual or considered?
.....
You don't seem willing to separate a narrow view of the shrinks' ethical responsibilities -- a view that is subject to responsible debate -- with the actual facts they cite. Multiple experienced psychiatrists and psychologists contend quite persuasively that D. Trump is displaying plain evidence of severe psychiatric disorders based on his lifetime of public and known private speech and conduct. You don't claim they're wrong; you just claim they should keep their mouths shut.

But the Goldwater rule doesn't change the facts. If Trump appeared in public with a big purple lump on his forehead, doctors would be free to debate the cause and prognosis. If he started dragging one foot behind him, doctors could talk about that, too. His psychiatric discorders are as self-evident as any physical disability could be; why should experts withhold their knowledge?

By comparison, if Trump's accountants released 40 years of his tax returns, it would be a violation of their ethical responsiblities and probably a federal crime. But saying "Aw, they shouldn't have done that" wouldn't change the numbers on the page.

Last edited by Bob001; 5th January 2020 at 09:44 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 10:04 AM   #3265
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You don't seem willing to separate a narrow view of the shrinks' ethical responsibilities -- a view that is subject to responsible debate -- with the actual facts they cite. Multiple experienced psychiatrists and psychologists contend quite persuasively that D. Trump is displaying plain evidence of severe psychiatric disorders based on his lifetime of public and known private speech and conduct. You don't claim they're wrong; you just claim they should keep their mouths shut.

But the Goldwater rule doesn't change the facts. If Trump appeared in public with a big purple lump on his forehead, doctors would be free to debate the cause and prognosis. If he started dragging one foot behind him, doctors could talk about that, too. His psychiatric discorders are as self-evident as any physical disability could be; why should experts withhold their knowledge?

By comparison, if Trump's accountants released 40 years of his tax returns, it would be a violation of their ethical responsiblities and probably a federal crime. But saying "Aw, they shouldn't have done that" wouldn't change the numbers on the page.


Trump’s accountants have access to his actual tax records. If Trump’s doctors, out of a “duty to warn,” released his medical records documenting a lifetime of struggles with mental illness, this would be a whole different conversation.

We have no “numbers on the page,” here. And mental illness is not so cut and dried like accounting.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 01:47 PM   #3266
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,969
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Trump’s accountants have access to his actual tax records. If Trump’s doctors, out of a “duty to warn,” released his medical records documenting a lifetime of struggles with mental illness, this would be a whole different conversation.

We have no “numbers on the page,” here. And mental illness is not so cut and dried like accounting.
True, not so cut and dried. This gives Trump's defenders a most handy out when even professionals in the field provide warnings, by saying in effect, "Hold on! You haven't examined him IN PERSON!! Therefore we MUST give Trump every benefit of the doubt. Because it's not simple, like accounting or his taxes."
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 02:46 PM   #3267
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
True, not so cut and dried. This gives Trump's defenders a most handy out when even professionals in the field provide warnings, by saying in effect, "Hold on! You haven't examined him IN PERSON!! Therefore we MUST give Trump every benefit of the doubt. Because it's not simple, like accounting or his taxes."
Pretty much. You say "handy out". I say "responsible practice of medicine".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 03:36 PM   #3268
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,596
I wonder why those who support Trump find their lay persons version of how medicine should be practiced to be so much more important than advising the population of their country that they are being governed by a lunatic. It is solely an attempted distraction, and has nothing to do with the correctness of the opinion.

A medical diagnosis is intended for one person only - the person who has been diagnosed. It is intended as a direct basis for treatment.

A medical opinion can be provided in a number of different circumstances, many of which have already been described in this thread, and is usually not intended to lead directly to treatment. It can, but not necessarily, be a recommendation that the afflicted person obtain a diagnosis.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 06:10 PM   #3269
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,576
It's a pity the responsible practice of medicine so championed here does not extend to other branches. How refreshing it would be, for example, to hear the same voice raised against putting our nation's practice of obstetrics in the hands of ignorant fools.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 07:50 PM   #3270
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I wonder why those who support Trump find their lay persons version of how medicine should be practiced to be so much more important than advising the population of their country that they are being governed by a lunatic. It is solely an attempted distraction, and has nothing to do with the correctness of the opinion.



A medical diagnosis is intended for one person only - the person who has been diagnosed. It is intended as a direct basis for treatment.



A medical opinion can be provided in a number of different circumstances, many of which have already been described in this thread, and is usually not intended to lead directly to treatment. It can, but not necessarily, be a recommendation that the afflicted person obtain a diagnosis.


I find it strange that a defense of good medicine is somehow attributed to support for Trump.

What the Yale Group is doing isn’t forensic medicine; forensic medicine has standards and protocols.

What they are doing is somewhat akin to psychobiography which is itself controversial in the field. But even psychobiography is developing standards and protocols.

There is no evidence that the Yale Group is following any standards and protocols.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 08:10 PM   #3271
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,596
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I find it strange that a defense of good medicine is somehow attributed to support for Trump.

What the Yale Group is doing isn’t forensic medicine; forensic medicine has standards and protocols.

What they are doing is somewhat akin to psychobiography which is itself controversial in the field. But even psychobiography is developing standards and protocols.

There is no evidence that the Yale Group is following any standards and protocols.
What has the Yale group said about Trump that is ncorrect?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 05:04 AM   #3272
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,969
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Pretty much. You say "handy out". I say "responsible practice of medicine".
And I suppose you are the arbiter of "responsible practice of medicine."

Who natters on about the 'irresponsible' conveyance of a professional diagnosis that necessarily must obtain in an environment where the subject demands remoteness--amd is shielded--from any immediate and close assessment.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 08:48 AM   #3273
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
What has the Yale group said about Trump that is ncorrect?
Impossible for us to determine.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 08:51 AM   #3274
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It's a pity the responsible practice of medicine so championed here does not extend to other branches. How refreshing it would be, for example, to hear the same voice raised against putting our nation's practice of obstetrics in the hands of ignorant fools.
It's a democracy. If you can think of a better way to decide who's in charge, let us know.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 08:51 AM   #3275
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
And I suppose you are the arbiter of "responsible practice of medicine."
The American Psychiatric Association is.

Quote:
Who natters on about the 'irresponsible' conveyance of a professional diagnosis that necessarily must obtain in an environment where the subject demands remoteness--amd is shielded--from any immediate and close assessment.
Uh yeah, mental health diagnosis should be a confidential matter between a patient and their doctor with the goal of finding treatment. It's not for anyone else to assess and it should be done in private.

To say otherwise is, frankly, kind of scary.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 08:52 AM   #3276
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,177
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a democracy. If you can think of a better way to decide who's in charge, let us know.
No, no. We are supposed to say, "You are right, bruto! We should leave abortion to patients and their OB/GYNs."
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 09:17 AM   #3277
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
No, no. We are supposed to say, "You are right, bruto! We should leave abortion to patients and their OB/GYNs."
I hope you're not arguing for medical deregulation, but if you are, you should probably start a separate thread for it. Or else switch the subject from obstetrics to psychiatry, and relate it back to the Yale group's public comments.

ETA: My bad. I thought it was Bruto I was replying to. Sorry about that.

Last edited by theprestige; 6th January 2020 at 09:24 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 09:37 AM   #3278
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,596
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Impossible for us to determine.
I think you should provide only your own opinion on this matter and not speak for others. There are quite a few posters here who seem to have determined that the Yale group's position is in fact correct. And very few who have determined that it is incorrect.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 09:46 AM   #3279
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think you should provide only your own opinion on this matter and not speak for others. There are quite a few posters here who seem to have determined that the Yale group's position is in fact correct. And very few who have determined that it is incorrect.
There are a few posters who think we can't make a medical determination either way. There are lots of posters who think we can, and that the Yale group's determination is correct.

But it's also unnecessary to determine whether the Yale group is medically correct. There's broad agreement in this thread that we know enough about Trump to determine that he's some kind of crazy, with or without the Yale group's input.

We've had people in this thread arguing that it's enough to read his Twitter feed and cross-reference it with a checklist from the DSM, and from that any layman can make an informed decision about whether he should stay or go.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 10:06 AM   #3280
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,741
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
And I suppose you are the arbiter of "responsible practice of medicine."
An arbiter, yeah.

I'm an arbiter in the sense that it's ultimately up to me to decide for myself what makes sense and what doesn't.

And I'm an arbiter in the sense that in a democracy, it is ultimately up to the lay citizens to decide what is and is not policy. Most of us delegate or dismiss that authority, but it's still properly our authority that arbitrates this question, not the authority of the medical professional.

And really, a doctor should be able to explain a problem of responsible practice of medicine in terms that their patient can understand and make informed decisions about. In no sane, humanitarian world does Dr Mengele, or Dr Oz, or Dr Lee, or any other damn medical professional get to say, "I'm the doctor. I get to decide what's responsible. You're the patient. You get to shut up and lie still under the knife."

Quote:
Who natters on about the 'irresponsible' conveyance of a professional diagnosis that necessarily must obtain in an environment where the subject demands remoteness--amd is shielded--from any immediate and close assessment.
Who uses "natters"? Why the dismissive language? Are you trying to dismiss this conversation instead of participate in it?

Anyway, if you lack the resources to do something responsibly, that is not a license to do it irresponsibly instead.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.