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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , donald trump , mental illness issues , psychiatry incidents , psychiatry issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 15th February 2021, 07:06 PM   #1641
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,341
I do wonder what level of craziness and what level of damage would, in the minds of some here, suffice to say maybe the tipping point has been reached.

I seem to recall that not too long ago a delusional megalomaniac's insistent lies led to his followers trashing the Capitol, whereupon he confirmed the lies and told them he loved them. Move along, nothing to see here. Wake me when the air raid sirens go off.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:10 PM   #1642
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I do wonder what level of craziness and what level of damage would, in the minds of some here, suffice to say maybe the tipping point has been reached.

I seem to recall that not too long ago a delusional megalomaniac's insistent lies led to his followers trashing the Capitol, whereupon he confirmed the lies and told them he loved them. Move along, nothing to see here. Wake me when the air raid sirens go off.
I dunno...I need to talk to him in person first to know what motivates him....
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 11:45 AM   #1643
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
When someone is so desperate that they put an actual professional in quotation marks in an effort to minimize his professional opinion and tells us Dr. Frank can't know Trump's motivations without meeting with him in person, there's a pretty good chance the appeal to authority fallacy charge could be coming next. I thought I might just go ahead and head that baby off at the pass.

You can cite him as an expert because he is indeed an expert. But being an expert does not make every utterance that issues forth from their gravitas-laden voice necessarily true.

At best, what Dr. Frank said (notice I used the honorific) is a professionalís educated guess that should be qualified and disclaimed appropriately. It may be true; it may not be true. He did not do that.

You cite authorities who agree with your point of view. You dismiss authorities who disagree with your POV. You want confirmation bias in any form and you are willing to defend utter nonsense in that pursuit.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 11:52 AM   #1644
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I do wonder what level of craziness and what level of damage would, in the minds of some here, suffice to say maybe the tipping point has been reached.

I seem to recall that not too long ago a delusional megalomaniac's insistent lies led to his followers trashing the Capitol, whereupon he confirmed the lies and told them he loved them. Move along, nothing to see here. Wake me when the air raid sirens go off.

I believe you are missing the point or constructing a strawman. I donít know anyone in this thread who has said Trumpís behavior was acceptable. Absolutely no one, certainly not I, is defending Trumpís sanity or behavior.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 11:58 AM   #1645
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 88,013
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You can cite him as an expert because he is indeed an expert. But being an expert does not make every utterance that issues forth from their gravitas-laden voice necessarily true.

At best, what Dr. Frank said (notice I used the honorific) is a professional’s educated guess that should be qualified and disclaimed appropriately. It may be true; it may not be true. He did not do that....
So medical professionals should tell their patients, it's only an educated guess what their diagnosis is if the professional is going by observed symptoms and not direct lab reports?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 02:02 PM   #1646
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
When someone is so desperate that they put an actual professional in quotation marks in an effort to minimize his professional opinion and tells us Dr. Frank can't know Trump's motivations without meeting with him in person, there's a pretty good chance the appeal to authority fallacy charge could be coming next. I thought I might just go ahead and head that baby off at the pass.
You can cite him as an expert because he is indeed an expert. But being an expert does not make every utterance that issues forth from their gravitas-laden voice necessarily true.
Would you point out where I said it did? That does not change the fact that you attempted to minimize his professional opinion simply because you do not agree with it based on your own completely non-professional opinion.
Quote:
At best, what Dr. Frank said (notice I used the honorific) is a professionalís educated guess that should be qualified and disclaimed appropriately. It may be true; it may not be true. He did not do that.
Do you want a slap on the back and a "hail-fellow-well-met" for using a title that Dr. Frank earned? Ok: Well done, xjx 388!
Dr. Frank gave his professional opinion in an online article. He was not writing an in-depth diagnosis. If you want more details, I suggest you read his book: Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President

Quote:
You cite authorities who agree with your point of view. You dismiss authorities who disagree with your POV.
And what view is that? That Trump is dangerously mentally ill? What authorities have been presented who disagree with that for me to dismiss? I think the events of the last several months have cemented that argument.

Quote:
You want confirmation bias in any form and you are willing to defend utter nonsense in that pursuit.
Projecting much there? At this rate, you're going to have to get rid of the hand shovel and buy a back hoe.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 03:17 PM   #1647
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22,924
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I believe you are missing the point or constructing a strawman. I donít know anyone in this thread who has said Trumpís behavior was acceptable. Absolutely no one, certainly not I, is defending Trumpís sanity or behavior.
You are not defending his sanity. But you have consistently denied that there was sufficient evidence that something was wrong with his sanity.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 03:42 PM   #1648
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
You are not defending his sanity. But you have consistently denied that there was sufficient evidence that something was wrong with his sanity.
More specifically, that no doctor could make that diagnosis ethically without an in-person interview. Basically, "I can't tell he's a sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder unless I see him person when all I've got are decades of written and videotaped interviews, decades of his public behavior, decades of his private behavior by people who know him intimately including family members, friends, and close associates."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 04:02 PM   #1649
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
You are not defending his sanity. But you have consistently denied that there was sufficient evidence that something was wrong with his sanity.
No, I haven't. Anyone is free to observe him and make such a general conclusion. NBD. I have come to such a conclusion myself. The guy is loco en la cabeza.

My problem is with professionals with undisputed expertise in psychiatry/psychology making a definitive diagnosis on people they've never met. It's not only unethical but outside their scope of practice. Can they make an educated guess about those people from public domain observations? Sure, if they make it clear that it's an educated guess, not a definitive statement. Can they speak their minds as citizens and not as professionals? Absolutely.

But that's not what Dr. Frank did. It's not what the Yale Group did. They made definitive statements. They gave us their professional opinions. That's simply wrong. It's unprofessional behavior.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 04:10 PM   #1650
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
More specifically, that no doctor could make that diagnosis ethically without an in-person interview. Basically, "I can't tell he's a sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder unless I see him person when all I've got are decades of written and videotaped interviews, decades of his public behavior, decades of his private behavior by people who know him intimately including family members, friends, and close associates."
Can you point to any written or videotaped interview, instance of public behavior, or an account of his private behavior by friends, family and close associates that would indicate that Trump is "turned on" by the, in his mind, erotic actions of his followers? Is there a report that someone caught him masturbating to the Jan 6th insurrection, because, hey! Maybe I might have missed that . . .

OR, is it possible that Dr. Frank is perhaps stretching things a bit too far?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 04:29 PM   #1651
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Can you point to any written or videotaped interview, instance of public behavior, or an account of his private behavior by friends, family and close associates that would indicate that Trump is "turned on" by the, in his mind, erotic actions of his followers? Is there a report that someone caught him masturbating to the Jan 6th insurrection, because, hey! Maybe I might have missed that . . .

OR, is it possible that Dr. Frank is perhaps stretching things a bit too far?
My post, which you are responding to, was not specifically in reference to Dr. Frank's opinion regarding Trump's erotic reaction to the riot. Nor was jimbob's. Like I said, if you want delve into that, I suggest you read Dr. Frank's book on Trump. Or maybe you could email the doctor directly.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:40 PM   #1652
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So medical professionals should tell their patients, it's only an educated guess what their diagnosis is if the professional is going by observed symptoms and not direct lab reports?

I presume they, you know, actually talk to their patients? In that case, they are following the standards of their profession. Good enough for me.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:47 PM   #1653
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I presume they, you know, actually talk to their patients? In that case, they are following the standards of their profession. Good enough for me.
Doctors don't normally have the amount of info on their everyday patients that they have on Trump, do they?

Do you think Trump would ever talk to mental health professional? Hell, he knows more about mental health than any professional in history since Sigmund Freud! People are saying 'Sir, how do you know so much about mental health? You just has a natural knack for it!" Must be his good genes and the fact he had a sociopath for a father.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:54 PM   #1654
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
My post, which you are responding to, was not specifically in reference to Dr. Frank's opinion regarding Trump's erotic reaction to the riot. Nor was jimbob's. Like I said, if you want delve into that, I suggest you read Dr. Frank's book on Trump. Or maybe you could email the doctor directly.

Why would I read a book that is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny? No thanks.

This whole back and forth was sparked by my comment about the ludicrousosity (should be a word, dammit!) of Dr Frankís statement. You guys then deflected that by arguing that heís an expert and Iím not or by strawmanning about how I am somehow defending Trumpís sanity. But you never explicitly agreed or disagreed with me.

Iím just trying to keep you guys on track. Stop deflecting and just answer the fundamental question: was Dr Frankís statement made according to good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice or not? That question can be answered without reference to me and with a simple yes or no.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 07:58 PM   #1655
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why would I read a book that is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny? No thanks.

This whole back and forth was sparked by my comment about the ludicrousosity (should be a word, dammit!) of Dr Frankís statement. You guys then deflected that by arguing that heís an expert and Iím not or by strawmanning about how I am somehow defending Trumpís sanity. But you never explicitly agreed or disagreed with me.

Iím just trying to keep you guys on track. Stop deflecting and just answer the fundamental question: was Dr Frankís statement made according to good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice or not? That question can be answered without reference to me and with a simple yes or no.
It's my family's dinner time. I'll respond later.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 12:33 AM   #1656
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why would I read a book that is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny? No thanks.
First of all, you don't know his book "is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny" at all. Secondly, you don't know they are 'fantasies' at all because you have ZERO psychological expertise unlike Dr. Frank. Third, as I already said, my post, which you responded to, was not specifically in reference to Dr. Frank's opinion regarding Trump's erotic reaction to the riot. Nor was jimbob's.


Quote:
This whole back and forth was sparked by my comment about the ludicrousosity (should be a word, dammit!) of Dr Frankís statement. You guys then deflected that by arguing that heís an expert and Iím not
And there it is! The "appealing to authority fallacy" attempt. And none of this "you guys" stuff. You address MY posts to you. I wasn't "deflecting" anything. I simply pointed out that he based his opinion on his training and experience as a psychiatrist while you based your opinion on ...what exactly? You never did say other than "I said that itís stupid for a professional to say something like that and I donít need to be a professional to know thatís true.

Quote:
or by strawmanning about how I am somehow defending Trumpís sanity. But you never explicitly agreed or disagreed with me.
I never said you were defending Trump's sanity.

Quote:
Iím just trying to keep you guys on track. Stop deflecting and just answer the fundamental question: was Dr Frankís statement made according to good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice or not? That question can be answered without reference to me and with a simple yes or no.
Once again, you're back to your standard go-to of the Goldwater Rule; it's the hill you retreat to when you have nowhere else to go. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you get it through your head: I do not agree with you that good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice requires an in-person evaluation to be able to understand how Donald Trump's mind works. Nor do a large contingent of ethical and highly competent mental health practitioners as evidenced by the amount who have written about his mental health and its dangerousness. But, undoubtedly, you'll be right back here whingeing as you mount your flag heroically on Mount Ethics trying to convince me same time tomorrow.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 05:07 AM   #1657
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,099
I’m trying to figure out what specific questions a mental health professional would ask the president to get a better understanding of his state of mind.

Isn’t there enough evidence to conclude that he falls somewhere between having a mild compulsion to tell lies and being constitutionally incapable of telling the truth? Would mental health professionals learn something from the type of lies that Trump would tell them? Because he surely won’t be saying anything truthful.

What is gained from the live interview when there are hundreds of hours of videotape and more than one official biography in which he explains what is most important to him? We have years and years of his decisions that no one interviewing a patient could ever hope to have.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 10:11 AM   #1658
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,668
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I’m trying to figure out what specific questions a mental health professional would ask the president to get a better understanding of his state of mind.

Isn’t there enough evidence to conclude that he falls somewhere between having a mild compulsion to tell lies and being constitutionally incapable of telling the truth? Would mental health professionals learn something from the type of lies that Trump would tell them? Because he surely won’t be saying anything truthful.

What is gained from the live interview when there are hundreds of hours of videotape and more than one official biography in which he explains what is most important to him? We have years and years of his decisions that no one interviewing a patient could ever hope to have.
My thoughts, as mooted earlier in this thread. How a layperson could imagine that an hour or two spent by a professional in a face-to-face with T**** would magically unveil unimagined motivations, or upturn existing impressions and understanding gained via *decades* of observation of the creature in its natural habitat amazes me.

It truly is to figuratively stick fingers in ears when claiming in this unique case of a long-known public figure that we can't know the nature of the beast without that definitive, determinative, in-person examination. As if only that alone can supply at long last the key to understanding.

The world already has this damaged specimen pretty well pegged.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 10:45 AM   #1659
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
My thoughts, as mooted earlier in this thread. How a layperson could imagine that an hour or two spent by a professional in a face-to-face with T**** would magically unveil unimagined motivations, or upturn existing impressions and understanding gained via *decades* of observation of the creature in its natural habitat amazes me.

It truly is to figuratively stick fingers in ears when claiming in this unique case of a long-known public figure that we can't know the nature of the beast without that definitive, determinative, in-person examination. As if only that alone can supply at long last the key to understanding.

The world already has this damaged specimen pretty well pegged.
Agreed. The Donald we see is the only Donald that exists is what Mary T. has already explained. There is no other Donald that lies under the surface. He's not going to reveal anything more to a psychologist because there is nothing more.

Quote:
Donald does not know who he is because he doesn't have an identity. Donald does not have a core. He is a completely false self. He is somebody ó and to me this is a sign of serious psychopathy ó who is exactly the same whether he is in front of a crowd of 50,000 people or in a room with his wife or his children, whether he's in a Cabinet meeting or hanging out on the golf course. He is the same person across every circumstance. That is deeply disturbing. Donald is entirely a construct. The question is, what happens when there's nobody watching anymore? He ceases to exist, essentially.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 11:20 AM   #1660
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Iím trying to figure out what specific questions a mental health professional would ask the president to get a better understanding of his state of mind.
It's not something you just figure out in your head; I mean, that's the kind of stuff you learn when you train to be a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. There are a host of tools, such as semi-structured interviews, that can be used to guide the patient to elicit the info that will gain insight into a subject's state of mind.



Quote:
Isnít there enough evidence to conclude that he falls somewhere between having a mild compulsion to tell lies and being constitutionally incapable of telling the truth? Would mental health professionals learn something from the type of lies that Trump would tell them? Because he surely wonít be saying anything truthful.

What is gained from the live interview when there are hundreds of hours of videotape and more than one official biography in which he explains what is most important to him? We have years and years of his decisions that no one interviewing a patient could ever hope to have.
Ask the APA. They have good answers that have not been seriously challenged here.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 11:25 AM   #1661
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
My thoughts, as mooted earlier in this thread. How a layperson could imagine that an hour or two spent by a professional in a face-to-face with T**** would magically unveil unimagined motivations, or upturn existing impressions and understanding gained via *decades* of observation of the creature in its natural habitat amazes me.

It truly is to figuratively stick fingers in ears when claiming in this unique case of a long-known public figure that we can't know the nature of the beast without that definitive, determinative, in-person examination. As if only that alone can supply at long last the key to understanding.

The world already has this damaged specimen pretty well pegged.
You and most of the rest of the world know the nature of the beast, by your own observations, well enough to know that he isn't fit to be President. I'm not disputing that at all.

What I am disputing is the idea that an accurate assessment, by professionals, of his exact mental state (an accurate mental diagnosis) and the degree to which he is dangerous in the clinical sense can be made by simply observing his public behavior or talking to family members who don't like him.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 11:38 AM   #1662
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
First of all, you don't know his book "is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny" at all.
It's my impression based on the quoted interview. That statement does not engneder confidence that it's worth reading.
Quote:
<snip>

And there it is! The "appealing to authority fallacy" attempt.
Well, if the shoe fits . . .
Quote:
And none of this "you guys" stuff. You address MY posts to you. I wasn't "deflecting" anything. I simply pointed out that he based his opinion on his training and experience as a psychiatrist while you based your opinion on ...what exactly? You never did say other than "I said that itís stupid for a professional to say something like that and I donít need to be a professional to know thatís true.
Because I understand the ethical issues and practice standards involved, my status as a professional is irrelevant. It was a stupid thing for a professional to say and -no, I don't think he based his opinion on his training and experience. Nothing in his training or experience would enable him to read the mind of someone else. His training and experience doesn't enable him to determine, without any concrete evidence of such, what makes someone else horny. He's guessing. Fantasizing, if I put on my fake psychoanalyst hat.

Quote:
I never said you were defending Trump's sanity.



Once again, you're back to your standard go-to of the Goldwater Rule; it's the hill you retreat to when you have nowhere else to go. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you get it through your head: I do not agree with you that good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice requires an in-person evaluation to be able to understand how Donald Trump's mind works.
I don't need you to agree. It's enough for me that the major professional organizations agree.
Quote:
Nor do a large contingent of ethical and highly competent mental health practitioners
Questionable based on their flouting of ethical standards and non-standard practice of their profession.
Quote:
as evidenced by the amount who have written about his mental health and its dangerousness.
Agumentum ad populum.
Quote:
But, undoubtedly, you'll be right back here whingeing as you mount your flag heroically on Mount Ethics trying to convince me same time tomorrow.
I would hope I could convince you but I know it's hopeless. Your biases are way too confirmed by this stuff. I'm not "whingeing," I'm simply countering your arguments and I will continue to do so as long as you continue making them. I'm sorry you don't agree or want to hear it; ce la vie.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 02:22 PM   #1663
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
First of all, you don't know his book "is clearly predicated on Dr Frankís fantasies about what gets Trump horny" at all.
It's my impression based on the quoted interview. That statement does not engneder confidence that it's worth reading.
So you admit you don't know it's "clearly predicated" on his "fantasies" at all. It's just your "impression". Glad we got that cleared up.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<snip>

And there it is! The "appealing to authority fallacy" attempt.


Well, if the shoe fits . . .
As Skeptic Ginger said, citing experts is not a fallacy.


Quote:

Quote:
And none of this "you guys" stuff. You address MY posts to you. I wasn't "deflecting" anything. I simply pointed out that he based his opinion on his training and experience as a psychiatrist while you based your opinion on ...what exactly? You never did say other than "I said that itís stupid for a professional to say something like that and I donít need to be a professional to know thatís true.
Because I understand the ethical issues and practice standards involved, my status as a professional is irrelevant. It was a stupid thing for a professional to say and -no, I don't think he based his opinion on his training and experience. Nothing in his training or experience would enable him to read the mind of someone else. His training and experience doesn't enable him to determine, without any concrete evidence of such, what makes someone else horny. He's guessing. Fantasizing, if I put on my fake psychoanalyst hat.
Dr. Frank understands the "ethical issues and practice standards involved" every bit, if not better, than you do. However, Frank faces no ethical constraints with the Goldwater rule because "He left the association right around the time he published the first of his president-on-the-couch books. Today, he thinks the Goldwater Rule ought to be scrapped" according to the Washingtonian.
Your insistence that he's "reading Trump's mind" and basing his opinion on his own "fantasies" rather than basing it on his years of training and experience is ironic since you are the one who seems to be reading Frank's mind. As for needing "concrete evidence" to know what makes Trump "horny" are you claiming he needs to see Trump actually get an erection to determine what Trump finds erotic?

Quote:
Quote:
Once again, you're back to your standard go-to of the Goldwater Rule; it's the hill you retreat to when you have nowhere else to go. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you get it through your head: I do not agree with you that good/ethical psychiatric/psychological practice requires an in-person evaluation to be able to understand how Donald Trump's mind works.
I don't need you to agree. It's enough for me that the major professional organizations agree.
Good, because I don't. Now, what was that about Agumentum ad populum you brought up below? Someone wants their cake and to eat it, too.

Quote:
Quote:
Nor do a large contingent of ethical and highly competent mental health practitioners
Questionable based on their flouting of ethical standards and non-standard practice of their profession.
So now it's plural "ethical standards" AND "non-standard practice"? I thought it was just the Goldwater rule they were breaking? What other ethical standards are they breaking? What "non-standard practice" are they committing other than not interviewing Trump in person, which is basically the same thing as breaking the Goldwater rule?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
as evidenced by the amount who have written about his mental health and its dangerousness.
Argumentum ad populum.
So now it's ok to use argumentum ad populum? How convenient for you.

Quote:
I would hope I could convince you but I know it's hopeless. Your biases are way too confirmed by this stuff. I'm not "whingeing," I'm simply countering your arguments and I will continue to do so as long as you continue making them. I'm sorry you don't agree or want to hear it; ce c'est la vie.
FTFY. If this is 'countering my arguments', I suggest you try a different tactic because you're failing miserably. Might I suggest something other than "it's just stupid because I know it is" and "he's not using his training or experience to form his opinions, he's just mind reading because it's my impression."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 03:53 PM   #1664
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So you admit you don't know it's "clearly predicated" on his "fantasies" at all. It's just your "impression". Glad we got that cleared up.
Pedantry.

My opinion is that his book is crap, just on it's face. How can he write a book entitled, "Trump on the Couch," when Trump has not, in fact, ever been on his couch? Did you know he wrote one about Obama too, "Obama on the Couch?" Here's a quote:

ďBy ordering and overseeing the successful raid on Osama bin LadenÖObama gained invaluable and unprecedented experience in confronting and expressing his [own] murderous impulses.Ē

Who knew Obama was a closet murderer? Sounds dangerous! And it must be true because Dr. Justin Frank is an experienced psychoanalyst and expert in the field, right?

For the record, that bit I quoted was just as, if not more, stupid than the bit about Trump finding sexual pleasure from his followers. Do you think Dr. Frank is right about Obama? Is that good psychiatric practice?

Quote:
As Skeptic Ginger said, citing experts is not a fallacy.
When you quote an expert, it's not necessarily a fallacy; but, it can be.

Quote:
Dr. Frank understands the "ethical issues and practice standards involved" every bit, if not better, than you do. However, Frank faces no ethical constraints with the Goldwater rule because "He left the association right around the time he published the first of his president-on-the-couch books.
It's not a good look when you leave a professional organization because their ethics constrain you from making money on books.
Quote:
Today, he thinks the Goldwater Rule ought to be scrapped" according to the Washingtonian.
Of course he does.
Quote:
Your insistence that he's "reading Trump's mind" and basing his opinion on his own "fantasies" rather than basing it on his years of training and experience is ironic since you are the one who seems to be reading Frank's mind. As for needing "concrete evidence" to know what makes Trump "horny" are you claiming he needs to see Trump actually get an erection to determine what Trump finds erotic?
Well that might help. But the fact is that there is no evidence that Trump actually finds the worship from his followers sexually stimulating. I think it's rather obvious that he enjoys such worship, being the narcissist that he is, but that doesn't mean he finds it "erotic." That's a guess from Dr. Frank, not a certainty. It's what Dr. Frank imagines to be true, not what he knows for a fact to be true.

Quote:
Good, because I don't. Now, what was that about Agumentum ad populum you brought up below? Someone wants their cake and to eat it, too.
Not sure what you mean here.
Quote:
So now it's plural "ethical standards" AND "non-standard practice"? I thought it was just the Goldwater rule they were breaking?
Whatever gave you that impression? I mean, yes, that's a big ethical breach, but not the only one. And there are no standards of practice in Psychiatry/Psychology that allow for remote assessment of subjects.
Quote:
What other ethical standards are they breaking? What "non-standard practice" are they committing other than not interviewing Trump in person, which is basically the same thing as breaking the Goldwater rule?
They are related but not the same. The rule exists because it's unethical to incorporate unproven, non-standard methods into your medical practice. The Goldwater Rule is merely a very specific instance of that general rule.

Quote:
So now it's ok to use argumentum ad populum? How convenient for you.
It's exactly what you are doing.

Quote:
FTFY.
Forgive my fo'paw.
Quote:
If this is 'countering my arguments', I suggest you try a different tactic because you're failing miserably.
Of course I am; like I said, your biases are well-confirmed by these professionals telling you exactly what you want to hear.
Quote:
Might I suggest something other than "it's just stupid because I know it is" and "he's not using his training or experience to form his opinions, he's just mind reading because it's my impression."
Sure, I can try.

Psychiatric/psychological practice does not have an accepted method to assess and diagnose people outside of a clinical setting. Forensic psychiatry is close, but it has a lot of caveats and it's not supposed to diagnose people, only help give insight into a particular legal question or as information in helping to catch a criminal. Dr. Frank is a clinical psychiatrist, not a forensic psychiatrist.

When Dr. Frank says that Trump is turned on by his followers, he is speculating, not using the scientific methods in which he is trained and has experience in. But he doesn't make it clear that this is his own speculation and he doesn't disclaim or qualify his statement in any way, like a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist would. He is presenting it as his professional opinion as a clinician -what he thinks is an accurate assessment of Trump's actual mental state. He's guessing and I call this kind of guessing "mind reading," because he really has no way to know for sure if he's right or not.

I expressed my opinion that it's stupid for a psychiatrist to say something like that because I think it is indeed stupid for doctors to say things outside of what their profession trains them in and what they are experienced in. IMO, Dr. Oz is stupid for saying your horoscope can influence your health, for example.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 06:38 PM   #1665
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So you admit you don't know it's "clearly predicated" on his "fantasies" at all. It's just your "impression". Glad we got that cleared up.
Pedantry.
Pedantry? Not at all. It's exactly what you said. You just tripped yourself up and now you're trying to make excuses for yourself.

Quote:
My opinion is that his book is crap, just on it's face.
An opinion based on a book you've never read is about as as valuable as an opinion of a movie you've never seen, a wine you've never tasted, a food you've never tasted, etc, etc. etc.

Quote:
How can he write a book entitled, "Trump on the Couch," when Trump has not, in fact, ever been on his couch?
The same way someone can write a book entitled "The Gospel According to Jesus" can be written by someone who never met Jesus. Do I really have to explain the metaphor of "on the couch" to you?

Quote:
Did you know he wrote one about Obama too, "Obama on the Couch?"
Yes, I did. And one on Bush, too. Do you really think I would know about Trump on the Couch and not about his other On the Couch books too?


Quote:
Here's a quote:

ďBy ordering and overseeing the successful raid on Osama bin LadenÖObama gained invaluable and unprecedented experience in confronting and expressing his [own] murderous impulses.Ē

Who knew Obama was a closet murderer? Sounds dangerous! And it must be true because Dr. Justin Frank is an experienced psychoanalyst and expert in the field, right?
Rolls eyes is right. If you read past just that one quote, you'd realize Frank wasn't saying Obama is a "closet murderer". But you were too busy and too quick thinking you had a 'gotcha' moment and being a Clever Dick. He's talking about the suppressed anger/rage that Obama has toward both his parents, especially his father and the "killer" part he has repressed within himself that enabled him to order the assassination of bin Laden. You can read that part, and more, if you read his book. If not you can do some searches in the Amazon offer of his book. Or watch Frank's interview here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?303407-1/obama-couch


Quote:
For the record, that bit I quoted was just as, if not more, stupid than the bit about Trump finding sexual pleasure from his followers. Do you think Dr. Frank is right about Obama? Is that good psychiatric practice?
Just for the record, I think your opinion about that statement is based on the same amount of knowledge as your first one: not much.
Question 1: Possibly.
Question 2: Is what good psychiatric practice? Am I supposed to guess?

Quote:
When you quote an expert, it's not necessarily a fallacy; but, it can be.
But that's not what you did. You tried to use the "appeal to authority" fallacy. An expert can be incorrect. The two are not the equivalent.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dr. Frank understands the "ethical issues and practice standards involved" every bit, if not better, than you do. However, Frank faces no ethical constraints with the Goldwater rule because "He left the association right around the time he published the first of his president-on-the-couch books.
It's not a good look when you leave a professional organization because their ethics constrain you from making money on it.
Well now, aren't you making assumptions? And you accuse Dr. Frank of "reading minds". How ironic.


Quote:
Quote:
"Today, he thinks the Goldwater Rule ought to be scrapped" according to the
Washingtonian.
Of course he does.
At the risk of being accused of argumentum ad populum yet again, so do many people, but not necessarily for the reason you assumed.



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your insistence that he's "reading Trump's mind" and basing his opinion on his own "fantasies" rather than basing it on his years of training and experience is ironic since you are the one who seems to be reading Frank's mind. As for needing "concrete evidence" to know what makes Trump "horny" are you claiming he needs to see Trump actually get an erection to determine what Trump finds erotic?
Well, that might help. But the fact is that there is no evidence that Trump actually finds the worship from his followers sexually stimulating. I think it's rather obvious that he enjoys such worship, being the narcissist that he is, but that doesn't mean he finds it "erotic." That's a guess from Dr. Frank, not a certainty. It's what Dr. Frank imagines to be true, not what he knows for a fact to be true.
Psychology is rarely, if ever, based on "facts" and "certainties". It's not like chemistry or physics because it deals with the human mind. Even Trump is capable of acting unpredictably. Who would have guessed he could keep his mouth shut as long as he did during the impeachment? Or stay married to Melania this long without trading her in for a younger model...literally?

Frankly, I'm bored with this entire conversation with you. We've gone round and round on this so many times I'm dizzy and we're obviously never going to change each other's mind. Things I know we both agree on: Trump was and is unfit to be POTUS and it's great that he's out of office. Neither of us want to see him back in office. Ever. The man is mentally ill and has done great damage to the country and will continue to do so as long as he has any kind of influence in our politics. Personally, I'd wish they'd convict him of tax fraud and/or some criminal charge related to Jan. 6 and he'd end up in jail (which I doubt) or even home confinement with no ability to communicate with anyone.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 07:38 PM   #1666
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Pedantry? Not at all. It's exactly what you said. You just tripped yourself up and now you're trying to make excuses for yourself.
No excuses at all. I said what I said and stand behind it. That's my opinion. Picking apart the exact words I used to express myself isn't going to convince me I'm wrong in that opinion.
Quote:
An opinion based on a book you've never read is about as as valuable as an opinion of a movie you've never seen, a wine you've never tasted, a food you've never tasted, etc, etc. etc.
This is, theoretically, a non-fiction book, yes? Then why does it start off with a totally fictional premise?
Quote:
The same way someone can write a book entitled "The Gospel According to Jesus" can be written by someone who never met Jesus. Do I really have to explain the metaphor of "on the couch" to you?
Your comparison is quite apt. There was no such person as Jesus, as described in the bible. A respected religious figure can write whatever the hell they want about what Jesus supposedly said and meant and the credulous will believe it.

Likewise, there was never any "Trump on the Couch." This respected professional can say whatever the hell he wants to say about what this fictional therapy session reveals and some people will believe it because they respect his authority.

Quote:
Yes, I did. And one on Bush, too. Do you really think I would know about Trump on the Couch and not about his other On the Couch books too?
I never assume.
Quote:
Rolls eyes is right. If you read past just that one quote, you'd realize Frank wasn't saying Obama is a "closet murderer". But you were too busy and too quick thinking you had a 'gotcha' moment and being a Clever Dick.
I can't help it if I'm clever.
Quote:
He's talking about the suppressed anger/rage that Obama has toward both his parents,
Has Obama himself ever expressed or acknowledged such a suppressed anger/rage?
Quote:
especially his father and the "killer" part he has repressed within himself that enabled him to order the assassination of bin Laden.
That's even crazier than they way I orginially interpreted the passage!

We can all, through basic human empathy, intuit that Obama might have some resentment towards his father for abandoning the family. That's natural. But to stretch that to some kind of rage against both his parents that lead to a repressed "killer" part of himself that he satisfied by having Bin Laden killed? That is exactly the kind of psychoanalytical bovine excrement that has lead to the decline of psychoanalysis. It's just stupid in the modern context. But it sure is titillating ain't it? It gets the books sold.

Quote:
You can read that part, and more, if you read his book. If not you can do some searches in the Amazon offer of his book. Or watch Frank's interview here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?303407-1/obama-couch
Uh yeah thanks but, no.

Quote:
Just for the record, I think your opinion about that statement is based on the same amount of knowledge as your first one: not much.
I just hope you dont take Dr. Frank seriously.


Quote:
Question 1: Possibly.
Really? What would you say the probability is that Dr. Frank is right about Obama? About Trump?

Quote:
Question 2: Is what good psychiatric practice? Am I supposed to guess?
No, you are supposed to have a good idea of that if you are participating in a discussion about it. What do you think it is?
Quote:
But that's not what you did. You tried to use the "appeal to authority" fallacy. An expert can be incorrect. The two are not the equivalent.
Absolutely. Why don't you think Dr. Frank and the other psychologists speaking out are incorrect? You keep citing their expertise and experience -and my lack therof- which is an appeal to authority.

Quote:
Well now, aren't you making assumptions? And you accuse Dr. Frank of "reading minds". How ironic.
Did Dr. Frank write a book? Did he hope to sell it? Did he put some crazy ass **** in it? I say yes yes yes.

Quote:
Psychology is rarely, if ever, based on "facts" and "certainties".
Too, too true, even in the best of circumstances. Here we have the worst of circumstances. The possibility of operating without all the relevant facts and with more uncertainty is even higher than under the ideal circumstances.
Quote:
It's not like chemistry or physics because it deals with the human mind. Even Trump is capable of acting unpredictably. Who would have guessed he could keep his mouth shut as long as he did during the impeachment? Or stay married to Melania this long without trading her in for a younger model...literally?
If you grok this, why can't you admit that perhaps the Yale Group and all the others may have spoken with too much certainty about something they couldn't possibly have had such certainty about?

Quote:
Frankly, I'm bored with this entire conversation with you.
I keep thinking the same thing: "I'm done with this! it's the same thing over and over! Aggghhhhhh!" But if I'm being honest, I enjoy the back and forth.
You make me think and I think that's cool, even if we disagree.
Quote:
We've gone round and round on this so many times I'm dizzy and we're obviously never going to change each other's mind.
Never say never. I never do.
Quote:
Things I know we both agree on: Trump was and is unfit to be POTUS and it's great that he's out of office. Neither of us want to see him back in office. Ever. The man is mentally ill and has done great damage to the country and will continue to do so as long as he has any kind of influence in our politics. Personally, I'd wish they'd convict him of tax fraud and/or some criminal charge related to Jan. 6 and he'd end up in jail (which I doubt) or even home confinement with no ability to communicate with anyone.
Yes, this should be enough for us. Why isn't it?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 07:55 PM   #1667
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
I'm not even going to read your replies. If I do, I know I'll be compelled to reply and I really don't want to. I really have had enough. Time to move on.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 08:13 PM   #1668
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm not even going to read your replies. If I do, I know I'll be compelled to reply and I really don't want to. I really have had enough. Time to move on.

Yes... until the next psychologist/psychiatrist makes an inane statement about Trump.

See you then.

But seriously, itís too bad you wonít read my replies. I honestly think we have more common ground in this than it would appear. But itís been said that there are none so blind as those who will not see...
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2021, 08:33 PM   #1669
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,099
First, 34,000 tweets made in 1460 days covers a lot of ground.

Second, how does one interview a 2021 Trump. A question is asked and he is off to the races. One can try interrupting him to ask a second question, but what are the odds that his response will be even tangentially related to the question?

If one wants to know how dangerous he might be, talk to the dozen or two people who talked him out of all sorts of illegal and dangerous things in the Oval Office. Although as has been pointed out elsewhere, he is very unlikely to perform actions that would harm others, but he lives to tell his lawyers, employees, and minions to perform mild to serious harm to others.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2021, 03:54 AM   #1670
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,961
Actions like inciting riots?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2021, 12:15 PM   #1671
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Actions like inciting riots?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 09:08 AM   #1672
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,082
More evidence:
Quote:
When former President Donald Trump ventured outside of the White House to the BLT Prime restaurant inside the Trump International Hotel, his penchant for Diet Cokes came with him.

In a Washingtonian magazine report, employees revealed how the restaurant had an intricate, seven-step process for serving the soda to Trump.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...waiters-2021-2
https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/0...ht-wing-elite/
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 09:49 AM   #1673
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Well-done steak?? At those prices. Ok, that seals it: Trump is crazy!

I donít know if that counts as evidence that heís ďdangerously mentally ill...Ē maybe OCD. Or just really spoiled.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 12:39 PM   #1674
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,082
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well-done steak?? At those prices. Ok, that seals it: Trump is crazy!

I don’t know if that counts as evidence that he’s “dangerously mentally ill...” maybe OCD. Or just really spoiled.
That's not the basis for claiming he's "dangerously mentally ill." But the notion that diet cokes and ketchup bottles need to be presented to him in accordance with a rigidly prescribed ritual, or that he was outraged that a guest's steak may have been a tad larger than his own, sure indicates a screw loose somewhere. Once again, we see evidence that if this guy hadn't been born rich, he wouldn't be able to function in society.

Last edited by Bob001; 22nd February 2021 at 01:12 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 01:06 PM   #1675
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 88,013
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well-done steak?? At those prices. Ok, that seals it: Trump is crazy!

I don’t know if that counts as evidence that he’s “dangerously mentally ill...” maybe OCD. Or just really spoiled.
Nice cherry picking/straw manning there.

Tell me, do you know a single person who would complain someone else at the table in a restaurant got a slightly bigger steak?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 03:52 PM   #1676
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Nice cherry picking/straw manning there.

Tell me, do you know a single person who would complain someone else at the table in a restaurant got a slightly bigger steak?
Not many, but having worked in restaurants and having dined in many fine restaruants, you may be surprised at what people will complain about.

The point is that this isn't evidence of "dangerous mental illness." Bob001 opened his post with "More evidence:" Evidence of what, exactly?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 04:26 PM   #1677
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,248
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Nice cherry picking/straw manning there.

Tell me, do you know a single person who would complain someone else at the table in a restaurant got a slightly bigger steak?
No, but I know plenty of 4 year olds that would complain that someone got a bigger slice of cake than they did. But then again, Trump is emotionally about 4 years old.

And don't forget that Trump got TWO scoops of ice cream while every one else only got one according to the WH staff.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 04:29 PM   #1678
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's not the basis for claiming he's "dangerously mentally ill." But the notion that diet cokes and ketchup bottles need to be presented to him in accordance with a rigidly prescribed ritual, or that he was outraged that a guest's steak may have been a tad larger than his own, sure indicates a screw loose somewhere. Once again, we see evidence that if this guy hadn't been born rich, he wouldn't be able to function in society.
That particular kind of screw is loose in a lot of people. And I would say that if he wasn't born rich, he wouldn't have been brought up in a world designed to cater to his whims and he would have found other coping strategies for his germophobia. He'd be the guy at Denny's who whips out the purell, his self-supplied eating utensils and asks for sealed bottles of beverage.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 04:44 PM   #1679
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,082
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not many, but having worked in restaurants and having dined in many fine restaruants, you may be surprised at what people will complain about.

The point is that this isn't evidence of "dangerous mental illness." Bob001 opened his post with "More evidence:" Evidence of what, exactly?
More evidence that Trump is a grotesquely disturbed human being.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 05:44 PM   #1680
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,326
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
More evidence that Trump is a grotesquely disturbed human being.

I mean ďgrotesquely disturbed ď seems a bit harsh. Being germophobic is relatively common. Is Howie Mandell ďgrossly disturbed?Ē
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.