ISF Logo   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

Reply
Old 25th April 2017, 07:20 AM   #281
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
I don't regret my decision to keep drinking.
Joey McGee 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 25th April 2017, 07:22 AM   #282
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
So let's say a President takes office knowing he has terminal, inoperable cancer and barring some impossible miracle, will be dead within a month of the inauguration.

You're saying that it is not the business of the American people to know that the person they have elected will be unable to serve and that there is no valid argument that they should know ahead of time that the Vice president will serve for the entirety of the term?
It is not the business of the American people.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:22 AM   #283
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
I don't regret my decision to keep drinking.
It was the wrong week to stop.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 07:22 AM   #284
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
How do you know they haven't aren't aware of other information on Trump?

Trump's saying that he had the largest crowds ever is just an obvious example and something that happened on day one.
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I understood that as being put forward as an example that he's delusional.
I'm not sure how you've arrived at a conclusion about how much time the person you quoted has spent studying Trump.
Yup, I definitely should not take the literal statement of the person I quoted. He could have said, 'example of a possible delusional position..', but he said 'proved'. I really don't care too much in regards to this to delve into it further. How you take it and what he said are two different things.

As to how I come to conclusions about the amount of time they have taken to study Trump, that is the purpose of my post... I can just as easily conclude these guys saw 3 interviews and made up their minds. TS thinks -
Quote:
They probably know more about Trump than they do people who are actually their patients.
Is there any foundation of evidence for that? For a group that feels the danger of Trump is so extreme, they make no evidence based compelling claim beyond opinions. Feel free to provide any in depth writing by any member of the Duty to Warn or it's founder. I can't even find anything more than the same repeated claims by Dr. John Gartner in any publication that will give him an interview.

He also references how 'vast the amount of information we have on Trump' is. And he also does not go into anything specific beyond things such as the inauguration crowd size type statements from Trump. Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt in any respect?
rdwight 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 25th April 2017, 07:23 AM   #285
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I did no such thing. You might have noticed that the two sentences are separate.

And you're not "worried" for a second. Stop playing around.

But thanks for the answer. You think dangerous lunatics should be not only eligible for the position of most powerful person on the planet, but shielded from public knowledge of this face.

Bombs away!
Having a mental illness (the question at hand) and being a dangerous lunatics are not the same thing. I'm fine with announcing the latter.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:23 AM   #286
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is not the business of the American people.
It is the business of any employer to know of facts about the employee that may prevent him or her from completing his or her tasks. That's a basic fact of employment.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 07:24 AM   #287
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Having a mental illness (the question at hand) and being a dangerous lunatics are not the same thing. I'm fine with announcing the latter.
Oh, so now it's the business of the American people to know? Why? What changed?

And how is being a dangerous lunatic NOT a mental illness?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 07:25 AM   #288
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I see. Now, how about the psychologists who have chimed with the same opinion? The Goldwater Rule doesn't apply to psychologists.
Then psychologists are not breaking an explicit ethics rule, though it does not follow that they are behaving ethically. Obviously, there are many ways to behave unethically without violating the rules of one's professional organization.

Quote:
There is also this from : https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi.../#709182c364f3

Gartner said that the Tarasoff rule applies here. “I would argue that those mental health professionals who don’t speak up are being unethical,” he said. “They are not following the Tarasoff rule, not warning the public about the clear and present danger” Donald Trump poses.
Yes, this is a situation in which there are competing moral considerations. On the one hand, there is the requirement that one not abuse his professional credentials by giving uninformed opinions and also the need for privacy regarding diagnoses. On the other hand, there is the concern that the presidency is important, that having a mentally competent person in that office is essential to the well-being of the nation[1].

I think reasonable folk can disagree on which norm takes priority in this situation. As far as I'm concerned, the former issues are paramount.

[1] Note, however, that this was precisely the issue that led to the Goldwater Rule.
phiwum 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 25th April 2017, 07:26 AM   #289
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I absolutely don't think simply having any illness is a problem and I absolutely don't think the electorate should know.
So, it would be none of our business if the President was comatose?
phiwum 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 25th April 2017, 07:26 AM   #290
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It is the business of any employer to know of facts about the employee that may prevent him or her from completing his or her tasks. That's a basic fact of employment.
The American people do not "employ" elected offices. They are not employees.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:27 AM   #291
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The American people do not "employ" elected offices. They are not employees.
Like hell they're not.

If I elect someone to do a job they better treat me like an employer, and disclose any relevant information.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 07:28 AM   #292
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Question

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, so now it's the business of the American people to know? Why? What changed?

And how is being a dangerous lunatic NOT a mental illness?
Dangerous lunatics is independent of any health issue. You can be a healthy dangerous lunatics.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:28 AM   #293
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,687
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, so now it's the business of the American people to know? Why? What changed?

And how is being a dangerous lunatic NOT a mental illness?
The word "dangerous" changes it. Someone could have a mental illness that does not incapacitate them or prevents them carrying out their duties and responsibilities. In those cases Bob is saying we have no need to know about it.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 25th April 2017, 07:30 AM   #294
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The word "dangerous" changes it. Someone could have a mental illness that does not incapacitate them or prevents them carrying out their duties and responsibilities. In those cases Bob is saying we have no need to know about it.
Yeah but "dangerous" is a bit vague. I'm not necessarily saying the person is violent. But hearing voices that tell you that climate change is a hoax, for instance, would certainly qualify in my book.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You can be a healthy dangerous lunatics.
Please tell me you're joking.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 07:31 AM   #295
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,128
The ethics of the Goldwater Rule is far from a settled issue. This article is from the Journal of American Psychiatry and the Law:


Quote:
Section 7.3 of the code of ethics of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) cautions psychiatrists against making public statements about public figures whom they have not formally evaluated. The APA's concern is to safeguard the public perception of psychiatry as a scientific and credible profession. The ethic is that diagnostic terminology and theory should not be used for speculative or ad hominem attacks that promote the interests of the individual physician or for political and ideological causes. However, the Goldwater Rule presents conflicting problems. These include the right to speak one's conscience regarding concerns about the psychological stability of high office holders and competing considerations regarding one's role as a private citizen versus that as a professional figure. Furthermore, the APA's proscription on diagnosis without formal interview can be questioned, since third-party payers, expert witnesses in law cases, and historical psychobiographers make diagnoses without conducting formal interviews. Some third-party assessments are reckless, but do not negate legitimate reasons for providing thoughtful education to the public and voicing psychiatric concerns as acts of conscience. We conclude that the Goldwater Rule was an excessive organizational response to what was clearly an inflammatory and embarrassing moment for American psychiatry.
A synopsis:
Quote:
Our discussion will proceed by challenging the content of the Goldwater Rule. First, we question the APA position that the standard for psychiatric assessment includes an in-person interview. Second, we consider the propriety of the APA requirement that psychiatrists protect the profession's interests above their own moral commitments.
Finally, we argue that psychiatrists have a positive obligation to speak publicly in many circumstances, and the right to speak out in others.
...
[See article for lengthy discussion]
...

We can hope that psychiatrists who speak publicly about public figures will be thoughtful, scholarly, and noncontemptuous, and we can teach our trainees what constitutes good conduct. However, we cannot require psychiatrists to protect the profession's public image. To the extent that the Goldwater Rule inhibits potentially valuable educational efforts and psychiatric opinions about potentially dangerous public figures, upholding it is unethical. The court of public opinion will adjudicate professionalism and propriety, and the APA may opine in this setting, but embarrassing the profession violates etiquette rather than ethics.
In short, the article concludes that the Goldwater Rule was an over-reaction to an embarrassing and irresponsible magazine poll concerning Barry Goldwater's mental health, and that it is really intended to protect the image and reputation of the psychiatry profession itself, rather than either the individuals or the public.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 25th April 2017 at 07:32 AM.
WilliamSeger 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 25th April 2017, 07:39 AM   #296
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,280
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Can you say just which exam they need to perform in person to complete the diagnosis?

Seems people in the forum who cannot answer the above question refuse to consider they may be wrong, and no additional in-person exam is needed.

In fact, in the case of a pathologic narcissistic personality disorder, observing the patient in his/her natural setting is by far more diagnostic than an in-office test or interview.
Indeed. As if a 50 minute face-to-face would be more informative than the bounty of observations over the course of a year.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 25th April 2017, 07:40 AM   #297
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
So, it would be none of our business if the President was comatose?
It is our business if incapacitated. The cause of that incapacitation (comatose, agoraphobia, etc) is not.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:40 AM   #298
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
The ethics of the Goldwater Rule is far from a settled issue. This article is from the Journal of American Psychiatry and the Law:




A synopsis:


In short, the article concludes that the Goldwater Rule was an over-reaction to an embarrassing and irresponsible magazine poll concerning Barry Goldwater's mental health, and that it is really intended to protect the image and reputation of the psychiatry profession itself, rather than either the individuals or the public.
The rule is currently "on the books", so in that sense, it's settled whether or not others want to remove it. Maybe it will be removed soon, but at present, it seems that several psychiatrists are ignoring one of the ethics rules of their professional organization. (Of course, there are sometimes good reasons for breaking such rules.)

There's a good article (NY Times) on these issues from back in August.
phiwum 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 25th April 2017, 07:45 AM   #299
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Like hell they're not.

If I elect someone to do a job they better treat me like an employer, and disclose any relevant information.
First, we fundamentally disagree about the nature of elected office.

Second, if you are an employer, employees are not required to disclose. While post hiring screenings are allowed, if I understand the rules correctly, it is screening for ability to do the job. So, you can exclude people who cannot tell the truth, but can't blanket exclude people diagnosed with sociopathy who do tell the truth.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 07:46 AM   #300
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,421
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
41000 people are acting unethically
They aren't unethical, just mentally ill. I diagnose trump derangement syndrome.
Giz 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 25th April 2017, 07:50 AM   #301
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Who's sticking up for Trump?
I think appie is having a hard time hiding their excitement, was implied by the timing.

Quote:
I'm sticking up for psychiatry. It's not a tool for attacking political opponents. It's a branch of medicine (and therefore science) meant to help the sick. It demeans the field to be misused in this fashion.
Look I am not denying that there is a noble sentiment to your statement. But it is idealistic. We have the most advanced brain/thinking scientists in the world here telling us important information and you are in my face crying about how this will appear to the people we are trying to impress. I am sorry, I am not impressed.

Quote:
I despise Trump, too, but I'm not going to spoil everything that is good in order to fashion weapons to attack him. There seems to me to be ample evidence for unfitness for the job without needing armchair psychiatry as well.
It's not an either or situation bro
Joey McGee 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 25th April 2017, 07:52 AM   #302
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It was the wrong week to stop.
I don't know if my liver will last 3.7 years tho
Joey McGee 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 25th April 2017, 07:55 AM   #303
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,133
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Who says they are just doing it to attack him?
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, then.

Quote:
Have you ever considered that it really is their professional opinion that Trump is mentally ill? And that they believe that it is important that people know this considering that he is the president of the United States?
Even if their intentions are to warn people that the President is dangerously mentally ill, they still have one glaring problem: They are not meeting the ethical or practice standards of their own profession; thus, they cannot have formed a professional opinion. They may indeed have an educated personal opinion that is based on their non-clinical observations of the President but that is not enough to render a professional opinion. Thus, we are left with them publicly airing their personal opinion of Trump as if it was a professional opinion.

You may think that's OK, they have free speech, but consider: How is the public supposed to know when a professional is delivering a valid medical opinion or a personal opinion in the guise of a professional opinion? I hope I don't have to spell out why that's a dangerous thing.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 25th April 2017 at 07:57 AM.
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 25th April 2017, 07:58 AM   #304
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
pffft, not using their expertise to comment would be unprofessional since there is no chance of a proper diagnosis and their job is to make the world a more mentally healthy place, not kowtow to *********** mind-bogglingly hoity-toity political mores. What do you say to that?
Anyone want to address this post word for word?
Joey McGee 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 25th April 2017, 07:58 AM   #305
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, then.



Even if their intentions are to warn people about that the President is dangerously mentally ill, they still have one glaring problem: They are not meeting the ethical or practice standards of their own profession; thus, they cannot have formed a professional opinion. They may indeed have an educated personal opinion that is based on their non-clinical observations of the President but that is not enough to render a professional opinion. Thus, we are left with them publicly airing their personal opinion of Trump as if it was a professional opinion.

You may think that's OK, they have free speech, but consider: How is the public supposed to know when a professional is delivering a valid medical opinion or a personal opinion in the guise of a professional opinion? I hope I don't have to spell out why that's a dangerous thing.

Perhaps you can help.

Just how erratic does the president's behavior have to be before it becomes a problem? Provided Trump never accedes to a psychological examination, no matter how apparently irrational his statements or behavior is, you will never accept that he has psychological issues that would make him unfit for office?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 07:59 AM   #306
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,758
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
First, we fundamentally disagree about the nature of elected office.
Obviously.

Quote:
Second, if you are an employer, employees are not required to disclose. While post hiring screenings are allowed, if I understand the rules correctly, it is screening for ability to do the job.
Precisely the point. The ability to do the job of POTUS is hampered by some forms of mental illness. In those cases, it would be the electorate's business to know.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th April 2017, 08:01 AM   #307
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
They are not meeting the ethical or practice standards of their own profession
Hi, we are saying those standards are stupid and lame and mostly political ass covering, welcome to the conversation.
Quote:
thus, they cannot have formed a professional opinion.
Maybe, just maybe, the board is poisoned by politcal nonsense? I mean, a board has been poisoned by this once or twice....

Quote:
How is the public supposed to know when a professional is delivering a valid medical opinion or a personal opinion in the guise of a professional opinion?
Valid concern, good thing we have a cabinet that values critical thinking and cognitive science...

WHOOPS
Joey McGee 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 25th April 2017, 08:02 AM   #308
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Obviously.



Precisely the point. The ability to do the job of POTUS is hampered by some forms of mental illness. In those cases, it would be the electorate's business to know.
It is the business to know disqualifying behavior, not diagnosis. If that disqualifying behavior manifests in someone without mental illness, that is important too. If the behavior is not present in someone with mental illness, they are not disqualified.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 08:21 AM   #309
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,133
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Perhaps you can help.

Just how erratic does the president's behavior have to be before it becomes a problem? Provided Trump never accedes to a psychological examination, no matter how apparently irrational his statements or behavior is, you will never accept that he has psychological issues that would make him unfit for office?
The 25th Amendment is in place for just such a scenario. Glad to help.
__________________
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 25th April 2017, 08:38 AM   #310
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, then.



Even if their intentions are to warn people that the President is dangerously mentally ill, they still have one glaring problem: They are not meeting the ethical or practice standards of their own profession; thus, they cannot have formed a professional opinion. They may indeed have an educated personal opinion that is based on their non-clinical observations of the President but that is not enough to render a professional opinion. Thus, we are left with them publicly airing their personal opinion of Trump as if it was a professional opinion.

You may think that's OK, they have free speech, but consider: How is the public supposed to know when a professional is delivering a valid medical opinion or a personal opinion in the guise of a professional opinion? I hope I don't have to spell out why that's a dangerous thing.
So a shrink would have to examine Trump for you to take their opinion seriously. Even though he would never submit to it and even if he did they wouldn't be allowed to talk about it. Even though less would be learned from examining him than is already known.

Great critical thinking "skills" in that it is a great way for you to never have to admit that the president is nuts.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 25th April 2017 at 08:41 AM.
Tony Stark 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 25th April 2017, 08:38 AM   #311
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,128
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is the business to know disqualifying behavior, not diagnosis. If that disqualifying behavior manifests in someone without mental illness, that is important too. If the behavior is not present in someone with mental illness, they are not disqualified.
Trump's total lack of concern for the truth, his ego-centered manipulations of everyone he interacts with, his vindictiveness toward any ego injury, his apparent lack of empathy for any other human being, and his self-centered view of everything are all "disqualifying behaviors" for a President of the United States in my book (ETA: and that's before we even get to the question of whether or not he's delusional). I don't really need a psychiatrist to tell me that these behaviors (and several more that Trump exhibits) are consistent with what their manual calls narcissistic personality disorder to decide that he is unfit for office. On the one hand, you can criticize the psychiatrists for breaking a rule of a professional organization; but on the other hand, I don't see anyone even attempting to convince anyone that they are wrong.
Why is that?

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 25th April 2017 at 08:41 AM.
WilliamSeger 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 25th April 2017, 08:40 AM   #312
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,133
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Hi, we are saying those standards are stupid and lame and mostly political ass covering, welcome to the conversation.Maybe, just maybe, the board is poisoned by politcal nonsense? I mean, a board has been poisoned by this once or twice....
Let me get this straight: you think it's a good idea to have pshychiatrists deliver medical opinions in public about people they haven't examined?
__________________
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 25th April 2017, 08:42 AM   #313
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The 25th Amendment is in place for just such a scenario. Glad to help.

what triggers that, in the instance of mental instability?

If, as has been stated, one can have no diagnoses without examination and the President refuses all examination then the 25th amendment cannot be brought into effect upon the psychological breakdown of the president.

Unless, of course, observations concerning the Presidents mental state made during his daily interactions can be taken into account.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 08:44 AM   #314
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let me get this straight: you think it's a good idea to have pshychiatrists deliver medical opinions in public about people they haven't examined?
If there is sufficient evidence and there is reason for the public to know. Like for example if that person is the president of the United States.
Tony Stark 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 25th April 2017, 08:56 AM   #315
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
If there is sufficient evidence and there is reason for the public to know. Like for example if that person is the president of the United States.
But there is no reason the public should know. They are basing their diagnosis on the exact same behavior everyone has observed. Whether that behavior is simply because the president is a terrible human being or because of a health issue doesn't alter his ability to be president.

"I thought x about his behavior but now I think y because I have been told he has this health diagnosis" is the exact kind of thinking the medical profession has fought against.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 09:09 AM   #316
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,488
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The American people do not "employ" elected offices. They are not employees.
I'm sorry - what?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 25th April 2017, 09:14 AM   #317
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,488
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let me get this straight: you think it's a good idea to have pshychiatrists deliver medical opinions in public about people they haven't examined?
What is the reputation of these doctors? If they've all gone through years or decades of service and have no black marks against them in all that time, why shouldn't we take them at their word?

On the other hand, if their careers have been pockmarked with scandal and petty vindictiveness, maybe we should ignore them.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 25th April 2017, 09:14 AM   #318
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I'm sorry - what?
An elected official isn't an employee of a government (they do get a W-2 however, but the IRS wants you to declare your illegal activity income also, so they really are not in the business of marrying tax policy with philosophy). They don't have a employer. The people who vote for them are not their boss. The relationship is defined entirely by the governing document. In this case, voters are voters, officials are officials, nothing more nothing less.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th April 2017, 09:17 AM   #319
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,488
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
An elected official isn't an employee of a government (they do get a W-2 however, but the IRS wants you to declare your illegal activity income also, so they really are not in the business of marrying tax policy with philosophy). They don't have a employer. The people who vote for them are not their boss. The relationship is defined entirely by the governing document. In this case, voters are voters, officials are officials, nothing more nothing less.
Have you ever heard of this thing called "taxes"?

They're used for funding things, like the brick wall on the interstate that I feel like I'm banging my head into every time I read your drivel. They also fund (and you may want to sit down here) government employees. Such as the President, Congress, and your fuhrer's family.

You excel in being wrong.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 25th April 2017, 09:17 AM   #320
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So a shrink would have to examine Trump for you to take their opinion seriously. Even though he would never submit to it and even if he did they wouldn't be allowed to talk about it. Even though less would be learned from examining him than is already known.

Great critical thinking "skills" in that it is a great way for you to never have to admit that the president is nuts.
So.. evidence on that one? I asked you earlier for any evidence that -
Quote:
They probably know more about Trump than they do people who are actually their patients.
Assume my post got lost in the ongoing back and forth of others but would still like to know how you are reaching these conclusions. I mean, I like agreeing with the experts that agree with me as much as the next guy, but questioning and researching it will give you a better foundation to persuade those that like a little more facts.

For example, I might quote Allen Frances who wrote the criteria most here are using to diagnosis Trump with NPD, who does not think Trump has NPD. I won't try to add any qualifier to his opinion beyond that statement being his opinion on the matter. I have no way of knowing how he came to it, or if it should be given more weight than any other shrinks diagnosis. It will stand on it's own.

And a side question, if an independent psychiatrist was to evaluate Trump, and found him to be without mental illness, would you accept that? Could you accept any opinion that doesn't match what you already believe about him.
rdwight 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 01:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.