|
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. |
25th April 2017, 07:20 AM | #281 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:22 AM | #282 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:22 AM | #283 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:22 AM | #284 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,011
|
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:
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? |
25th April 2017, 07:23 AM | #285 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:23 AM | #286 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:24 AM | #287 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:25 AM | #288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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:
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. |
25th April 2017, 07:26 AM | #289 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:26 AM | #290 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:27 AM | #291 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:28 AM | #292 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:28 AM | #293 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,987
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
25th April 2017, 07:30 AM | #294 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:31 AM | #295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
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:
Quote:
|
25th April 2017, 07:39 AM | #296 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:40 AM | #297 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:40 AM | #298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 07:45 AM | #299 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 07:46 AM | #300 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:50 AM | #301 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
I think appie is having a hard time hiding their excitement, was implied by the timing.
Quote:
Quote:
|
25th April 2017, 07:52 AM | #302 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:55 AM | #303 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, then.
Quote:
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. |
|
25th April 2017, 07:58 AM | #304 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:58 AM | #305 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
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? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
25th April 2017, 07:59 AM | #306 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th April 2017, 08:01 AM | #307 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
Hi, we are saying those standards are stupid and lame and mostly political ass covering, welcome to the conversation.
Quote:
Quote:
WHOOPS |
25th April 2017, 08:02 AM | #308 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
25th April 2017, 08:21 AM | #309 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 08:38 AM | #310 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 08:38 AM | #311 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
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? |
25th April 2017, 08:40 AM | #312 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
|
__________________
Hello. |
|
25th April 2017, 08:42 AM | #313 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
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. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
25th April 2017, 08:44 AM | #314 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
25th April 2017, 08:56 AM | #315 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 09:09 AM | #316 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
25th April 2017, 09:14 AM | #317 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 09:14 AM | #318 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
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.
|
25th April 2017, 09:17 AM | #319 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
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. |
25th April 2017, 09:17 AM | #320 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,011
|
So.. evidence on that one? I asked you earlier for any evidence that -
Quote:
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|