Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: How is this even a little helpful?

  1. #21
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,624
    Thanks
    24452

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Personally I don't see it as that big a deal. FBI profilers diagnose people all the time based on scant evidence. How closely does a Harvard professor need to "interview" the president when he regularly blurts out stream-of-conciousness snippets at 3am on Twitter? Is an interview really going to bring new evidence to the psychiatrist that he didn't already know?
    But the point is he could be a stark raving lunatic but if Congress doesn't want to remove him, he stays, our laws don't allow there to be any other way. So in a way its pointless and as Czern says, it could even help Trump down the road with his supporters. I remember a few feeling a bit sympathetic for GW Bush and all the criticism coming his way in 2004 and he won re-election. Stranger things have happened, voters are weird.

  2. #22
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,543
    Thanks
    17246

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Personally I don't see it as that big a deal. FBI profilers diagnose people all the time based on scant evidence. How closely does a Harvard professor need to "interview" the president when he regularly blurts out stream-of-conciousness snippets at 3am on Twitter? Is an interview really going to bring new evidence to the psychiatrist that he didn't already know?
    Again, what The FBI BSU does is entirely different from what this shrink just did. What profilers do is not meant to diagnose mental conditions; it is meant to find patterns of behaviour in order to create a suspect pool for unknown criminal subjects. No self-respecting psychiatrist would ever presume to make a psychological diagnosis without, at least, a preliminary interview. What Dodes did was unprofessional, and irresponsible.

  3. #23
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,212
    Thanks
    9116

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Again, what The FBI BSU does is entirely different from what this shrink just did. What profilers do is not meant to diagnose mental conditions; it is meant to find patterns of behaviour in order to create a suspect pool for unknown criminal subjects. No self-respecting psychiatrist would ever presume to make a psychological diagnosis without , at least, a preliminary interview. What Dodes did was unprofessional, and irresponsible.
    I really don't see who could be hurt by him making an assessment of someone who he feels is a danger to others, and has exhibited behaviors which he feels indicate mental illness.

    Also, I really don't think anyone who reads his his assessment of the president thinks that it is as thorough or detailed as someone who he interviews over the course of months. Still, there are plenty of "in the field" samples of his behavior which are public record that I think someone who is expert in this area (don't know if he is or not, as I've never heard of him or read the article) could make a case for him being mentally ill.

    If a psychiatrist read a book about Charles Manson, could he safely say "this guy was clearly psychotic" even though he had never "interviewed" him?
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,543
    Thanks
    17246

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    I really don't see who could be hurt by him making an assessment...
    Let's stick with this thought. Did I say anyone was hurt? No, I asked how this helps. You now...what constructive purpose does this sort of bloviating serve? Don't you think that, at some point, we need to stop engaging in activities that we know will serve no other purpose than further dividing us, and start finding ways to bring us back together?

  5. #25
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,212
    Thanks
    9116

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Let's stick with this thought. Did I say anyone was hurt? No, I asked how this helps. You now...what constructive purpose does this sort of bloviating serve? Don't you think that, at some point, we need to stop engaging in activities that we know will serve no other purpose than further dividing us, and start finding ways to bring us back together?
    If your point is that it neither hurts nor helps, I agree.

  6. #26
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,212
    Thanks
    9116

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    But the point is he could be a stark raving lunatic but if Congress doesn't want to remove him, he stays, our laws don't allow there to be any other way. So in a way its pointless and as Czern says, it could even help Trump down the road with his supporters. I remember a few feeling a bit sympathetic for GW Bush and all the criticism coming his way in 2004 and he won re-election. Stranger things have happened, voters are weird.
    I suppose he would be better able to convince congress by not saying anything at all?

  7. #27
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,543
    Thanks
    17246

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    If your point is that it neither hurts nor helps, I agree.
    I submit that by encouraging the partisan divide, and by giving Trump ammunition to further marginalise the press it does hurt. If we are not healing the divide, we are exacerbating it.

  8. #28
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,212
    Thanks
    9116

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I submit that by encouraging the partisan divide, and by giving Trump ammunition to further marginalise the press it does hurt. If we are not healing the divide, we are exacerbating it.
    Well in that case, it seems that you're saying that people should keep their opinions to themselves—even if they are professional in nature, and intended to alert people to something dangerous—if it will anger people who might be offended. In that case, I think muzzling people (or perhaps just vilifying them and insisting they shut up) because you don't feel it passes your "helpfulness" test is more harmful than letting people say what they want to say.

    I'm not going to tiptoe around what I think because someone I mostly agree with is worried that someone I don't agree with will be upset to hear my opinion. Would you?

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,543
    Thanks
    17246

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Well in that case, it seems that you're saying that people should keep their opinions to themselves—even if they are professional in nature, and intended to alert people to something dangerous—if it will anger people who might be offended. In that case, I think muzzling people (or perhaps just vilifying them and insisting they shut up) because you don't feel it passes your "helpfulness" test is more harmful than letting people say what they want to say.

    I'm not going to tiptoe around what I think because someone I mostly agree with is worried that someone I don't agree with will be upset to hear my opinion. Would you?
    There is a difference between this guy sharing his opinion at a cocktail party where he is just a guy talking, and being quoted as an authority in a national article, where he is spouting an opinion that has not been formed using the established methods for arriving at determination. Tell me something, would you trust a doctor watching a video of you, reading your medical chart, and then telling you that you need open heart surgery without even examining you? If not, then how is this guy spouting off, without even interviewing Trump, any different?

  10. #30
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,212
    Thanks
    9116

    From
    Home

    How is this even a little helpful?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    There is a difference between this guy sharing his opinion at a cocktail party where he is just a guy talking, and being quoted as an authority in a national article, where he is spouting an opinion that has not been formed using the established methods for arriving at determination. Tell me something, would you trust a doctor watching a video of you, reading your medical chart, and then telling you that you need open heart surgery without even examining you? If not, then how is this guy spouting off, without even interviewing Trump, any different?
    Had I shown detailed examples of my heart at work online, and through various means of television and radio, and some doctor came along and said "Based on what you've demonstrated before the entire world, it's my opinion that you have a congestive heart problem." and he had a respectable resume of experience and expertise, I'd go get a second opinion at the very least. Fuck yeah I would. I would take it quite seriously.
    Last edited by StanStill; 12th September 2017 at 02:08 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Links would be helpful
    By Devil505 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11th March 2013, 04:38 PM
  2. A second helpful reminder for the upcoming election
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17th April 2012, 09:37 PM
  3. Some helpful links for the beginning of October
    By bonncaruso in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st October 2011, 05:06 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed