Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

It’s time to talk about what’s going on with Donald Trump’s cognitive abilities

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    So, no, I'm not putting my opinion in their mouths.
    Since they didn't acknowledge doing anything unethical - yeah, you did just that.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
      Since they didn't acknowledge doing anything unethical...
      They admitted that what they're doing in the book is a violation of the Goldwater Rule, so...
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        They admitted that what they're doing in the book is a violation of the Goldwater Rule, so...
        You omitted this section from that Wiki article:

        In 2016 and 2017, a number of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists faced criticism for violating the Goldwater rule, as they claimed that Donald Trump displayed "an assortment of personality problems, including grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and 'malignant narcissism'", and that he has a "dangerous mental illness", despite having never examined him.[3][12][13]

        John Gartner, a practicing psychologist, and the leader of the group Duty to Warn, stated in April 2017 that: "We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness."[14]

        The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), a different organization from the APA, sent a letter on June 6, 2017, that highlighted differences between the APA and APsaA ethical guidelines, stating that "The American Psychiatric Association's ethical stance on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter."[15][16] In July 2017, the website Stat published an article by Sharon Begley, labeled "exclusive" and titled "Psychiatry Group Tells Members They Can Defy 'Goldwater Rule' and Comment on Trump's Mental Health". The article, with a photograph of Barry Goldwater as the headline image, stated that "A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures", first sourcing the statement to the July 6 American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) letter, but also claiming that it "represents the first significant crack in the profession's decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians' behavior"; the article then repeatedly referred to the "Goldwater rule", quoted an unnamed source as saying "leadership has been extremely reluctant to make a statement and publicly challenge the American Psychiatric Association", and claimed that an unnamed "official" had said that "Although the American Psychological Association 'prefers' that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one".[17][18] Yahoo News reporter Michael Walsh criticized the Stat article, saying it was "misleading" by stating that the letter "represents the first significant crack": The American Psychiatric Association retains the Goldwater rule, and the APsaA never had the rule and was not changing.[16] Also, even though the APsaA has no Goldwater rule for its members and allows its members to give individual opinions about specific political figures, its Executive Councilors unanimously endorsed a policy that "the APsaA as an organization will speak to issues only, not about specific political figures".[16]

        In February 2017, Allen Frances wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, regarding Trump and narcissistic personality disorder: "I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them."[19][20] According to the American Psychiatric Association, "saying that a person does not have an illness is also a professional opinion."[21]

        In September 2017, Jeffrey A. Lieberman published an article extensively speculating on diagnoses for Donald Trump despite claiming to adhere to the Goldwater Rule in the beginning paragraph. He arrived at a diagnosis of "incipient dementia"[22] but faced no sanctions.[23]

        On December 5, 2019, a group of mental health professionals led by Yale Medical School psychiatry professor Bandy X. Lee, George Washington University professor John Zinner, and former CIA profiler Jerrold Post, publicly urged the House Judiciary Committee to consider Donald Trump’s “dangerous” mental state that was ostensibly arising from his “brittle sense of self-worth” as part of the Congressional impeachment ongoing process.[24]

        Since April 2017, Lee has been stating[25] that while she has been an adherent to the Goldwater Rule "for over 20 years,"[26] the APA was "violating its own rule"[27] by modifiying it so that it would not be possible to meet its "affirmative obligation."[28] She formed an organization with thousands of other mental health professionals "in opposition to the American Psychiatric Association, which, with the Trump presidency, not only failed to meet the psychiatric profession’s societal responsibility but inhibited individual professionals from doing so."[29] The APA receives federal funding, which some criticize is a conflict of interest.[30]
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          That doesn't apply when a conservative is the object of the scrutiny.
          Apparently not.

          The biggest projection yet, trot out a geriatric dementia patient, and claim the other side is crazy, use two dozen psyches to claim it.

          The comedy of leftist people continues. They will formulate a plan on governing after they somehow win. It will involve laughing at BLM and cracking down on their nutters.

          That seems to be their MO, advocate tearing everything down, and then ruling over the minorities as government gods.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            You omitted this section from that Wiki article:

            In 2016 and 2017, a number of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists faced criticism for violating the Goldwater rule, as they claimed that Donald Trump displayed "an assortment of personality problems, including grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and 'malignant narcissism'", and that he has a "dangerous mental illness", despite having never examined him.[3][12][13]

            John Gartner, a practicing psychologist, and the leader of the group Duty to Warn, stated in April 2017 that: "We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness."[14]

            The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), a different organization from the APA, sent a letter on June 6, 2017, that highlighted differences between the APA and APsaA ethical guidelines, stating that "The American Psychiatric Association's ethical stance on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter."[15][16] In July 2017, the website Stat published an article by Sharon Begley, labeled "exclusive" and titled "Psychiatry Group Tells Members They Can Defy 'Goldwater Rule' and Comment on Trump's Mental Health". The article, with a photograph of Barry Goldwater as the headline image, stated that "A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures", first sourcing the statement to the July 6 American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) letter, but also claiming that it "represents the first significant crack in the profession's decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians' behavior"; the article then repeatedly referred to the "Goldwater rule", quoted an unnamed source as saying "leadership has been extremely reluctant to make a statement and publicly challenge the American Psychiatric Association", and claimed that an unnamed "official" had said that "Although the American Psychological Association 'prefers' that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one".[17][18] Yahoo News reporter Michael Walsh criticized the Stat article, saying it was "misleading" by stating that the letter "represents the first significant crack": The American Psychiatric Association retains the Goldwater rule, and the APsaA never had the rule and was not changing.[16] Also, even though the APsaA has no Goldwater rule for its members and allows its members to give individual opinions about specific political figures, its Executive Councilors unanimously endorsed a policy that "the APsaA as an organization will speak to issues only, not about specific political figures".[16]

            In February 2017, Allen Frances wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, regarding Trump and narcissistic personality disorder: "I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them."[19][20] According to the American Psychiatric Association, "saying that a person does not have an illness is also a professional opinion."[21]

            In September 2017, Jeffrey A. Lieberman published an article extensively speculating on diagnoses for Donald Trump despite claiming to adhere to the Goldwater Rule in the beginning paragraph. He arrived at a diagnosis of "incipient dementia"[22] but faced no sanctions.[23]

            On December 5, 2019, a group of mental health professionals led by Yale Medical School psychiatry professor Bandy X. Lee, George Washington University professor John Zinner, and former CIA profiler Jerrold Post, publicly urged the House Judiciary Committee to consider Donald Trump’s “dangerous” mental state that was ostensibly arising from his “brittle sense of self-worth” as part of the Congressional impeachment ongoing process.[24]

            Since April 2017, Lee has been stating[25] that while she has been an adherent to the Goldwater Rule "for over 20 years,"[26] the APA was "violating its own rule"[27] by modifiying it so that it would not be possible to meet its "affirmative obligation."[28] She formed an organization with thousands of other mental health professionals "in opposition to the American Psychiatric Association, which, with the Trump presidency, not only failed to meet the psychiatric profession’s societal responsibility but inhibited individual professionals from doing so."[29] The APA receives federal funding, which some criticize is a conflict of interest.[30]
            Yep, I touched on that earlier:
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Right... they acknowledge that what they're doing is unethical and against the rules of their own profession but then hand wave all that aside because "Orange Man Bad!"

            Like I said, they're quacks. Thank you for the confirmation.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Yep, I touched on that earlier:
              Perhaps you need to re-read the section I posted.

              Th ad hominem i.e. "quacks" from someone whom I suspect holds no qualifications in psychology is duly noted.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Perhaps you need to re-read the section I posted.

                Th ad hominem i.e. "quacks" from someone whom I suspect holds no qualifications in psychology is duly noted.
                I think it's fair to call a medical professional who violates the ethical standards of his own profession a "quack". My own qualifications in the field (or lack of) are entirely irrelevant.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Yep, I touched on that earlier
                  Spinning it into a confirmation of your myopic worldview isn't anything to feel proud of. As has been pointed out to you several times, the psychiatrists did this out of an enlightened understanding of ethics.

                  And because you're keen on derailing the thread from the topic it was created for, I'll help you get it back on track:

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                    As has been pointed out to you several times, the psychiatrists did this out of an enlightened understanding of ethics.
                    Right... "an enlightened understanding of ethics." Tell me another one!
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I think it's fair to call a medical professional who violates the ethical standards of his own profession a "quack".
                      No. A quack generally refers to someone who claims or affects medical knowledge and qualifications but has none. Hence snake oil salesman and charlatan.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      My own qualifications in the field (or lack of) are entirely irrelevant.
                      Your lack of qualifications do not give you the authority to pronounce on their abilities in their profession.

                      You may not agree with what they have done, but that is a different matter.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Nothing but a feeble attempt to distract attention away from the fact that the left is trying to foist someone who is undeniably brain addled and suffering from dementia onto the American public as a replacement
                        I'm not so sure. I voted for Trump, but I've also been calling him a stone-cold moron since his presidential campaign got serious.
                        "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Second, multiple named sources have said on the record that the President was not specifically informed about the supposed Russian bounties because the claims were not considered credible, and indeed today there remains much dispute over their veracity.

                          So claiming that we can determine Trump's mental fitness based on a dubious piece of intelligence that his advisors elected not to tell him about seems a rather odd argument to make. This isn't like Obama being given repeated and explicit warmings about ISIS for an entire year and then insisting he never saw it coming when the situation blew up in his face. Now that was real scandal.
                          There's a term for the White House's response to this Russian bounty thing coming to light. It's called "CYA". I'll let you infer the meaning behind the letters, since I can't post them here.

                          Trump and his team have repeatedly claimed that intelligence was "uncertain" or "bad intel" whenever they've found it inconvenient for them, and I see no reason to think it's different in this case. After all, Trump's such a good deal maker, surly there's no way his evaluation of Vladimir Putin as his 'friend' was wrong?

                          And since we're in a thread talking about Trump being an idiot, it's worth mentioning that this information about the Russian bounty program was considered credible enough it make it into the President's Daily Brief. But, you know, Trump actually DOES have a good claim that he didn't know about based on only that.....since he's made no secret of the fact that he doesn't even read the PDB. But hey, he's such a smart guy and all, I'm sure there's nothing in the PDB that could possibly, ever, bite us in the rear because the President "didn't know" about it. Not sure why we're paying all them intelligence analyst types anyways, Trump clearly knows everything.
                          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            No. A quack generally refers to someone who claims or affects medical knowledge and qualifications but has none. Hence snake oil salesman and charlatan.
                            I think someone who ignores sensible ethical guidelines and attempts to diagnose someone he hasn't personally examined reasonably fits the definition of a charlatan. Remember, the physicians who actually have personally examined the President say that he is physically and mentally healthy.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by myth View Post
                              There's a term for the White House's response to this Russian bounty thing coming to light. It's called "CYA". I'll let you infer the meaning behind the letters, since I can't post them here.

                              Trump and his team have repeatedly claimed that intelligence was "uncertain" or "bad intel" whenever they've found it inconvenient for them, and I see no reason to think it's different in this case. After all, Trump's such a good deal maker, surly there's no way his evaluation of Vladimir Putin as his 'friend' was wrong?

                              And since we're in a thread talking about Trump being an idiot, it's worth mentioning that this information about the Russian bounty program was considered credible enough it make it into the President's Daily Brief. But, you know, Trump actually DOES have a good claim that he didn't know about based on only that.....since he's made no secret of the fact that he doesn't even read the PDB. But hey, he's such a smart guy and all, I'm sure there's nothing in the PDB that could possibly, ever, bite us in the rear because the President "didn't know" about it. Not sure why we're paying all them intelligence analyst types anyways, Trump clearly knows everything.
                              This looks suspiciously like conspiracy theory nuttery. At any rate, there's nothing here that would reasonably cause one to doubt Trump's mental health.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Originally posted by myth View Post
                                There's a term for the White House's response to this Russian bounty thing coming to light. It's called "CYA". I'll let you infer the meaning behind the letters, since I can't post them here.

                                Trump and his team have repeatedly claimed that intelligence was "uncertain" or "bad intel" whenever they've found it inconvenient for them, and I see no reason to think it's different in this case. After all, Trump's such a good deal maker, surly there's no way his evaluation of Vladimir Putin as his 'friend' was wrong?

                                And since we're in a thread talking about Trump being an idiot, it's worth mentioning that this information about the Russian bounty program was considered credible enough it make it into the President's Daily Brief. But, you know, Trump actually DOES have a good claim that he didn't know about based on only that.....since he's made no secret of the fact that he doesn't even read the PDB. But hey, he's such a smart guy and all, I'm sure there's nothing in the PDB that could possibly, ever, bite us in the rear because the President "didn't know" about it. Not sure why we're paying all them intelligence analyst types anyways, Trump clearly knows everything.
                                This looks suspiciously like conspiracy theory nuttery.
                                Ignoring the irony of you using that phrase as a pejorative, no. Nothing in myth's post looked even vaguely like a conspiracy theory.

                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                At any rate, there's nothing here that would reasonably cause one to doubt Trump's mental health.
                                His unwillingness to read the PDB is what you're claiming doesn't exist.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                228 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                280 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X