Junior is mad--quite, quite mad

[caesar]

That is referred to as Legally insane. Whether they change the name of the disorder or not; insanity is a mental problem not merely legal. Whether one is insane or suffering a mental disorder/disease is just another one of the "politically correct" wordings that seems to always be changing. Insanity is a broad term

[caesar]

So, apparently half the voting population of the US is insane?

well some are that; others are ill informed and wrap themselves in the flag; Americans are scared of their own shadows; that's the result of and why they like to carry guns. Others cannot face the truth of their sons and daughters dying and being physcally and mentally scarred for life on account of Bush's lies and deception. Then , of course, there is the propaganda; and the belief that anything American is good and anything that does not act like America therefore must be bad.

[Tawasakm]

Whether they change the name of the disorder or not; insanity is a mental problem not merely legal. Whether one is insane or suffering a mental disorder/disease is just another one of the "politically correct" wordings that seems to always be changing. Insanity is a broad term

caesar you add nothing with these meaningless bland assertions. You make a statement as if you know what you are talking about. Wheres the evidence?

This is a link!

Insanity The legal (not clinical) designation for the state of an individual judged to be legally irresponsible or incompetent.

I linked to this glossary from the American Psychological Assaciations webpage. This is what we call 'backing up an assertion.' Its the process of searching for and providing 'evidence' for our claims. Incidentally it is the only definition of insanity in the glossary. Eureka and yourself are operating under a faulty understanding of the term. Theres nothing wrong with not being right up to speed with everything - but I can't understand why you won't update your knowledge when the opportunity arises. After all it is not a difficult concept and I don't think I made it all that hard to understand. You see when I corrected the use of the concept 'insanity' I wasn't actually having a go at anyone. I was correcting a simple (and very common) misunderstanding. I just don't understand the resistance to it.

This isn't political correctness. It is what it is.

It doesn't even prevent you from pursuing your view of Bush - but it allows you to do it with the right words and may, I hope, encourage you to do some serious research into mental illness so you can refine your idea along more concrete lines.

[Guest eureka]

I am not operating under a foulty understanding, Tawaskasm. Insanity is a clinical designation encoded into law. Law must set thresholds as it does for criminal actions or civil negligence. Law governs societiy and without law there is no society.

That does not take insanity from the clinical realm. It merely sets the bar and protects society from abuse.

That does not affect this discussion very much, though, other than to put it into its social and legal perspective. Perhaps we should ask whether Bush has shown sufficent signs of insanity to be legally declared insane.

My own inclination is to think that American society is suffering from the kind of mass psychosis that seems to overtake some societies at times and brings, or is brought on, by a psychotic leadership.

[Tawasakm]

That does not take insanity from the clinical realm.

You're giving me grey hairs with this Eureka. The American Psychological Association doesn't think insanity is clinical.

I repeat, from earlier, the definition taken from a glossary I linked to from their page. They accept all these definitions as correct.

Insanity The legal (not clinical) designation for the state of an individual judged to be legally irresponsible or incompetent.

(Emphasis mine)

I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over and I can't take you seriously, on this point, until you find me an authoritative body which disagrees.

[Guest eureka]

Sorry you cannot grasp what I am saying, Tawaskasm. It doesn't matter whether it is defined as legal, not clinical designation. Insanity is a broad term covering many psychological conditions.

The Law must recognize that and prescribe parameters. As for the term insanity, you will find that in all sorts of psychological texts, and I could give you references from dictionaries but this is getting into nitpicking and not very instructive, since, as you know, lawyers can spend a day in court arguing over just what the definition of a word really implies. I could do that with the one you cite.

What is at issue is whether Dubbya has one or more conditions that would allow him to be declared lagally insane should some body bring him to trial. There, I think he might but not to the extent where he would be not responsible.

Diminished responsibility, maybe.

[kimmy]

Stripped of all the verbiage, all the posturing, all the stylistic window-dressing, and all the attempts at abuse, Trial and Error's argument is pretty basic.

-George Bush Jr is a mass murderer

-mass murderers are insane

-therefore, George Bush Jr is insane.

Perhaps it looks more impressive if you say it with 3 pages rather than 3 lines, but that's pretty much it.

I will leave debating the definition of insanity to Tawasakm, who seems much more qualified. However, I'm interested in the argument over whether Bush Jr is a mass murderer. His military actions and support of the death penalty have been cited as support for that view. Is any leader who has used military force a mass murderer?

-kimmy

[Tawasakm]

I will leave debating the definition of insanity to Tawasakm, who seems much more qualified.

Believe it or not I have a rule of thumb (which I instituted perhaps a month ago) which goes like this: I won't respond to anybody who repeats themselves over three posts without providing evidence in any situation where the person(s) they are disagreeing with have provided evidence. Period. I have various reasons for doing this and I intend to stick to it. So I won't be taking up this issue with Eureka any longer.

(Post edited to correct spelling - probably still missed some *sigh*)

[Guest eureka]

You left in some of the grey hairs. Nevr mind about them, though. By the time they are white, you may have the wisdom to go with the colour.

Incidentally, I repeat myself in different ways to try to get around your repetitions that seemed to indicate that you had not grasped what, I thought, was a fairly simple concept.

[Tawasakm]

You left in some of the grey hairs. Nevr mind about them, though. By the time they are white, you may have the wisdom to go with the colour.

This personal attack is a waste of my time and not worthy of you.

Incidentally, I repeat myself in different ways to try to get around your repetitions that seemed to indicate that you had not grasped what, I thought, was a fairly simple concept.

Fine. For one last time. What you rephrasing is not only a simple concept - it is an incorrect concept.

Lets go back to what you said.

It doesn't matter whether it is defined as legal, not clinical designation. Insanity is a broad term covering many psychological conditions.

Rubbish. Insanity is a very specific term that does not cover any psychological conditions. If someone is found insane it means that an individual was unaware of the right or wrong of their actions at the time they committed a crime. Yes the court needs psychological assessment in order to make that determination since they need to try and get 'into the head' of the individual. But there is never a clinical diagnosis made in regards to wether or not the person is insane. It is a court that makes the designation. Now you think that because a psychological condition may cause the legal state of insanity at the time of a crime that the concept of insanity then becomes some kind of umbrella concept that extends to cover the disorder which may have caused the behaviour. But you see that is not true. Insanity is not some meta-disorder which covers many conditions. That is completely sloppy thinking which would destroy diagnostic procedures. No if a person is found to be insane AND to have a mental disorder then those are two separate things. You are being sloppy when you think that association necessarily means they suddenly become one and the same. It is simply not true.

The concept of insanity is strictly legal and does not bleed over into the field of psychology because it would be a counter-productive concept to utilise in that field.

Now last of all. You have not, at any point, attempted to back up your argument with research. This is despite the fact that I have previously asked for it. You have persisted in this approach even after learning that I don't like to continue debating with people who do not. The you insult me. I absolutely will not continue this debate any further with you beyond this point. I hope in future debates you will provide research to back up your claims and refrain from insulting me.

[Tawasakm]

A quick note on diagnosis before anybody asks.

While treatments vary, diagnostic procedures are universal. Diagnosis is made using the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition). The DSM IV is comprised of five major axes.

Axis I: Clinical Disorders and other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention.

Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation

Axis III: General Medical Conditions

Axis IV Psychological and Environmental Problems

Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF).

I suggest anybody who is still hell bent on diagnosing people with mental conditions could at least view this manual and attempt to use it along with their 'common sense'.

[caesar]

While treatments vary, diagnostic procedures are universal. Diagnosis is made using the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition). The DSM IV is comprised of five major axes.

Prove it. Where do you get the idea that ALL diagnosis is made from this one book. ?????" Doesn't sound likely or wise to me.

If this were true; how come there are many differing diagnosis from two "experts" when assessing whether someone is "legally insane"?????

[Tawasakm]

Where do you get the idea that ALL diagnosis is made from this one book.

It's a fact of life caesar. If you want more info google American Psychiatric Association (they publish it).

I got the idea from a university course which teaches psychology.

If this were true; how come there are many differing diagnosis from two "experts" when assessing whether someone is "legally insane"?????

You haven't been reading my posts. Insanity isn't a psychological concept - it is a legal concept (for more info please read back through all my posts). Because of this it is a court that determines whether or not an individual is insane - there is never a clinical diagnosis made. Experts give their opinion on whether or not the individual concerned was aware of the right/wrong of their actions at the time of a crime. That is a somewhat grey area. There is no diagnostic procedure for insanity - the diagnostic procedures are for actual mental diseases etc.

To expand on your question slightly I will add that the system does no absolutely ensure correct diagnosis (mistakes are still made) but is the best system there is.

Doesn't sound likely or wise to me.

Not only is it likely - its a fact. And it does make a great deal of sense to have universal diagnostic procedures.

[Guest eureka]

Tawasaksm!

You display considerable intelligence in your efforts as a rule. I should think you could apply that to debating techniques. I did not insult you and you are being far too prickly for discussion.

Legally insane means exactly what you say in that someone must be found that in criminal actions. It does not govern insanity and courts always use the expresion "legally insane." However, persons can be committed without any criminal behaviour. They are insane and "right and wrong" do not necessarily enter into the assessment.

I have done a little psychology too, and I also have had some dealings with law and a couple of cases of insanity where criminality did not enter into it.

However, as I have tried to suggest, it is not very important in assessing Bush.s mental condition.

There was an issue in the media here not too long ago when a the musings of a psychriatrist were made public. He suggested that a certain politician was insane in his opinion from observation of his public behaviour. There was no protest over the question of legality only of the correctnes of the diagnosis and the political correctness of his saying it.

[Tawasakm]

On another not entirely.

Trial and Error said this:

psychology, which of course you know is not a true science

This is also a fairly common misconception. Psychology is a true science. It utilises the scientific method which, succinctly, is: observe, detect regularities, generate hypothesis, observe.

Now, many people seem to believe that because knowledge is still fairly incomplete this somehow invalidates it from being true science. True science does not purport to know what it does not know. Science builds knowledge over time. Psychology is still in its infancy and has a way to go.

There also seems to be the belief that emotions can't be measured and therefore psychology can't be a true science. Even ignoring the fact that emotions can be measured by their physiological effects it is sloppy thinking. The difficulties in measuring emotion are difficulties for science to overcome rather then being invalidating factors. Amazingly, to me, people who tell me that emotion can't be measured (therefore making impossible any scientific research) often almost immediately tell me that 'common sense' tells us more then psychology ever could. I find this to be utter nonsense since 'common sense' has nothing approaching the rigour of the scientific method and, upon testing, is often proven to be completely lacking.

Well enough ranting from me. I'm very tired (took a friend to hospital and sat around for ages - nothing serious though) and I'm off to a belated sleep.

[Black Dog]

On thi stopic, I'll invoke Occam's Razor. Bush probably isn't insane. A intellectually incurious individual with a short temper and shorter attention span and a dash of meglomaniacal messanic delusions, sure. But not crazy.

[caesar]

That seems to be who is running the school boards now

[Trial-and-Error]

Tawasakm, are you still beating away on this insanity thing? Your postings are now becoming quite comical as you pontificate on a subject you know little about. As someone else noted, your reading of one book and taking one course does not make you any kind of an expert who can cast aspersions on other peoples' opinion notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary.

Psychology is not a science--not even close. One day, who knows, but right now those in the field are still floundering.

And just one other thing, instead of pooh poohing "common sense" as you seem wont to do, I would suggest that you try it first. Because someone tells you that psychology is a science, your common sense should tell you that it is not. That was my whole point originally, the amount of study that's been done on the mind, the brain, whatever, is very limited compared to what needs to be done. We simply haven't amassed sufficient data based on sufficient experiments that can be independently duplicated over and over and over with the same results. That's the thing with psychology too, you can always find someone in your court--whatever court that happens to be. So much for science.

A Study of Science. Sigmund Koch describes the delusion in thinking of psychology as a science:

"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

Koch also says, "Throughout psychology's history as 'science,' the hard knowledge it has deposited has been uniformly negative."

Before you place your bets on psychology as a science, you might want to check out the miserable misdiagnoses psychologists and psychiatrists make on a fairly regular basis.

If a psychologist or psychiatrist tries to tell me that Bush is sane and yet is responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of men, women and children--all based on contrivances--then I say the good doctor needs a shrink him/herself.

No one in their right mind sets out to commit wholesale slaughter.

[Tawasakm]

Tawasakm, are you still beating away on this insanity thing?

No, I quite clearly stated that I wasn't debating it any more.

As someone else noted, your reading of one book and taking one course does not make you any kind of an expert who can cast aspersions on other peoples' opinion notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary.

You are making a mistake here. Where did I say that my opinion was based on one book? I said I liked to quote from that book. Nor did I actually relate the level of my education. Nor will I. None of us can 'prove' who we are on this forum and what our level of education may be. Our arguments must rest on their merits. Nor am I casting 'aspersions' on people. I am presenting the facts as I see them and backed them up with authoritative sources.

And just one other thing, instead of pooh poohing "common sense" as you seem wont to do, I would suggest that you try it first.

As I recall you presented as 'evidence' a psychotic who made up an illness for Bush. Your common sense does not leave me stunned.

Psychology is not a science--not even close. One day, who knows, but right now those in the field are still floundering.

This opinion is coming from somebody who accepts the 'expert' analysis of an unqualified psychotic.

That was my whole point originally, the amount of study that's been done on the mind, the brain, whatever, is very limited compared to what needs to be done.

And I made the point that research is accelerating now as technology has developed which allows us monitor a brain in real time and observe it responding to stimuli. Do you know what has been done in the way of research? Are you aware of the difficulties which are faced and how they may be overcome?

As to the rest... well I just can't take you seriously. I'd LIKE to but the way you started off has just left a marked impression.

Now to clarify some things

Your postings are now becoming quite comical as you pontificate on a subject you know little about.

Yes it's easy to say that but nobody has proven that I was wrong. Bear in mind that I don't mind being wrong nor do I mind people disagreeing with me - what gets under my skin is people disagreeing with me without producing evidence. Eureka kept alluding to evidence but never actually produced it. You disagree with me but you didn't produce any evidence. I quoted the APA's accepted definition of insanity and nobody produced anything from an authoritative body that stated otherwise. That is why I withdrew from this thread. It is hardly a worthy debate if people disagree with each other but never substantiate. It is a complete waste of everybodys time.

For all these reasons I am not contributing to this thread anymore. My response to you marks my last post in this particular thread.

[Trial-and-Error]

Insanity, said Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again but

expecting different results.

Tawasakm, you have no more facts as you put it than I do. Just because something resides in a book or several books does not mean it is a fact. That's precisely the trouble today, everyone likes to look to the "experts" for their authority. Few, including you it seems, try to consider the "facts" by filtering them through their own observations to see if there appears to be "a fit."

Psychologists and psychiatrists are forever disagreeing with one another--now that's a fact.

Where did I say that my opinion was based on one book? said I liked to quote from that book.

Well, if you're basing your opinions here primarily on quotes from one book, that implies an extremely narrow view of a subject which is exceedingly complex.

As I recall you presented as 'evidence' a psychotic who made up an illness for Bush. Your common sense does not leave me stunned.

That's good as my intention was not to stun you but to make you aware that it is a very useful tool with which to separate the wheat from the chaffe.

But in any event, I never said I agreed with the author's definitive diagnosis; instead, I said "his (the author's) article reflects what many of us opposed to Junior's policies have intuitively already figured out; namely, that the man is psychologically seriously ill. By the way I find it fascinating that your main refutation of Levy's argument is that he is psychotic. Whoa, Nelly, that sounds like biased thinking to me. Pin a label on the guy and you can dismiss his line of reasoning. Faulty logic as I recall.

In any event, so sorry you don't like what Levy has to say. Well, what would you expect from a bloody psychotic.

So, try this one on.

The argument people opposed to my position sometime make is that I don't KNOW Junior and therefore I have no business assessing him as insane. Of course, I don't know Junior, but I've had a good deal of time to observe his actions--ones which have wreaked mayhem, instability, torture, dismemberment, and death upon hundreds of thousands if not millions of people--all supposedly in the name of freedom. The fact, too, that Junior likes to spread freedom to countries which he thinks he can defeat is no less interesting. If I knew someone personally who displayed similar disdain for the sanctity of life (well, except for fetuses--it's just those little urchins in Iraq, Afghanistan, and those residing in U.S. inner cities who are dispensable--some more skewed thinking by Junior), I'd do everything humanly possible to have the person committed for further study--and quickly. And while I don't have a background in psychology, I do recognize a bonefide nut case when I observe one. It's really too bad that you and others don't, cuz his behaviour is only going to get worse unless there are steps to have him removed from office. We certainly don't want him to continue emulating the likes of Hitler who, of course, wasn't insane either. Right!

C'mon now, you can't let me have the last say, can you? How about kimmy who you came so readily to the defence of--yeah, maybe she could spell you off for awhile. In the meantime, I'm going to split this popsicle stand and move on--yet again.

[Fortunata]

Watched a documentary about the Bush's. A family friend said that George Sr. felt very strongly about giving back; the whole noblesse oblige. George Jr. feels very strongly about noblesse, forget the oblige part. Even as a child he was a taker not a giver. He believed he was entitled to what he wanted when he wanted it. Looks like he hasn't changed much.

If he didn't get along with people so well on a personal level I would say he has strong psychopathic tendencies. As it is I think he is just a spoiled brat that hasn't had to face up to responsibility before so he doesn't know what it means. To him Iraq was a necessity and is now a success. Which indicates he is delusional too.

[PocketRocket]

As it is I think he is just a spoiled brat that hasn't had to face up to responsibility before so he doesn't know what it means.

Here, here!!!! Bravo!!!! I agree, whole-heartedly!!!!

[kimmy]

Again, underneath all the verbiage and posturing, it's the same argument: "Bush must be insane, just look at all the suffering he has caused!"

So again, I ask whether any world leader who has employed military force is by definition a psychopath, or if that diagnosis only applies when we disagree with the cause for which the military force has been employed?

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

A far more damning action was Bush's hard-on for executing people, even ones who had evidence supporting their innocence. Someone may not need to be insane to deploy a military force, but there has to be something wrong upstairs when you insist on executing people who you know are innocent.

[Trial-and-Error]

In a word, kimmy, YES!

Most wars in my opinion are initiated by psychotics, which now, in the age of awe power gives much cause for concern. What's even more troubling is that so many people believe that war is inevitable and thus do not really question it sufficiently to make a positive difference.

If the earth and its inhabitants are to survive the nuclear age, there will need to be a paradigm shift in public thinking vis-a-vis how we view war and how we select our leaders. Independent, beholding-to-no-one screening of leaders should begin in ernest.

But to Junior specifically: That he began a preemptive strike against a country which he knew was no threat to the U.S.--imminent or otherwise--tells me that he is out of touch with reality; i.e., he is incapable of truly understanding the seriousness of war and the abject, unspeakable travesty it wreaks, to say nothing of the trillions of dollars his wretched decision has cost.

Some will say well, okay, Junior went to war because he wanted he and his buddies to control the flow of Iraqi oil--so let's put it down to greed. Or, some will say, okay, he "thought" the U.S. was in imminent danger (really bad intelligence backed up with absolutely no proof). Or some will say Junior is just a spoilt brat.

To go to war in the first instance suggests to me that greed has ceased just being greed and has stepped into the realm of pathology. In other words, greed has superceded his grasp on reality.

To go to war in the second instance is false because he was given completely reliable information that Saddam did NOT have WMD and the U.S. was NOT in any imminent danger from Iraq. In my opinion, one would have to be truly psychotic to take preemptive action

And in the third instance, I find it ludicrous that some could even contemplate that merely being a spoilt brat would be the underpinnings to war and thousands being killed. Again, his spoilt bratism has superceded his grasp on reality and moved into psychosis.

Further, I find it totally incomprehensible how anyone "among the willing" can believe even for a fleeting minute that Junior's goal for the invasion was to silence Saddam (former ally) forever and bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people--this extraordinary incongruity on the heels of proven lies; namely, that the U.S. was in imminent danger from Iraq's WMDs and that bin Laden had been in cahoots with Saddam is nothing short of mind boggling. Levy in his article attempts to address the complicity of the American people.

I Miss Trudeau (and so do I, kind've)

A far more damning action was Bush's hard-on for executing people, even ones who had evidence supporting their innocence. Someone may not need to be insane to deploy a military force, but there has to be something wrong upstairs when you insist on executing people who you know are innocent.

What baffles me, though, is why someone being responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocents(as in a war based entirely on contrivances) should be considered any less insane than someone who is responsible and gleeful for the state murder of let's say a handful of innocents.