53
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
sceletera
 
  5  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:44 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Ah, you concede one thing while denying all the others. My statement seems to be pretty accurate in describing you and what your response would be.

There is no accuracy in your personal attacks.

Did you concede you were wrong about one thing? Yes.
Did you deny you were wrong about other things that I have shown you to be wrong about? Yes.
Did I say you would deny you were wrong about things even when shown you were wrong? Yes.
I see nothing inaccurate in my statement. We can revisit this once you admit dyslexia is not a mental disorder under the SS regulation if you like. You are certainly determined to deny that it is excluded.

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
Actually there is a focus on mental illness since the requirements include being "mental defective" which has very clear standards that include symptoms of those with mental illness.

The fact that they also include standards other than mental illness means that this isn't a focus on mental illness.

Which standard other than a mental illness is included. Because they list them as "mental disorders" means they are using the correct medical term. It does not however mean they are including all mental disorders since they set out the standards for which mental disorders are included here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf
page 518.

Quote:
To help you understand this concept, here is an example: if they targeted every single person in the world, that would include all of the mentally ill people. But since they were also going after all the people who are not mentally ill, there is no focus on the mentally ill.

They are not going after anyone with dyslexia since dyslexia doesn't meet the standard here
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf
page 518

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
What precisely do you think a mental disorder is medically?

I think it includes things like dyslexia.


sceletera wrote:
Everything considered a mental illness is classified as a mental disorder.

So are things that are not counted as mental illness.


sceletera wrote:
This might give a bit of understanding. It is WHO's classifications of mental disorders.

As I said.

It includes fear of spiders.

I guess that would have been it for my freedom if Obama had had his way. I'm not a big fan of spiders.
Please point to the specific section of the WHO regulations

It includes claustrophobia.

It includes attention deficit disorder.
It includes homosexuality.

It includes heterosexual people who like kinky sex.

It seems you have decided to just try to overwhelm me with statements that are untrue. Some of those things are mental disorders. Arachnophobia would come under the phobic disorders classification but would not meet the standard set out by the SS regulation. Homosexuality is not a disorder nor to my understanding is kinky sex. They certainly wouldn't make someone incapable of working which is requirement in order to receive disability. You run from one thing to the next failing to put them together has a whole which is the requirement under the regulations.

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made.

No one?

I have never made any such statement.
You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen. Are those isolated instances?


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
Are you now claiming that your statement was not about how truthful you are but simply a rhetorical fallacy on your part to attempt to shift the burden of proof unto others?

No. I'm pointing out that I never made any such statement.

Quote:
Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.

Quote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

There seems to be a pattern of you saying similar things.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
Your statement that no one has ever shown you to make an untruthful claim has to be either one or the other.

Not if there is no such statement to begin with.

Semantic BS on your part. The reverse rhetorical argument you are making for gun control and SS regulations. Perhaps you are unclear what sets and subsets are. You decide to use the full set when only a subset is talked about or a subset when the full set is being talked about. It may seem like a good argument to you but it shows your lack of logic.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
If it had a different purpose feel free to tell me what it was.

Perhaps the reason why you are falsely accusing me of making such a statement is to distract from the fact that I am completely correct when I point out that this monstrosity was not limited to the mentally ill.
I didn't falsely accuse you. See your 2 quotes above. Repeating your false argument about what was included still doesn't make your statements true.

It seems you are mistaking executive action with executive orders. An executive order is a specific statement signed by the President and can be found here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
Executive actions are actions taken by the executive branch of the government often at the behest of the President. If you read your articles they refer to executive action in the form of SS regulations.

Quote:
You're making way too many personal attacks and false accusations against me to warrant me taking the time to dig up the actual executive order again
. Or it could just be the fact that there is no such executive order because we are actually talking about an executive action. Untrue statement #10? I've lost count.

Quote:

sceletera wrote:
Then you can cite how the regulation came about because the EO.

Federal agencies do as the President orders them to.

The Constitution kind of requires that of them.


sceletera wrote:
Congress did not overturn any EO related to the NICS. Any claim that they did is factually untrue unless you can cite the specific law.
I guess we should make these statements #8 for you being untruthful.
(You should really be careful of using such sloppy logic because if applied to your gun control arguments it creates all kinds of issues for your stance there.)

Your sophistry is neither an untrue statement by me nor sloppy logic by me.

Feel free to try to undermine any of my gun control arguments, if you think you can.

If you do try, it would be preferable if you didn't pollute your position with false accusations and personal attacks. It really doesn't help, and responding to all the nonsense gets in the way of the factual stuff.

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, I think for the next round of my replies to you I will disregard all false accusations and personal attacks that you make and address only whatever factual issues you raise.

It seems you have decided that you can simply accuse me of lying and it will either make me go away or prove your statements true. I'm sure I will tire of this game at some point and go away but it still won't make your statements true. You have been guilty of not knowing what you are talking about. You simply hope no one will bother to check up on what you are spouting.
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:50 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
You are referring to one small portion of their list of mental disorders. There were a number of listings beyond the narrow category that you are listing here, and they do include harmless disabilities.

I am hardly referring to one small portion. I am referring to the 7 listed items of which at least one must be met in the SS regulation before they move on to criteria number 2 where two more criteria must be met before someone can be classified under SS as being disabled because of mental defect.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf
Page 519.
Quote:
at least
one of the following:
1. Disorientation to time and place; or
2. Memory impairment, either short-term
(inability to learn new information), intermediate,
or long-term (inability to remember
information that was known sometime in
the past); or
3. Perceptual or thinking disturbances
(e.g., hallucinations, delusions); or
4. Change in personality; or
5. Disturbance in mood; or
6. Emotional lability (e.g., explosive temper
outbursts, sudden crying, etc.) and impairment
in impulse control; or
7. Loss of measured intellectual ability of
at least 15 I.Q. points from premorbid levels
or overall impairment index clearly within
the severely impaired range on neuropsychological
testing, e.g., the Luria-Nebraska,
Halstead-Reitan, etc.;


Phobias are not listed anywhere in the regulations that allow one to be classified as disabled because of a mental defect.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:53 am
Oralloy is wrong, repeatedly, good job trying to convince him of that, but ultimately you're wasting your time.

Been there, done that.
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:00 am
@maporsche,
Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:02 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:

Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.


I've haven't read much of him for a few months, but I do remember that being a very common refrain. Actually, almost everything he says he's repeated several dozen times.

You can click the "Search" link up in the upper right of the screen and in the box type in:

Oralloy "single untrue thing"
[or some other common phrase he's used dozens of time] and you'll see a bunch of posts where he's used that phrase, probably dating back years.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 04:29 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.

You're certainly a dishonest and dishonorable fellow, aren't you?

I denied your untrue claim that I claimed to have never been wrong. In fact, I have always admitted my fallibility.


However, when I'm confronted with an individual who:

a) has never shown me to be wrong,

b) is trying to claim that I am wrong without even making an argument against anything that I say,

c) is making an untrue claim about how I'm always wrong and there are many examples of me being wrong, and

d) cannot point out a single instance of me being wrong,

of course in that situation I point out their inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about.

It is a perfectly reasonable response to such a dishonorable person and tactic.

You're about to see me give such a response to that maporsche fellow.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 04:31 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Oralloy is wrong, repeatedly,

Feel free to cite a single case where I am wrong (outside from the current conversation with this sceletera fellow, where he did find a minor error that I made).

You can't. Because you have no honor, you have no integrity, and you are lying.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 04:37 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Did you deny you were wrong about other things that I have shown you to be wrong about? Yes.

Cases where you make an untrue statement and falsely accuse me of being wrong count as cases where you are wrong, not as cases where I am wrong.


sceletera wrote:
I see nothing inaccurate in my statement.

You may see nothing wrong about lying about people and making personal attacks against them to bolster a position that you cannot defend intellectually, but it is pretty dishonorable behavior.


sceletera wrote:
Which standard other than a mental illness is included.

Phobias are clearly covered. That would include claustrophobia as well as my own fear of spiders.


sceletera wrote:
They are not going after anyone with dyslexia since dyslexia doesn't meet the standard here
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf
page 518

I'm not convinced of that. The regulations are so complex that I cannot be sure that it doesn't count somewhere within them.

I'll concede though that I didn't see a clear instance of it being covered.

Phobias are clearly covered however. And that is just as good. Someone shouldn't be denied the right to have guns because they are claustrophobic.

Anorexia is clearly covered as well. Another that is no reason to deprive someone of a gun.


sceletera wrote:
Some of those things are mental disorders. Arachnophobia would come under the phobic disorders classification but would not meet the standard set out by the SS regulation.

Why not? Is it not a phobia?


sceletera wrote:
Homosexuality is not a disorder nor to my understanding is kinky sex.

From your link:

Code:(F64) Gender identity disorders

(F64.0) Transsexualism
(F64.1) Dual-role transvestism
(F64.2) Gender identity disorder of childhood

(F65) Disorders of sexual preference

(F65.0) Sexual fetishism
(F65.1) Fetishistic transvestism
(F65.2) Exhibitionism
(F65.3) Voyeurism
. . . .
(F65.5) Sadomasochism



sceletera wrote:
You run from one thing to the next failing to put them together has a whole which is the requirement under the regulations.

If a disorder is covered, it is reasonable for me to point out that it is covered.


sceletera wrote:
You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen.

Nonsense.


sceletera wrote:
Are those isolated instances?

They are lies on your part.


sceletera wrote:
Quote:
Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.
Quote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

There seems to be a pattern of you saying similar things.

Those reasonable and accurate statements from me are quite different from what you falsely accused me of saying.


sceletera wrote:
Semantic BS on your part.

Nope. You lied about me. Pointing out your lies is hardly semantics.


sceletera wrote:
The reverse rhetorical argument you are making for gun control and SS regulations. Perhaps you are unclear what sets and subsets are. You decide to use the full set when only a subset is talked about or a subset when the full set is being talked about. It may seem like a good argument to you but it shows your lack of logic.

There is nothing illogical about denying your lies about me.


sceletera wrote:
I didn't falsely accuse you.

Yes you did.


sceletera wrote:
See your 2 quotes above.

You mean the ones that are nothing like what you falsely accused me of?


sceletera wrote:
Repeating your false argument about what was included still doesn't make your statements true.

Nothing is false about the fact that your lies about me are untrue.


sceletera wrote:
It seems you are mistaking executive action with executive orders.

It could be. They seem like pretty much the same thing.

Is there an important difference? They are both the President telling the government to do something, right?


sceletera wrote:
It seems you have decided that you can simply accuse me of lying and it will either make me go away or prove your statements true.

The nice thing about the truth is that it doesn't need to be made true.

Accusing you a lying is a natural reaction to you lying about me.


sceletera wrote:
You have been guilty of not knowing what you are talking about.

I made a mistake by using the term mental disorder when I should have said mental illness.

My main point, that this monstrosity was targeted at people who are not mentally ill remains valid.

All of your silly picking over mistakes like disorder verses illness does not change the fact that my main point is completely correct.


sceletera wrote:
You simply hope no one will bother to check up on what you are spouting.

Minor mistakes that don't impact the actual issue of contention can be vexing, but I certainly wouldn't waste any energy hoping that I never make them. They aren't that big of a deal.

I know I promised to not respond to all your lies and personal attacks, but since 99% of your post was lies and personal attacks, I still felt like rebutting them.

Maybe next round I'll not respond to them.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 04:39 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
I am hardly referring to one small portion. I am referring to the 7 listed items of which at least one must be met in the SS regulation before they move on to criteria number 2 where two more criteria must be met before someone can be classified under SS as being disabled because of mental defect.

That is one small portion of what are pages of different mental disorders.


sceletera wrote:
Phobias are not listed anywhere in the regulations that allow one to be classified as disabled because of a mental defect.

Yes, actually they are.

Page 520

12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders:

2. A persistent irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation which results in a compelling desire to avoid the dreaded object, activity, or situation; or
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 04:41 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Dyslexia isn't a mental disorder that meets the requirements under the SS regulation. The only one claiming it does is you. SS regulations are such that not all disorders are included in what classifies for being referred to NICS.

I'm not convinced of that. All of the various mental regulations are a maze. I lack the expertise to tell whether it is or isn't included.


sceletera wrote:
Continuing to bring up dyslexia after you have been told this will in the future qualify as an untruth on your part.

No worries. I can see that the regulations do include phobias and anorexia.

They suffice just as well as examples of people who are not mentally ill.


sceletera wrote:
As I predicted, you simply declare your statements to be true in spite of facts.

No such facts. My statements there were true whether you like it or not.


sceletera wrote:
By the way, this is the statement you made that caused me to join this board.
oralloy wrote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

Well, can you cite any instance of the person with the big mouth ever finding an error on my part?

Even a minor error such as the one that you found?


sceletera wrote:
I have specifically pointed to your statements and shown how they are false.

Your pointing to true statements and claiming that they are false doesn't count as showing that they are false.


sceletera wrote:
You seem to think that your making vague statements is the same thing.

I don't make vague statements.


sceletera wrote:
If you would care to point to my specific statements we can test the veracity of those statements.

I generally quote the statement that I am responding to. If you see me complaining about your lies, you can see your offending lie quoted right above that.

But here are some of your lies about me:

"You will of course deny it because that seems to be who you are."

"Your outlandish claims of never telling anything untrue seems to be trying to hide behind bluster and name calling."

"That statement is true but it applies to you."

"Who is counting dyslexia as a mental illness other than you?"

"We will simply group all of your above statements that are factually untrue and call them #7."

"You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made."

"You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen."
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 07:24 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.

You're certainly a dishonest and dishonorable fellow, aren't you?

I denied your untrue claim that I claimed to have never been wrong. In fact, I have always admitted my fallibility.
I never stated that you claimed to never be wrong. I stated the following
Quote:

You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made.

The two statements can both be true. You can admit being wrong while claiming no has ever pointed to an untrue statement. You are arguing against something I never said.

Quote:
However, when I'm confronted with an individual who:

a) has never shown me to be wrong,

b) is trying to claim that I am wrong without even making an argument against anything that I say,

c) is making an untrue claim about how I'm always wrong and there are many examples of me being wrong, and I certainly never said this

d) cannot point out a single instance of me being wrong,

of course in that situation I point out their inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about.

It is a perfectly reasonable response to such a dishonorable person and tactic.

You're about to see me give such a response to that maporsche fellow.

Let's see.
a.) You have not shown me to be wrong.
b. you are trying to claim I am wrong without making an argument against my actual statement.
c.) you called me dishonorable
d.) you haven't pointed to a single instance of me being wrong.
What would you suggest should be my perfectly reasonable response to you?

(Your points a. and d. are the same thing. Repeating them doesn't make them true but it does point to some logical failings on your part.)

Thanks to maporsche on how to search here are several instances of you stating x has not pointed to an untrue statement by you.
https://able2know.org/topic/307925-8#post-6105212
https://able2know.org/topic/408384-10#post-6507555
https://able2know.org/topic/127639-316#post-6018913
https://able2know.org/topic/263600-11#post-5859802
https://able2know.org/topic/269323-15#post-5914642
https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1550#post-6511629
https://able2know.org/topic/127639-336#post-6244961
https://able2know.org/topic/172280-5#post-4614714
https://able2know.org/topic/227446-5#post-5503814
(No need to go through the other 10 pages of results. I think everyone gets the idea. )

It seems you repeat yourself a lot on variations of that one phrase. One could make a reasonable conclusion that you go on and on about it.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 07:53 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
The two statements can both be true. You can admit being wrong while claiming no has ever pointed to an untrue statement. You are arguing against something I never said.

You are playing word games.

Let me try again. You falsely accused me of saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

You cannot point to a single time where I've ever said that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

If I felt like searching (I don't feel like it) I could find a number of times where I explicitly stated that there was one person on a2k who had in fact found (minor) errors on my part.


sceletera wrote:
I certainly never said this

You are complaining about my justified responses to other people who have in fact said it, which why you received an explanation as to why I made those justified responses to those other people.


sceletera wrote:
b. you are trying to claim I am wrong without making an argument against my actual statement.

Nonsense. I have not done any such thing.


sceletera wrote:
c.) you called me dishonorable

A reasonable response to your outrageous lies about me.


sceletera wrote:
What would you suggest should be my perfectly reasonable response to you?

I suggest not lying about me and sticking to arguing about facts.


sceletera wrote:
(Your points a. and d. are the same thing. Repeating them doesn't make them true but it does point to some logical failings on your part.)

The nice thing about facts is, I don't have to "make" them true. Facts are just naturally true of their own accord.

Feel free to try to poke holes in my logic if you like. Trying never hurt anyone.


sceletera wrote:
Thanks to maporsche on how to search here are several instances of you stating x has not pointed to an untrue statement by you.

How many instance of me saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine?


sceletera wrote:
It seems you repeat yourself a lot on variations of that one phrase.

It seems like a lot of dishonorable people use vague references to imaginary occurrences of me being wrong to attack my posts without ever coming up with an argument against anything I say.


sceletera wrote:
One could make a reasonable conclusion that you go on and on about it.

No. There is nothing reasonable about such a conclusion. I respond that way only when I am faced with dishonorable tactics that justify my response.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:08 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Cases where you make an untrue statement and falsely accuse me of being wrong count as cases where you are wrong, not as cases where I am wrong.

Except you are clearly wrong.

Let me cite some of the examples:
1.) You claimed there was no focus on mental disabilities.
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-67#post-6601745
In fact, the focus was specifically on mental disabilities. The SS regulation required that someone be on disability and that the disability be because of a mental defect.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
page 91713
Quote:
(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’

Feel free to read the rest. It clearly shows your statement to be false.

2.)
oralloy wrote:
No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.

No, the rule did not cover everyone.
Quote:
(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and

ibid. Page 91714
It exempted everyone under 18 and those that had reached retirement age. (Retirement is different based on when a person was born.)
That is even before we get to the other tests for who is adjudicated as a mental defective.

3.)
oralloy wrote:
Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.
Your statement about the rule covering everyone is clearly not a fact. This comment was referring to that statement.

4.)
oralloy wrote:
No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.

This statement is also not true. The first requirement is
Quote:
(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;

ibid Page 91714
Only those that have filed a disability claim are covered under the regulation

5.)
oralloy wrote:
I'm on record repeatedly linking to the executive order when Obama had it on his White House page
Since this is a regulation and not an executive order you couldn't have provided links to an executive order. Executive orders are all listed here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
When asked to point to the specific one, you posted links that use the term executive action which is in no way an Executive Order.
When I do a search for "oralloy" and "whitehouse.gov" which would be in any url linked to the whitehouse nothing comes up other than a link when you are discussing Bibi Netentahu. There are no other instances of you using "whitehouse.gov" on this site. Can you explain how you repeatedly did something that doesn't show up in a simple search?
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:33 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You may see nothing wrong about lying about people and making personal attacks against them to bolster a position that you cannot defend intellectually, but it is pretty dishonorable behavior.

Rather than defend your position you have called me dishonest and dishonorable.
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-70#post-6603671
I already posted links to 9 posts that support my statement. I would bet I can find 3 times that many based on the results of just one search phrase.

Quote:
Phobias are clearly covered. That would include claustrophobia as well as my own fear of spiders.
Phobias are clearly not covered under the regulation. Has your fear of spiders prevented you from getting and keeping work? If you have been able to work in spite of this phobia than you would not be eligible for disability and not covered under the SS regulation.

Quote:
I'm not convinced of that. The regulations are so complex that I cannot be sure that it doesn't count somewhere within them.

The regulations are hardly complex. You simply need to read the requirements and then apply the test in those requirements. Simply answer the 7 questions I have asked. If you can not truthfully answer yes to any of them then we don't even have to apply the second and third tests.
Simply replace x with any disorder you want to bring up.

Does x cause disorientation?
Does x cause memory impairment?
Does x cause hallucinations?
Does x cause a change in personality?
Does x cause mood disturbances?
Does x cause loss of impulse control?
Does x cause a decrease in IQ from what your IQ previously was?


Quote:
Why not? Is it not a phobia?

See my answer above.

Quote:
From your link:

If you read from my link, those are behavior disorders, not mental disorders.
homosexuality is not a disorder. It was removed from the list some time ago.

Quote:
If a disorder is covered, it is reasonable for me to point out that it is covered.
Except you keep pointing out disorders that are not covered under the regulation. You fail to apply an test before you bring them up.

Quote:
It could be. They seem like pretty much the same thing.

Is there an important difference? They are both the President telling the government to do something, right?

No. They are not the same thing. EO's are signed by the President and published in the Federal Registry.

oralloy wrote:
I made a mistake by using the term mental disorder when I should have said mental illness.

My main point, that this monstrosity was targeted at people who are not mentally ill remains valid.
No, it doesn't remain valid. You continue to ignore what the rule actually says.
Quote:
(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’’

Then you completely ignore how one is adjudicated as such.
Quote:
(2) Has been determined to be
disabled based on a finding that the
individual’s impairment(s) meets or
medically equals the requirements of
one of the Mental Disorders Listing of
Impairments (section 12.00 of appendix
1 to subpart P of part 404 of this
chapter) under the rules in part 404,
subpart P, of this chapter, or under the
rules in part 416, subpart I, of this
chapter;

Which then requires that you actually look at what the mental disorders are in the SS regulations.

Your point is not valid because the regulations prove you wrong. You have admitted you can't comprehend the regulations. Your ignorance does not make your statement true. It only shows you are ignorant.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 08:48 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:


That is one small portion of what are pages of different mental disorders.



sceletera wrote:
Phobias are not listed anywhere in the regulations that allow one to be classified as disabled because of a mental defect.

Yes, actually they are.

Page 520

12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders:

2. A persistent irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation which results in a compelling desire to avoid the dreaded object, activity, or situation; or

You are correct, anxiety disorder is listed.
I see you failed to include all the other requirements for anxiety order to cause one to have a medical defect.
Quote:
12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders: In these disorders
anxiety is either the predominant disturbance
or it is experienced if the individual
attempts to master symptoms; for example,
confronting the dreaded object or situation
in a phobic disorder or resisting the
obsessions or compulsions in obsessive compulsive
disorders.
The required level of severity for these disorders
is met when the requirements in both
A and B are satisfied, or when the requirements
in both A and C are satisfied.

A. Medically documented findings of at
least one of the following:
1. Generalized persistent anxiety accompanied
by three out of four of the following
signs or symptoms:
a. Motor tension; or
b. Autonomic hyperactivity; or
c. Apprehensive expectation; or
d. Vigilance and scanning;
or
2. A persistent irrational fear of a specific
object, activity, or situation which results in
a compelling desire to avoid the dreaded object,
activity, or situation; or
3. Recurrent severe panic attacks manifested
by a sudden unpredictable onset of intense
apprehension, fear, terror and sense of
impending doom occurring on the average of
at least once a week; or
4. Recurrent obsessions or compulsions
which are a source of marked distress; or
5. Recurrent and intrusive recollections of
a traumatic experience, which are a source
of marked distress;
AND
B. Resulting in at least two of the following:

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily
living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social
functioning; or
3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence, or pace; or
4. Repeated episodes of decompensation,
each of extended duration.
OR
C. Resulting in complete inability to function
independently outside the area of one’s
home

One can't simply have a fear of spiders. They have to be medically diagnosed as being irrationally fearful to the point of not being able to function.
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:03 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Dyslexia isn't a mental disorder that meets the requirements under the SS regulation. The only one claiming it does is you. SS regulations are such that not all disorders are included in what classifies for being referred to NICS.

I'm not convinced of that. All of the various mental regulations are a maze. I lack the expertise to tell whether it is or isn't included.
And yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming you know what is in the regulations.
Quote:

sceletera wrote:
Continuing to bring up dyslexia after you have been told this will in the future qualify as an untruth on your part.

No worries. I can see that the regulations do include phobias and anorexia.

They suffice just as well as examples of people who are not mentally ill.
Everything after the first section requires a medical diagnosis of being unable to function in some way.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
As I predicted, you simply declare your statements to be true in spite of facts.

No such facts. My statements there were true whether you like it or not.
Another declaration without and support.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
By the way, this is the statement you made that caused me to join this board.
oralloy wrote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

Well, can you cite any instance of the person with the big mouth ever finding an error on my part?

Even a minor error such as the one that you found?
That is pretty funny.
This is the post where you made the statement.
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-67#post-6601745
You attack farmerman for not being able to point out any error on your part when he points out the same thing you now admit was an error on your part. Is the SS regulation about mental disabilities? Yes or no?

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
I have specifically pointed to your statements and shown how they are false.

Your pointing to true statements and claiming that they are false doesn't count as showing that they are false.
I am pointing to your statements and giving links to show why they are false. Your denying that the links prove you wrong doesn't make your statements true. It only makes you delusional.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
You seem to think that your making vague statements is the same thing.

I don't make vague statements.
Of course you make vague statements. Your statement above I highlighted in red is a vague statement with no specifics. It provides no evidence to rebut any of the specifics I have given.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
If you would care to point to my specific statements we can test the veracity of those statements.

I generally quote the statement that I am responding to. If you see me complaining about your lies, you can see your offending lie quoted right above that.

Yes, you quoted my statement but you give no specifics showing why my statement is untrue.

Quote:
But here are some of your lies about me:

"You will of course deny it because that seems to be who you are."

"Your outlandish claims of never telling anything untrue seems to be trying to hide behind bluster and name calling."

"That statement is true but it applies to you."

"Who is counting dyslexia as a mental illness other than you?"

"We will simply group all of your above statements that are factually untrue and call them #7."

"You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made."

That is a list of statements I have made. Some of them are opinion but you have presented nothing to show how any of them are untrue.

Quote:
"You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen."

I have provide links of you saying it at 9 different times to various posters. Your denial is very cute and endearing but it isn't factual.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:09 pm
@sceletera,
Have you seen him declare, with his typical certainly and bluster, that he has a greater IQ than anyone on this board, and likely anyone he’s met in real life.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:21 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
The two statements can both be true. You can admit being wrong while claiming no has ever pointed to an untrue statement. You are arguing against something I never said.

You are playing word games.

Let me try again. You falsely accused me of saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

You cannot point to a single time where I've ever said that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

You accuse me of playing word games? The English language is sometimes imperfect but for you to pick out one word and attempt to use it to make an argument is disingenuous on your part after you argue
Quote:
I made a mistake by using the term mental disorder when I should have said mental illness.

My main point, that this monstrosity was targeted at people who are not mentally ill remains valid.


Here you go.
I made a mistake using the word "no one". I should have filled it in with names such as maporsche, farmerman, MontereyJack, izzythepush, olivier5, etc, etc.
My main point is still quite valid.

Quote:
If I felt like searching (I don't feel like it) I could find a number of times where I explicitly stated that there was one person on a2k who had in fact found (minor) errors on my part.
You seem to think this is a useful dodge. I would beat you up if I felt like it. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
I certainly never said this

You are complaining about my justified responses to other people who have in fact said it, which why you received an explanation as to why I made those justified responses to those other people.

I am hardly complaining. I am pointing out that your attempt to justify that response only makes my statement truthful.

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
b. you are trying to claim I am wrong without making an argument against my actual statement.

Nonsense. I have not done any such thing.
You do it constantly.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
c.) you called me dishonorable

A reasonable response to your outrageous lies about me.
And yet, you haven't been able to show any of my statement to be lies. What is that comment you keep making? Oh. that's right. You must be the clown that has never been able to show a single fact I have been wrong about.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
What would you suggest should be my perfectly reasonable response to you?

I suggest not lying about me and sticking to arguing about facts.
If only you had taken that advice to heart before you gave it to others.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
(Your points a. and d. are the same thing. Repeating them doesn't make them true but it does point to some logical failings on your part.)

The nice thing about facts is, I don't have to "make" them true. Facts are just naturally true of their own accord.
Yes, they are. And they stand even taller when one bothers to give links to sources that support them. That would as be opposed to those that claim they would support them if only they felt like searching for some supporting evidence. I wonder who did that?

Quote:
Feel free to try to poke holes in my logic if you like. Trying never hurt anyone.
It's a good thing or you would end up in hospital.

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
Thanks to maporsche on how to search here are several instances of you stating x has not pointed to an untrue statement by you.

How many instance of me saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine?
My point is still valid. Very Happy

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
It seems you repeat yourself a lot on variations of that one phrase.

It seems like a lot of dishonorable people use vague references to imaginary occurrences of me being wrong to attack my posts without ever coming up with an argument against anything I say.

Blaming others for your actions? You clearly made the statements. I can only assume you weren't forced to make them by someone holding a gun to your head.

Quote:
sceletera wrote:
One could make a reasonable conclusion that you go on and on about it.

No. There is nothing reasonable about such a conclusion. I respond that way only when I am faced with dishonorable tactics that justify my response.
Your excuse for doing it doesn't change the fact that you do it quite often. Nor does your excuse make the many times you did it disappear.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:23 pm
Facebook Meme:

"So, let me get this straight... School failed, FBI failed, cops failed, officer on site failed, but you guys blame the NRA?!"

Takes a special kind of idjit...
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2018 09:31 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Facebook Meme:

"So, let me get this straight... School failed, FBI failed, cops failed, officer on site failed, but you guys blame the NRA?!"

Takes a special kind of idjit...

The nice thing about memes is they are often as devoid of thought as the people that feel the need to post them.

You can turn that into a meme if you desire.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 12:06:10