I assume you won't mind if I contradict your "published definitions" with a couple of my own, And I'll supply links as well.
Under these definitions it appears you're both wrong;
however by this definition it seems that Bush is actually a PSYCHOPATH (...and does not feel bad about anything they have done in the past).
So yeah, this guy scares me...
Utter nonsense.
Get a grip. Please.
You bolded that like my word wasn't good enough for you. I'm hurt. Here you are.
While the definitions you supplied are not identical, they nevertheless do nothing to nullify any statement that I've made.
Quote:While the definitions you supplied are not identical, they nevertheless do nothing to nullify any statement that I've made.
Your argument with BPB was over whether Bush was insane (psychopathic) or Sociopathic. You argued that the terms both meant the same thing, while I argued that they don't.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I find it hard to believe a group of bright educated folks like yourselves thnk that because I think bush is a sociopath that means I think he's insane.......I never said that....."sociopath" is hardly the biggest dig you've used on Bush's mental competence, Bear. Besides, Sociopath is little more than a kinder, gentler way of saying psychopath... which is indeed a description of a mental disorder. I suspect "insane" may be a more loosely defined term than your assessment calls for as well. What did you hope to accomplish with this wordplay anyway?
On a more personal note: let me know next time You're in WI, I grew up in GB and am a "Cheesehead" myself. The first round is on me
Sound advise would have shown me where I was wrong, and pointed out a more prudent path to take in the future.
Statements like:
Quote:Utter nonsense.
Get a grip. Please.
Are simply commands with no arguments supporting them. With all due respect to Finn, he has made some very good points in other posts, this was not one of them.
Quote:You bolded that like my word wasn't good enough for you. I'm hurt. Here you are.
This is an internet discussion group. I take anything I read with a grain of salt, especially without at least a link to support it. Nothing personal. :wink:
Quote:While the definitions you supplied are not identical, they nevertheless do nothing to nullify any statement that I've made.
Your argument with BPB was over whether Bush was insane (psychopathic) or Sociopathic. You argued that the terms both meant the same thing, while I argued that they don't. This is a true or false argument, one of the few cases where one of us must be right and one of us must be wrong. Either the two terms mean the same thing or they don't.
Personally, I suspect that neither of our sources are wholly correct, and it will take a psychologist/psychiatrist to determine which of us is right.
On a more personal note: let me know next time You're in WI, I grew up in GB and am a "Cheesehead" myself. The first round is on me
I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:My definitions came from my friend Tom, a practicing pscychologist, well respected by his colleagues and opne of the smartest people I know. He's been practicing 30 years.
He would call Finns response, because he's so knowledgeable simplistic and adversarial. Funny, I'm an ignorant lout and that's what I thought.
Leave it to a psychologist (or an ignorant lout) to mistake elementary for simplistic. No one has ever lost money betting on a psychologist to choose the obscure over the lucid.
Actually he would be right, though, if he termed my response adversarial. I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath. Being able to express a ridiculous contention in seemingly intelligent phraseology makes it no less ridiculous.
Clever perhaps, but no less ridiculous.
s...
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:My definitions came from my friend Tom, a practicing pscychologist, well respected by his colleagues and opne of the smartest people I know. He's been practicing 30 years.
He would call Finns response, because he's so knowledgeable simplistic and adversarial. Funny, I'm an ignorant lout and that's what I thought.
Leave it to a psychologist (or an ignorant lout) to mistake elementary for simplistic. No one has ever lost money betting on a psychologist to choose the obscure over the lucid.
Actually he would be right, though, if he termed my response adversarial. I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath. Being able to express a ridiculous contention in seemingly intelligent phraseology makes it no less ridiculous.
Clever perhaps, but no less ridiculous.
struck a little nerve there huh Finn? I may be an ignorant lout....you may be a whiny little girl....no one really knows for sure huh? We'll just have to let others form their own opinions....cheer
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath.
But, do you agree that if any of them were to ignore the rules of a debate previously agreed upon by him, he should apologize for his mistake? Do you think that if a person, being human and subject to the human errors all men make, if asked to come up with 3, should at least recall having made 1 at some point in his life? Particularly when one was made within the past 90 minutes???
