[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Being filmed while going to take a shit is of course not an invasion of privacy.[/quote]
They were outside the rest room in a busy foyer. [/quote]
LOL. They were outside the rest room because Mass Resistance decided to go to a transgender conference and tape people as they entered the rest room.
You defending this trash is absolutely hilarious.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Being filmed while going to take a shit is of course not an invasion of privacy.[/quote]
They were outside the rest room in a busy foyer. [/quote]
LOL. They were outside the rest room because Mass Resistance decided to go to a transgender conference and tape people as they entered the rest room.
You defending this trash is absolutely hilarious. [/quote]
Only so far no one has been able to articulate why - other than claiming that people have a right to privacy in a busy hotel foyer.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Being filmed while going to take a shit is of course not an invasion of privacy.[/quote]
They were outside the rest room in a busy foyer. [/quote]
LOL. They were outside the rest room because Mass Resistance decided to go to a transgender conference and tape people as they entered the rest room.
You defending this trash is absolutely hilarious. [/quote]
Only so far no one has been able to articulate why - other than claiming that people have a right to privacy in a busy hotel foyer.[/quote]
Hey you read a website that takes videos of people walking into restrooms, harasses school children running naked from police and actively protests anti-gay bullying measures. So far you haven’t been able to articulate why other than calling other people psychotic.
Obama getting upset during a speech is psychotic and the behavior of Mass Resistance gets defended. I think I’m done trying to figure you out.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Being filmed while going to take a shit is of course not an invasion of privacy.[/quote]
They were outside the rest room in a busy foyer. [/quote]
LOL. They were outside the rest room because Mass Resistance decided to go to a transgender conference and tape people as they entered the rest room.
You defending this trash is absolutely hilarious. [/quote]
Only so far no one has been able to articulate why - other than claiming that people have a right to privacy in a busy hotel foyer.[/quote]
Hey you read a website that takes videos of people walking into restrooms, harasses school children running naked from police and actively protests anti-gay bullying measures. So far you haven’t been able to articulate why other than calling other people psychotic.
Obama getting upset during a speech is psychotic and the behavior of Mass Resistance gets defended. I think I’m done trying to figure you out. [/quote]
I like how you make stuff up. He was accused of “shedding clothes” after he left the school. No mention of being naked. It’s likely he removed items of clothing to avoid being identified.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Being filmed while going to take a shit is of course not an invasion of privacy.[/quote]
They were outside the rest room in a busy foyer. [/quote]
LOL. They were outside the rest room because Mass Resistance decided to go to a transgender conference and tape people as they entered the rest room.
You defending this trash is absolutely hilarious. [/quote]
Only so far no one has been able to articulate why - other than claiming that people have a right to privacy in a busy hotel foyer.[/quote]
Hey you read a website that takes videos of people walking into restrooms, harasses school children running naked from police and actively protests anti-gay bullying measures. So far you haven’t been able to articulate why other than calling other people psychotic.
Obama getting upset during a speech is psychotic and the behavior of Mass Resistance gets defended. I think I’m done trying to figure you out. [/quote]
I like how you make stuff up. He was accused of “shedding clothes” after he left the school. No mention of being naked. It’s likely he removed items of clothing to avoid being identified.
[/quote]
And that makes this somewhat better? He “confused” high school kids with elementary kids, and ran from the cops. But it’s ok cause he was just trying to avoid being identified? Lol. Wonder why? Just stop trying to defend these legitimate psychopaths because you read the site.
Not creepy at all.
You must have a lot of time to kill at the hospital to create threads like that.
Again you’re making stuff up. It wasn’t an elementary school it was a middle school. Confusing a middle school for a high school is perfectly plausible. You seem to have an obsession about massresistance. Try taking your mind off it for a while. Go for a walk or something.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Again you’re making stuff up. It wasn’t an elementary school it was a middle school. Confusing a middle school for a high school is perfectly plausible. You seem to have an obsession about massresistance. Try taking your mind off it for a while. Go for a walk or something.[/quote]
What , you have a problem when people misquote you and then has an inability understand ???
I would recommend him joining the CJS 
And this^^ is not creepy at all right? This maniac should be able to use the same toilet as your daughter/wife/sister right? Nothing wrong with him is there? It’s the “transphobes” we’ve got to worry about right? I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not creepy at all. [/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And this^^ is not creepy at all right? This maniac should be able to use the same toilet as your daughter/wife/sister right? Nothing wrong with him is there? It’s the “transphobes” we’ve got to worry about right? I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not creepy at all. [/quote]
[/quote]
While , I know you are intellectually challenged , you do realize that person would be just as unattractive no matter . The factor you are referring is the way it is portraide
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And this^^ is not creepy at all right? This maniac should be able to use the same toilet as your daughter/wife/sister right? Nothing wrong with him is there? It’s the “transphobes” we’ve got to worry about right? I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not creepy at all. [/quote]
[/quote]
While , I know you are intellectually challenged , you do realize that person would be just as unattractive no matter . The factor you are referring is the way it is portraide
[/quote]
Being unattractive has nothing to do with it. It’s the evil clown make up, the spikes on the head and the dog collar. And that’s the way he’s portraying himself. Don’t want to be called a freak? Don’t wear a dog collar, don’t put metal spikes on your head and don’t wear make up. Simple.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Since you are giving diagnoses, please keep the terms straight:
Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations).
Psychopathy or sociopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.[/quote]
I think everybody missed this.
Rather than “psychosis”, I think the word most of you are looking for is “psychopathology”. Psychopaths are by definition not psychotic. If psychotic symptoms were present, something else would probably describe their behavioural issues better.
Also, you alluded to something else that has been irking me for awhile. As far as I know, psychopathy is related to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), not NPD, though ASPD and NPD are both part of the same cluster of personality disorders. If the DSM-V says otherwise, I apologize and please correct me. I’m only familiar with the DSM-IV-TR.
Additionally, I feel it is important to note the history of controversy in personality disorders. They are fairly low consensus and have a history of having lots of changes made, with disorders being added and/or taken out in every edition of the DSM as far as I know. Some critics argue that they are a bit of a catch-all category to account for vague or subclinical presentations of other stuff that aren’t easily classified. I’m inclined to agree with this viewpoint. Just look at BPD as an example. Throw someone with “BPD” in a room with 12 psychiatrists and you’ll probably get 8 or 9 different diagnoses. I’m not a terribly big fan of psychiatry in most cases. It’s like trying to shoot a fly with a shotgun. Sure, with enough tries you might actually get it, but you’ll probably fuck a lot of other things up in the process.
While I have a fairly jaundiced eye towards psych fields in general, diagnosing a person based on a very thin slice of often biased information is not something I would recommend. DB had it right when he said that a psychopathology requires significant distress or impairment. Presumably, none of us actually know Obama well enough to make that judgment.
In terms of making a diagnosis, I do think context should also be taken into account. While to you or me some of his actions may be questionable, I believe this is mitigated by the context of being a politician, and a very significant one at that. I don’t think it impossible or even unlikely that politicians would score as trending toward antisocial personality tendencies (e.g. low conscientiousness) if given a personality inventory (that is, if you could get them to answer honestly lol). Once again, this isn’t necessarily indicative of a pathology. I think most would describe it more accurately as a personality trait rather than a personality disorder.
Realistically though, this is a pretty ridiculous thread. SM, what exactly were you hoping to get out of it? Blind approval? I don’t think you’ll find much support for Obama here, but really??? We are armchair pseudo-intellectuals attempting to discuss the mental health of a man we probably don’t know and will most likely never know. To my knowledge no one here is even qualified to make a psych diagnosis and even if someone was, I think they would probably be hesitant to actually do so.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I think everybody missed this.
Rather than “psychosis”, I think the word most of you are looking for is “psychopathology”. Psychopaths are by definition not psychotic. If psychotic symptoms were present, something else would probably describe their behavioural issues better.
[/quote]
Yes you’re right about the terms however psychopathy and psychosis can be present in the same individual. A classic example is Jim Jones. He was both a psychopath and psychotic.
I have read that all of those illnesses overlap as well as sociopathy.
I agree with this. Hence my statement previously that I don’t hold the field of psychiatry in much regard.
[quote]
While I have a fairly jaundiced eye towards psych fields in general, diagnosing a person based on a very thin slice of often biased information is not something I would recommend. DB had it right when he said that a psychopathology requires significant distress or impairment. Presumably, none of us actually know Obama well enough to make that judgment.
In terms of making a diagnosis, I do think context should also be taken into account. While to you or me some of his actions may be questionable, I believe this is mitigated by the context of being a politician, and a very significant one at that. I don’t think it impossible or even unlikely that politicians would score as trending toward antisocial personality tendencies (e.g. low conscientiousness) if given a personality inventory (that is, if you could get them to answer honestly lol). Once again, this isn’t necessarily indicative of a pathology. I think most would describe it more accurately as a personality trait rather than a personality disorder.
Realistically though, this is a pretty ridiculous thread. SM, what exactly were you hoping to get out of it? Blind approval? I don’t think you’ll find much support for Obama here, but really??? We are armchair pseudo-intellectuals attempting to discuss the mental health of a man we probably don’t know and will most likely never know. To my knowledge no one here is even qualified to make a psych diagnosis and even if someone was, I think they would probably be hesitant to actually do so.[/quote]
As I said I’m not attempting to make a clinical diagnosis. I’m just pointing out that Obama seems to meet enough criteria to be a psychopath. And regarding “experts” and their diagnostic tools - they give each symptom a score between 0-2 and if the person scores more than 20 points they are considered a clinical psychopath. It’s not rocket science. In fact it’s an extremely simplistic and flawed method and I fail to see how questioning the patient can add much to it. Again, another reason why I have little regard for the profession - that and the fact that one of my uncles is an Oxford trained psychologist and is as thick as two bricks(yet highly respected in his profession.)
For the record, I didn’t expect approval at all. In fact I expected a great deal of criticism. If I wanted people to agree with me I would’ve just said Obama is a homosexual. However I require more evidence than the fact that he once held hands with a Pakistani guy who had a handlebar moustache.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And this^^ is not creepy at all right? This maniac should be able to use the same toilet as your daughter/wife/sister right? Nothing wrong with him is there? It’s the “transphobes” we’ve got to worry about right? I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not creepy at all. [/quote]
[/quote]
While , I know you are intellectually challenged , you do realize that person would be just as unattractive no matter . The factor you are referring is the way it is portraide
[/quote]
Being unattractive has nothing to do with it. It’s the evil clown make up, the spikes on the head and the dog collar. And that’s the way he’s portraying himself. Don’t want to be called a freak? Don’t wear a dog collar, don’t put metal spikes on your head and don’t wear make up. Simple.
[/quote]
Why do you give a shit? Why do you care so much what people who aren’t you do? You’re obsessed with analyzing other people in the world while sitting on your ass posting on a computer and coming up with all these threads. Why do you care so much about other people’s looks and genitals? I don’t have a tattoo or piercing and never will. It’s not for me. I’m not going to judge those that do. I’m not them. It’s not my body.
You come off like a 90 year old yelling at the sky and saying “in my day…”
You’re really bothered by what everyone else in the world does when it doesn’t effect you.
You’re bothered by change. But change has and always will occur. Are you ever happy?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I think everybody missed this.
Rather than “psychosis”, I think the word most of you are looking for is “psychopathology”. Psychopaths are by definition not psychotic. If psychotic symptoms were present, something else would probably describe their behavioural issues better.
[/quote]
Yes you’re right about the terms however psychopathy and psychosis can be present in the same individual. A classic example is Jim Jones. He was both a psychopath and psychotic.
[/quote]
Still, get the terms straight. A psychotic president would be treated in minutes.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , I know you are intellectually challenged
[/quote]
[/quote]
I see your 2 and raise you 2
Obama’s brain injuries:
Frontal lobe damage and psychopathy:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Obama’s brain injuries:
Frontal lobe damage and psychopathy:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100427091723.htm[/quote]
Doesn’t get any funnier