Okay this is getting a bit much so I'm going to merge some posts.

No. You are doing that "goldfish memory" thing again.

I went from calling him an idiot to later saying 'I think Schäuble might be a psychopath' to ultimately 'That psychopath Schäuble'.

Call it a process, call it a learning curve, call it what you will... That's the evolution of my opinion of Schoebbels in this thread.

Just don't be surprised when I start kicking and screaming when you want to drag me all the way back to calling him an idiot (all over again).

Yes and you repeat that opinion over and over and over again, and now someone asks you to back up your opinion with some evidence, which you so far have blatantly refused to do. Just because what you say is presented as an opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism, nor should everyone just give it a pass in a discussion without critically examining it especially not when you have an opinion that is as loaded as this one.

What I don't understand is where in this thread I gave you the impression that I'm delusional enough to think I have the professional capacity to diagnose someone as a psychopath?

Maybe that has something to do with you constantly referring to a bunch of politicians as psychopaths. Or that when criticized for this, you have consistently doubled down on your statements.

1) I never said "bad policy = psychopath". Go back and check. You are making assumptions and forcing them on me. Psychopathy is a checklist. And the way Schoebbels repeatedly tries to enforce a few of those policies is just one tick on a long list of psychopathic qualities neither you or I possess. But you keep making so many assumptions that end up being mistakes that I just don't have time to deal with every single one. I never even had time to reply to "Schauble is pro-Europe" or "It's not just Germany" or... other things which are "common knowledge" but please, please, PLEEEASE tell me you've already learned the lesson where common knowledge can often times be wrong?

No, you never said that. But your entire case of him being a psychopath rests solely on the fact that he is responsible for bad policy. Would you have called him a psychopath if he had supported Greece with more money or debt relief? I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't be having this conversation if Schäuble had pushed for debt relief.

And what other qualities that a psychopath has does Schäuble posses? I've repeatedly asked you to show them to me, but you have consistently refused to do so. So you are making claims about having proof, but when asked to show the proof you say you don't find it necessary or a waste of time. Sorry, but that just means I'm going to assume you have no proof. But by all means, prove me wrong.

And really? You claim that Schäuble is not pro Europe when the guy has a reputation for being very much pro Europe? Or that it was just Germany pushing for this? Sorry man, but you are letting your feelings about one particular politician get in the way of the facts.

2) "Alex is fat and cannot fit through the door". If for some reason the fact that Alex cannot fit through the door is important then the fact that he's fat is also important. This does not qualify as name-calling by any stretch of the imagination. And neither does calling Schoebbels a psychopath when he keeps proving he is one (to me, of course).

In your statement 'Alex is fat' is a given. Better yet, being fat is very easy to prove for other people (they only need to see Alex to know if hes fat or not). But what you don't do is use the fact that Alex can't fit through the door and use that as proof that Alex is fat.

For Schäuble, its far from a given that he is a psychopath. You keep saying he is and as proof you use the fact that he supported certain types of policy that you think are wrong. You do use the fact that Alex can't fit through a door as proof that Alex is fat. And that is flawed logic.

3) However, calling someone an idiot qualifies as name calling in my book. And you're trying to get me to stop calling him names by... calling him names. That's what I meant when I said "ironic" and NOW I'm going to say that there is no logic in this argument either.

Well, at least idiot is a far less loaded term in a discussion. It doesn't employ negative stereotypes of severe mental disorders to paint the discussion and its doesn't stand in the way of discussing the politics itself. But, you are right, I'm calling him names, so I'll stop.

4) Also the "insanity plea" argument was to show he may have a condition that is beyond his control. Whereas what you are describing is a smart guy deciding to act like an idiot... which is very much a choice. In other words you are accusing me of something I am not guilty of but you are (I think). Which is why I keep saying that when you forget to use logic in your arguments things break-down.[/quote]
If this were a court and Schäuble stood on trial, I would not be trying to get him out. Yes, hes a smart man who decided to do something which turned out to be stupid, so? He wouldn't be the first politician to ever do that. I am simply contesting that he does this out of some malicious intent against Greece, which is what a psychopath would do.

You had it right the first time 'round. And since I assumed you understood what you were talking about I initiated a discussion. Then you went and changed your mind mid-race, did a 180 and for over a month now have been giving me grief for having the audacity to come to the conclusion that Schoebbels is a psychopath. In other words you broke the discussion and you broke the definition of a psychopath.

I reserve the right to change my mind about things. In this case, the whole idea of successful psychopaths. Why?

First, because psychopathy as we understand it is concerned solely with criminals. Pretty much every bit of research on psychopaths concerns people who are locked away in jail.

Second, because the so called successful psychopaths or corporate psychopaths might not actually be psychopaths. They simply score higher than 'normal' people on a number of traits that psychopaths have. But they still differ significantly from 'real' psychopaths.

Conflating psychopaths with 'successful psychopaths' would thus be a mistake.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

...oops, it's a damned mouse - Silly me!

Hmmm, how does that song by the Irish Rovers go...

Way hay & up she rises
Way hay & up she rises
Way hay & up she rises
Early in the morning

... Drunken Sailor

Goodnight & Goodbye EU...

... try to get sober before you see the next dawn :-)

Hmmm, how does that song by the Irish Rovers go...
Way hay & up she rises
Way hay & up she rises
Way hay & up she rises
Early in the morning
... try to get sober before you see the next dawn :-)

That's Jean Claude Juncker's favorite:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyPuey-1Jw
Jean Claude is a drunken helmsman and will most likely sink the EU project.

Fakelaki system believers disintegrating.

What are you smoking? The REAL fakelaki system guys are running "Europe" right now :(

Sorry man, but you are letting your feelings...

I warned you and everybody else about this in the INTJ thread. I don't do feelings like most people. Meanwhile you seem to have plenty and are projecting them on me. That's not how it works.

Psychopathy loaded?

Calling a duck a duck when you've done your homework and convinced you are looking at a duck... that's loaded?

I've been doing "loaded" for fun for weeks now in this thread and you go and choose "psychopathy" which wasn't?


Lesson #3
--------------

As it's your logic that's ultimately tripping me up and throwing me off, I now realize lesson #2 will be an ongoing and lengthy process. So on to #3:

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

Until he eats the last female fish.

I warned you and everybody else about this in the INTJ thread. I don't do feelings like most people. Meanwhile you seem to have plenty and are projecting them on me. That's not how it works.

So you really want me to believe that you call Schäuble a psychopath out of purely rational, logical reasons? That is, you are somehow in the position to accurately diagnose someone over the internet who you have never met with a severe mental disorder. Sorry but those two sentences are incompatible.

Psychopathy loaded?

Calling a duck a duck when you've done your homework and convinced you are looking at a duck... that's loaded?

All you have been doing is calling someone a duck on the presumption that he is a duck, but without ever providing any kind of evidence that we are indeed looking at a duck. So yeah, thats loaded.

All you have been doing is calling someone a duck on the presumption that he is a duck, but without ever providing any kind of evidence that we are indeed looking at a duck. So yeah, thats loaded.

Isn't that what politicians & governments do? Take referendums, show one example of a referendum that asked a "straight forward" question - I'll think you'll find that there are none. They've all been loaded in one way or another.

All you're doing is standing up to protect the little niche you intend making for yourself.

Take referendums, show one example of a referendum that asked a "straight forward" question - I'll think you'll find that there are none. They've all been loaded in one way or another.

Back in the 70's we had a referendum on nuclear power if we should have it.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes, within reason.

Thats typical "lagom":)

Take referendums, show one example of a referendum that asked a "straight forward" question - I'll think you'll find that there are none. They've all been loaded in one way or another.

Back in the 70's we had a referendum on nuclear power if we should have it.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes, within reason.

Thats typical "lagom":)

To have made that a straight forward question, it should have been 1 & 2 only., so just proves my point.