Justice Scalia found dead in Texas

[imanihonjin]

Surprised to not see some zinger about this type gluttony leading to his death..

Way to hold back SU. On a roll today..

Kindness is SU's religion, after all.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think any of them should take these trips.

By the way, Richard Posner also didn't like Scalia. So I'm in good company.

You should pick up a new logical fallacy. That appeal to authority is getting old.

[Topper]

Careless? I'd say quite calculated. A couple quick examples: he just called out Vicente Fox (for saying "we won't pay for that f*cking wall") demanding an apology saying if he used the F word there would be an uproar. Uhhh he uses the F word all the time at his rallies. Easily searchable. Also: PAC's anecdote about Trump claiming to be a great Christian. GMAFB.

According to Trump himself he tries to go on 'Christmas... Easter.. and ummm definitely on Sundays. Yeah. More of a Sunday Church goer,' letting everybody know who is paying attention that he may have never been to church in his life. Basically he looks into topics and buzzwords that will arouse the far right and runs with it. The whole Wall thing, Christianity, anti-muslim, mexicans are rapists, etc etc etc.

I'm sure when pressed he doesn't really believe these stupid things because as a businessman he must know that a Wall would be a waste of tens of billions of dollars that would stop nobody from coming illegally, and deporting every undocumented Mexican would cost untold fortunes and then tank the economy from the lack of low cost labor as a bonus. But that's the point. It's calculated speech-not careless. Maybe it's politics as usual, which is definitely more forgivable, but it's not worth the risk to elect him just to find out whether he's a sociopath or not.

Here's what I don't get. You have a known liar, sociopath in Hillary, but you are afraid to elect somebody who might be as bad. In a turn on the Hobson's choice, we have the chance to select somebody, whom I dislike and distrust, that might not be a sociopath, or we can select a known pathological liar and sociopath. Your choice is irrational to me.

[Commando]

Here's what I don't get. You have a known liar, sociopath in Hillary, but you are afraid to elect somebody who might be as bad. In a turn on the Hobson's choice, we have the chance to select somebody, whom I dislike and distrust, that might not be a sociopath, or we can select a known pathological liar and sociopath. Your choice is irrational to me.

Huh? I very strongly dislike racists and xenophobes. Trump's rhetoric turns my stomach. Same with Cruz. I don't hope Hillary wins; I dislike her for the reasons you cite. My hope is that Rubio can somehow swoop in and take the nomination. But I'm not voting for Trump- no way, no how.

[USUC]

Here's what I don't get. You have a known liar, sociopath in Hillary, but you are afraid to elect somebody who might be as bad. In a turn on the Hobson's choice, we have the chance to select somebody, whom I dislike and distrust, that might not be a sociopath, or we can select a known pathological liar and sociopath. Your choice is irrational to me.

For me, it has little to do with liking HRC, it's more to do with what scenario engenders the much needed change in the GOP? The Republican Party is a mess nationally. If Trump gets the nomination, Republicans will begrudgingly back him. If he wins the presidency, it just means it will be at least another 4 years before the GOP is forced to straighten up.

[byu71]

For me, it has little to do with liking HRC, it's more to do with what scenario engenders the much needed change in the GOP? The Republican Party is a mess nationally. If Trump gets the nomination, Republicans will begrudgingly back him. If he wins the presidency, it just means it will be at least another 4 years before the GOP is forced to straighten up.

Of course straightening out the GOP has been a theme of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and his man Cruz. I would be adding Gail Rudzeka but maybe that is a stretch too far.

You are a man of intelligence. When you say straighten out the GOP, what do you mean. As a good many express, do you fell betrayed. Do you feel they got elected, hold the Senate and the House and have done nothing. I am really curious as to what straightenig up the GOP means.

For me it would be to tell Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the extreme evangelitacals to go form their own party and see how they do.

[USUC]

Of course straightening out the GOP has been a theme of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and his man Cruz. I would be adding Gail Rudzeka but maybe that is a stretch too far.

You are a man of intelligence. When you say straighten out the GOP, what do you mean. As a good many express, do you fell betrayed. Do you feel they got elected, hold the Senate and the House and have done nothing. I am really curious as to what straightenig up the GOP means.

For me it would be to tell Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the extreme evangelitacals to go form their own party and see how they do.

I see a libertarian leaning philosophy as the only viable future of the Republican party. I agree that the evangelical elements of the party have shifted the focus of the party from fiscal conservatism to social conservatism. Statism has become acceptable to the party as it imposes the morals they hold dear on the evil secular portions of the country. The problem the GOP will have in the not so distant future is that the majority of young folks have no interest on imposing social conservatism on others.

[falafel]

Wait, are we seriously calling Hillary a sociopath?

[SeattleUte]

You should pick up a new logical fallacy. That appeal to authority is getting old.

lol How ironic you should say this in this thread of all places. In some contexts appeal to authority carries the day. (Whoever said there are different kinds of smart was right. Sheesh! Engineers.)

[PaloAltoCougar]

Wait, are we seriously calling Hillary a sociopath?

I think he meant it, thereby losing the argument.

[All-American]

I don't think any of them should take these trips.

By the way, Richard Posner also didn't like Scalia. So I'm in good company.

Not with Richard Posner, you're not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

lol How ironic you should say this in this thread of all places. In some contexts appeal to authority carries the day. (Whoever said there are different kinds of smart was right. Sheesh! Engineers.)

Sure it can, but don't be ridiculous. You aren't citing case law or a legal precedent. You are doing what you always do: claiming that you are right because others agree with you. That is a lazy way to make an argument. The fact that there are other people who agree with you does not mean you are right. argumentum ad verecundiam John Locke agrees with me.

By the way, I am not defending Scalia here. Feel free to rip him all you want. The corpse is cold.

[Topper]

I think he meant it, thereby losing the argument.

What is your logic in that?

Obviously none of us are using DSM terminology for mental health conditions. I could cite for the DSM on borderline personality disorder and for clinical narcissism. Granted none of us have enough data, and with the exception of the psychologists, enough training to make a diagnosis. However, for the those loosely familiar with those conditions, Hillary exhibits traits attributable to those conditions. Just going with the flow of calling Trump a sociopath. Again, I don't believe he is a good person, or a good candidate, but when we throw out something that is appealing to an enormous number of people, I tend to believe we are missing something. Trump is not an idiot, and likely neither Trump nor Clinton meet any clinical definition of sociopath, at least not in the extreme dangerous variety. Both probably exhibit traits linked to narcissism and/or borderline personality disorder. Whether they tick off sufficient number of traits to be diagnosed in that manner is currently unknowable by anybody but a trained physician or psychologist with ample testing.

If you trail down the list of narcissistic personality disorder traits, Hillary from public observation seems to exhibit many of them.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

This is from DSM IV. Yes I know DSM V removed this disorder, over the objection of many. It was then reinstated in some respects.

See, http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carr...terial/dsm.pdf

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early
adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the
following:
1.Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2.Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3.Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4.Requires excessive admiration.
5.Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
6.Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8.Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9.Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

[PaloAltoCougar]

What is your logic in that?...

I really don't want to engage on this, but I think it's simply wrong to argue that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath in the clinical sense of the word, unless you want to dilute the term's definition to the point that it becomes meaningless. Hillary has many flaws, but ascribing to her a very serious mental disorder is, I think, stupid when better and more accurate arguments are available.

And to ruffle your feathers a bit more, I would absolutely vote for her before I'd vote for Trump. I'd very gladly choose Kasich, Bloomberg or even Rubio ahead of her, but it appears I may not be given such an option.

And why is this discussion in the Scalia thread?

[Topper]

I really don't want to engage on this, but I think it's simply wrong to argue that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath in the clinical sense of the word, unless you want to dilute the term's definition to the point that it becomes meaningless. Hillary has many flaws, but ascribing to her a very serious mental disorder is, I think, stupid when better and more accurate arguments are available.

And to ruffle your feathers a bit more, I would absolutely vote for her before I'd vote for Trump. I'd very gladly choose Kasich, Bloomberg or even Rubio ahead of her, but it appears I may not be given such an option.

And why is this discussion in the Scalia thread?

Because somebody threadjacked it. Of course, I object her on her record, her lack of character, her public policy and her poor performance while in office. However, anything which can diminish her may incrementally make it less likely she could win. And if she does win (most likely I am afraid), we can hope the GOP will afford her no quarter or honeymoon period, and make her ungovernable a la Carter. I see a period akin to war-locked Soviet Union under attack during WWII, where you button down, withstand attack and attack until nobody is left standing. Or we can hope.

But then again I am an optimist.