Police Cadets Urged to cause PTSD

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 07:04pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Yes, based on the fact it seems fairly clear to me it's the same sort of lack of conscience that makes most sociopaths putter along, not giving a fuck about others. Are we going to be getting something other than 'Lots of people do that'? Because that would simply denote there's lots of sociopaths, something that's not exactly news.
I don't think you know what a sociopath is. A sociopath is someone who is incapable of empathy, along with like twenty other qualifiers, not someone who makes tasteless jokes that are offensive to people they've never met.

Since you're not a mental health professional in any capacity, I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're incapable of diagnosing sociopathy in anyone, let alone in people you've never met, based only on the information in a four or five paragraph news article focused on one narrow aspect of their lives.

Congratulations. If I were a Republican in office claiming to have acheived medical diagnosis, you'd have me over a barrel. Sadly for your argument, I made not attempt to clinically diagnose the individual. Indeed, sociopath comes from.. Your own post!

This is getting back to the silliness of being unable to call someone 'Crazy' unless you've had them on a couch and CT-scanned their brain. Do they meet the clinical definition of sociopathy? Don't know.. Guess what.. Didn't say I thought so. I was responding to you, Hemlock, when you brought up sociopathy, and pointed out this does indeed fall under the general heading of sociopathy: Lacking conscience.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 07:05pm

RedImperator wrote:I think you're being loose with the word "sociopath" to the point of carelessness. Sociopathy is a clinically defined condition. It's not a synonym for "asshole". In fact, since antisocial personality disorder is characterized by deceit, even if these cops were stating their intent and not just making a poor joke, by definition they wouldn't be sociopaths, just thugs.

I'm being 'loose' with only the clinical definition. I realize lots of people want to make it seem like I sat there like Frist and diagnosed, but re-read: Hemlock brings up sociopathy, I point out it's simply a lack of empathy.. Which is kinda being displayed.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 07:13pm

You are such a weasel. Flagg started throwing words like "psychopath" around, so I stated an opinion that they were not sociopaths. You then attacked my argument without ever explicitly stating an opinion. That's why I flat-out asked you if you thought they were sociopaths, and then you said yes. Now you're trying to make it seem as if you just meant that they were just being dicks, which was EXACTLY MY ORIGINAL POINT. "Sociopath" is a loaded term, and my post was entirely to point out the difference between a normal person being insensitive and someone who is incapable of empathy. If you didn't think they were actually sociopaths, you shouldn't have said they were sociopaths when I asked you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 07:19pm

HemlockGrey wrote:You are such a weasel. Flagg started throwing words like "psychopath" around, so I stated an opinion that they were not sociopaths. You then attacked my argument without ever explicitly stating an opinion. That's why I flat-out asked you if you thought they were sociopaths, and then you said yes. Now you're trying to make it seem as if you just meant that they were just being dicks, which was EXACTLY MY ORIGINAL POINT. "Sociopath" is a loaded term, and my post was entirely to point out the difference between a normal person being insensitive and someone who is incapable of empathy. If you didn't think they were actually sociopaths, you shouldn't have said they were sociopaths when I asked you.

Sit down, shut the fuck up, and read, asshat.

What Flagg says is nothing I give a fuck about. You brought up sociopathy, I brought up the central tenet of it. Do I have a checklist? No, but since I'm not firing them for mental problems, I don't fucking need one. You and Primus may want to stamp your feet about the 'clinical' definition, but I'm using the normal usage, which has been used before on this board. I don't give a fuck if it's a 'LOADED WORD'. Should I not call Ron Paul a racist, because 'racist' is loaded? No, I should, because he's gone on record for saying 95% of blacks are criminals.

I have never meant 'They were just dicks'. Someone whose a dick can have a conscience, they'll just ignore it. I pointed out their behavior certainly suggested lack of conscience, and the best rebuttal you came up with was an appeal to popularity. And then being pedantic. And now whining about it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2007-12-27 07:37pm

SirNitram wrote:
RedImperator wrote:I think you're being loose with the word "sociopath" to the point of carelessness. Sociopathy is a clinically defined condition. It's not a synonym for "asshole". In fact, since antisocial personality disorder is characterized by deceit, even if these cops were stating their intent and not just making a poor joke, by definition they wouldn't be sociopaths, just thugs.
I'm being 'loose' with only the clinical definition. I realize lots of people want to make it seem like I sat there like Frist and diagnosed, but re-read: Hemlock brings up sociopathy, I point out it's simply a lack of empathy.. Which is kinda being displayed.

It's a lot more than "simply a lack of empathy". Even the colloquial definition implies more than that. Everyone lacks empathy for certain people some of the time without being a sociopath--or everyone on this board who giggles at Darwin Award winners is a sociopath, too. Hemlock's right: it is a loaded term, and you have no basis to apply it on the evidence in the article. At worst, they're thugs, which is quite enough to disqualify them from police service on its own.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 07:59pm

[quote=SirNitram]words[/quote]

Translation: I was a weasel, I got called out, and now I'm going on the offensive to try and distract from that fact.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 08:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
SirNitram wrote:words
Translation: I was a weasel, I got called out, and now I'm going on the offensive to try and distract from that fact.

I'm so sorry all that text sleeted through your brain and you couldn't even muster the backbone to admit to the fallacy you spewed out, nor find a rebuttal based on logic.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 08:15pm

I'm so sorry all that text sleeted through your brain and you couldn't even muster the backbone to admit to the fallacy you spewed out, nor find a rebuttal based on logic.

This is a seperate issue than the clinical definition of sociopathy, so I suppose I'll address it seperately. It's not a logical fallacy to say "well, people make off-key jokes all the time, it doesn't make them psychos," it's a simple recognition that human behavior cannot always be neatly broken down into organized categories.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 08:20pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
I'm so sorry all that text sleeted through your brain and you couldn't even muster the backbone to admit to the fallacy you spewed out, nor find a rebuttal based on logic.
This is a seperate issue than the clinical definition of sociopathy, so I suppose I'll address it seperately. It's not a logical fallacy to say "well, people make off-key jokes all the time, it doesn't make them psychos," it's a simple recognition that human behavior cannot always be neatly broken down into organized categories.

Why not? Because the categories encompass too many people for a 'Loaded Word'? Let us not make a mistake, you said nothing more than 'Lots of people do it, therefore, not this.', which is still an appeal to popularity.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 08:27pm

Why not? Because the categories encompass too many people for a 'Loaded Word'? Let us not make a mistake, you said nothing more than 'Lots of people do it, therefore, not this.', which is still an appeal to popularity.

It is clearly useless arguing with you because you're not coming from the same place I am. I've interacted, lived with, and known people who will casually make insensitive comments like "go out and cause PTSD", yet are fully functional, normal human beings. Therefore I know it's perfectly possible that these people do not have psychological issues, as Flagg suggested. This is a fact, as anyone who has led a moderately social life can tell you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 08:29pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Why not? Because the categories encompass too many people for a 'Loaded Word'? Let us not make a mistake, you said nothing more than 'Lots of people do it, therefore, not this.', which is still an appeal to popularity.

It is clearly useless arguing with you because you're not coming from the same place I am. I've interacted, lived with, and known people who will casually make insensitive comments like "go out and cause PTSD", yet are fully functional, normal human beings. Therefore I know it's perfectly possible that these people do not have psychological issues, as Flagg suggested. This is a fact, as anyone who has led a moderately social life can tell you.

'I've interacted with lots of people who do this'. Again, the appeal to popularity, and a fallacy in this case. You can whine about 'moderately social life' all you want, but you are still repeating the same fallacy: Lots of people do it, therefore, it can't be, you refuse to believe it.

Run off, if you're not going to simply admit you keep repeating the fallacy out of some misplaced pride.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-12-27 08:39pm

SirNitram wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
Eh, why? Because people don't like to admit that making jokes about causing people trauma might fall under the heading of 'Crazy in that he has no empathy for other human beings'? Or are we using a definition of sociopath that is not connected with reality?
People make jokes about "causing trauma" all the time without being psycopaths. It's the same continuum of thought as all those dead baby jokes people throw around. It's the same continuum of thought as Bill Hicks telling marketing execs to commit suicide.
Congratulations on the appeal to popularity fallacy. Are we going to get down to the brass tacks of how you can say the person responsible has any empathy, in other words, is not sociopathic?

I'd just like to make sure we're all clear on this: is every person who ever laughed at a "dead baby" joke a sociopath? Is every person who ever laughed at a joke whose punchline involved human pain/suffering a sociopath? Or is there some deeper standard I'm missing?

No, I do not want to get into a discussion about logical fallacies, I want to know whether you really contend that every "lol" response to a Darwin Award thread here was made by a sociopathic individual.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 08:41pm

Uraniun235 wrote:I'd just like to make sure we're all clear on this: is every person who ever laughed at a "dead baby" joke a sociopath? Is every person who ever laughed at a joke whose punchline involved human pain/suffering a sociopath? Or is there some deeper standard I'm missing?

No, I do not want to get into a discussion about logical fallacies, I want to know whether you really contend that every "lol" response to a Darwin Award thread here was made by a sociopathic individual.

No, I don't think so. But I've seen enough police who would take that slogan as an encouragement to be profoundly suspicious.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 08:47pm

'I've interacted with lots of people who do this'. Again, the appeal to popularity, and a fallacy in this case. You can whine about 'moderately social life' all you want, but you are still repeating the same fallacy: Lots of people do it, therefore, it can't be, you refuse to believe it.

Run off, if you're not going to simply admit you keep repeating the fallacy out of some misplaced pride.

You are absurd. Flagg said, "Group A did B, therefore Group A probably have psychological issues." My response was "Plenty of people do B but are demonstrably not psychologically damaged, therefore we shouldn't assume Group A is." This is a fundementally different argument than "Group A did B, but lots of people do B so hey," which is what you are attempting to pass off as my own definition.

No, I don't think so. But I've seen enough police who would take that slogan as an encouragement to be profoundly suspicious.

This is a significant retreat from your original position, which is that the police were probably sociopaths because only a sociopath would lack such care for other people that he would make such a joke.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 08:51pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
'I've interacted with lots of people who do this'. Again, the appeal to popularity, and a fallacy in this case. You can whine about 'moderately social life' all you want, but you are still repeating the same fallacy: Lots of people do it, therefore, it can't be, you refuse to believe it.

Run off, if you're not going to simply admit you keep repeating the fallacy out of some misplaced pride.
You are absurd. Flagg said, "Group A did B, therefore Group A probably have psychological issues." My response was "Plenty of people do B but are demonstrably not psychologically damaged, therefore we shouldn't assume Group A is." This is a fundementally different argument than "Group A did B, but lots of people do B so hey," which is what you are attempting to pass off as my own definition.

Keep at it, kiddo. Your own words are, repeatedly, that lots of people do that, therefore it can't be sociopathy(If it makes you feel better, I'll elongate it to 'People without functional consciences'). This is an appeal to popularity. Every time I ask you to respond to it, you either change the subject or repeat yourself.

No, I don't think so. But I've seen enough police who would take that slogan as an encouragement to be profoundly suspicious.
This is a significant retreat from your original position, which is that the police were probably sociopaths because only a sociopath would lack such care for other people that he would make such a joke.

I'm not particularly inclined to give a damn what you consider a 'Signifigant retreat', given your propensity to repeat the same dishonest tactic over and over in this exchange.

Edit, Nothing Ghetto About It: Since people seem to be mixing the two up pretty freely: Laughing at other's misfortune is not the same as joking about going out and causing trauma. There is a notable difference between laughing at someone doing something stupid and suffering for it(With the Darwin Awards example), and yucking it up over causing long-standing psychological trauma to someone(As the OP's slogan would be).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 08:59pm

Keep at it, kiddo. Your own words are, repeatedly, that lots of people do that, therefore it can't be sociopathy(If it makes you feel better, I'll elongate it to 'People without functional consciences'). This is an appeal to popularity. Every time I ask you to respond to it, you either change the subject or repeat yourself.

This argument is clearly over. You just quoted a post in which I spelled out for you why my argument is fundementally different from what you are claiming it is, and you respond by repeating your erroneous claim.

I don't even know what to say. I bow to your dark wizard powers.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 09:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote: This argument is clearly over. You just quoted a post in which I spelled out for you why my argument is fundementally different from what you are claiming it is, and you respond by repeating your erroneous claim.

I don't even know what to say. I bow to your dark wizard powers.

I've interacted, lived with, and known people who will casually make insensitive comments like "go out and cause PTSD", yet are fully functional, normal human beings. Therefore I know it's perfectly possible that these people do not have psychological issues, as Flagg suggested. This is a fact, as anyone who has led a moderately social life can tell you.

It's not a logical fallacy to say "well, people make off-key jokes all the time, it doesn't make them psychos," it's a simple recognition that human behavior cannot always be neatly broken down into organized categories.

If you actually exist in the real world and spend time with lots of different people, you'd know that there are plenty of times in which ordinary people will make jokes about causing harm to other people without much thought beyond what's funny at the time.

This must be that dark wizard power they call 'Reading comprehension', where I can see you repeatedly saying 'Lots of people do it, so nothing can be wrong', and know it to be an appeal to popularity fallacy, because 'But lots of people do it' is appealling to popularity.

Run along, since it's 'over'.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 09:05pm

four fucking posts ago wrote:"Plenty of people do B but are demonstrably not psychologically damaged, therefore we shouldn't assume Group A is."

I note that is the one bit you didn't quote, because it's the one bit that proves you are a fucking weasel idiot. Enjoy your false sense of superiority.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 09:06pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
four fucking posts ago wrote:"Plenty of people do B but are demonstrably not psychologically damaged, therefore we shouldn't assume Group A is."
I note that is the one bit you didn't quote, because it's the one bit that proves you are a fucking weasel idiot. Enjoy your false sense of superiority.

How dare I quote the bits I said were appeal to popularity, and not indulge your delusions that my argument was 'Everything you said here was a fallacy'. HOW DARE I.

Is it over again?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-27 09:34pm

SirNitram wrote: 'I've interacted with lots of people who do this'. Again, the appeal to popularity, and a fallacy in this case. You can whine about 'moderately social life' all you want, but you are still repeating the same fallacy: Lots of people do it, therefore, it can't be, you refuse to believe it.

Run off, if you're not going to simply admit you keep repeating the fallacy out of some misplaced pride.

No, you're a fucking retard. Your claims fail to substantiate that they are sociopaths, you're still pretending you didn't say it, and trying to shift the blame to him. You said they were sociopaths, and you had no substantiation and you're trying to make this about his popular appeals. Besides, he's not saying that BECAUSE a lot of people he knows does it, that these guys are not sociopaths (an argument from popularity). He IS saying that if you loosen the definition of sociopath to just a broad degree (to grind your overeager rhetorical axe), than it must apply to such a large number of people on a daily basis as to no longer be a meaningful descriptive term. In other words, you're flailing about, spewing loaded terms that are ridiculously overwrought.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-12-28 03:35am

Flagg wrote:
Yeah, I don't care who they "meant it towards".

Fine, you're right that doesn't make the slogan better.

He's not a police officer, he's a cadet, or he was when he and his classmates pulled this shit. And it's not like he made some off the cuff remark or quip, the fucker had that as his classes motto.

And? Yeah, I'm not seeing your point why a poorly though out class motto has any more weight than any other poorly thought out statement.

And your average person doesn't have the power a police officer does. There are enough psycho cops out there as it is, we don't need another one. They just victimize people and make the vast majority of cops, who are good, look bad.

Oh. I'm sorry, Dr. Flagg. I didn't realize you have a degree in psychology. Can you explain how this one poorly thought out motto means this cadet is a "psycho"

Right, we should give him the chance to cause real damage once he's got the power and the Blue Wall of Silence to protect his ass.

I think you might have a chance at winning drama queen this year.

Sorry, I'd rather he be a security guard sitting in a mall watching shoplifters than a cop with a gun and the power to destroy peoples lives.

Thankfully that decision is not up to you.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-12-28 03:39am

Durandal wrote:
Yeah, because what the street needs is yet another cop who views his badge as a license to beat the shit out of suspects. Aren't people like this supposed to be vetted out before being let into the academy?

Yes, which is precisely why I'm against your position. Some reason you, Flagg, and Nitram believe that you've identified a warning sign that the background investigators, and psych test missed. Despite none of you having the appropriate education in the field.

We basically have two possibilities.

1 - This officer is a sociopath, or psycho and managed to slip by the trained professionals.

or

2 - He came up with a poorly thought out slogan.

I'm going with two till I see something more than can substantiate this cadet being unfit for the job. Fortunately saying something stupid once and a while doesn't do that.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-12-28 03:41am

SirNitram wrote:
Nice job continuing your knee-jerk. Do you have a reason to think any of these 'alarmists' you are whining about would be sociopathic enough to suggest going out and causing trauma, even jokingly? Or is this another reflexive peice of bullshit because you'd rather not read the article and think clearly, because oh my lord, there's a coppa involved.

People joke like that all the fucking time. Spend a day on a military base and you will hear a cadence that involves burning babies. Does it mean we have entire bases full of baby killers? Fuck no. It's a god damn slogan. Stupid, but last time I checked one sentence has never been enough to analyse someone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-28 03:50am

Jesus, what a train-wreck of a thread. HemlockGrey, you did distort Nitram's original argument into a strawman by pretending that he's said the class was full of psychopaths when he didn't. Nitram, you did fuck up big-time by following that distortion and defending it, thus making it just as bad as it would be if you had said it in the first place.

And KS, you're an apologist. It's not enough for a police officer to be able to show that he's no worse than the average "hur hur can't youze take a joke" thuggish dumb-shit who hung around the parking lot in high school. There are more than enough stories of police corruption and brutality to indicate that police officers need to be held to a higher standard of ethics than they've been accustomed to. Police officers have a clubbish, "circle the wagons" mentality. I know someone who blew the whistle on police corruption and was promptly ostracized by all his so-called friends. So much for upholding the law ... police departments should be squeaky-fucking clean, not allowed to maintain this bullshit clubbish atmosphere that encourages and enables this kind of behaviour.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-28 03:53am

HemlockGrey, you did distort Nitram's original argument into a strawman by pretending that he's said the class was full of psychopaths when he didn't.

Wait, what? My original post was responding to Flagg, not Nitram.