Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 02-09-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
An idiot cannot be a politician. An idiot is someone with profound mental retardation (and cannot even learn connected speech), and a mental age of usually less than three.

Yes? That describes a lot of Republicans and the Democratic Party leadership in the US. Is that your point?

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
Yes? That describes a lot of Republicans and the Democratic Party leadership in the US. Is that your point?

No it does not. It is literally impossible to be an idiot and a politician. No politician has such profound mental retardation. Every politician I know of can speak, read, write, etc. Idiots cannot do this.

NialScorva · 02-09-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
No it does not. It is literally impossible to be an idiot and a politician. No politician has such profound mental retardation. Every politician I know of can speak, read, write, etc. Idiots cannot do this.

Have you heard Bush speak?

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva
Have you heard Bush speak?

George Bush is sometimes rather inarticulate, but that is quite expected of him, granted that he is an American politician, etc; however, at least in my perspective, he is exceedingly capable of connected speech oftener than not -- he is undoubtedly superior to an idiot, a moron, or anyone else with similar mental defects. I would judge that George Bush's intelligence is somewhere in the proximity of average to above average, and certainly not less than that.

echidna · 02-09-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
An idiot cannot be a politician. An idiot is someone with profound mental retardation (and cannot even learn connected speech), and a mental age of usually less than three.

Interesting, I used to make the identical comparison with being able to post at an internet BB. However since coming here I�ve been forced to revise my view in the light of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. Thanks for your contribution.

Mageth · 02-09-2003, 02:19 PM

Should I even bother pointing out to Totalitarianist that Phanes obviously wasn't using a clinical definition of "idiot"? And that such a clinical definition of "idiot" (for "a person with profound mental retardation") is considered obsolete and offensive?

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 03:22 PM

Idiots do not have the mental capacity to truly be offended by anything, or at least they do not exhibit any symptoms of offence that would typically be induced by circumstances (verbal contact, and anything else, so far as that is concerned) that one would esteem likely to cause offence in a normal person. Their feelings, therefore, are irrelevant considerations, since they do not have any genuine feelings.

And the word "idiot" is still widely used to refer to profoundly mentally deficient persons by psychologists, usually in papers not intended for the general population.

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
That describes a lot of Republicans and the Democratic Party leadership in the US.

Yes, you are quite right, if we assume that you do not use the word "idiot" in the usual sense. I thought you were using the forementioned word in a different sense.

Mageth · 02-09-2003, 03:35 PM

I said:

Should I even bother pointing out to Totalitarianist ...

Apparently not.

And the word "idiot" is still widely used to refer to profoundly mentally deficient persons by psychologists, usually in papers not intended for the general population.

And you're privy to this inside information from...where?

echidna · 02-09-2003, 03:47 PM

A shame about the side-track, but as Mageth said, your medical knowledge, (as per your politics I note) appears to be a century or so out of date �

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/penry.htm

Quote:

The common law prohibition against punishing "idiots" generally applied, however, to persons of such severe disability that they lacked the reasoning capacity to form criminal intent or to understand the difference between good and evil. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term "idiot" was used to describe the most retarded of persons, corresponding to what is called "profound" and "severe" retardation today. See AAMR, Classification in MentalRetardation 179 (H. Grossman ed. 1983); ("idiots" generally had IQ of 25 or below).

(emphasis mine)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2003, 02:19 PM	#16
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Should I even bother pointing out to Totalitarianist that Phanes obviously wasn't using a clinical definition of "idiot"? And that such a clinical definition of "idiot" (for "a person with profound mental retardation") is considered obsolete and offensive?

02-09-2003, 03:22 PM	#17
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Idiots do not have the mental capacity to truly be offended by anything, or at least they do not exhibit any symptoms of offence that would typically be induced by circumstances (verbal contact, and anything else, so far as that is concerned) that one would esteem likely to cause offence in a normal person. Their feelings, therefore, are irrelevant considerations, since they do not have any genuine feelings. And the word "idiot" is still widely used to refer to profoundly mentally deficient persons by psychologists, usually in papers not intended for the general population.

02-09-2003, 03:35 PM	#19
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I said: Should I even bother pointing out to Totalitarianist ... Apparently not. And the word "idiot" is still widely used to refer to profoundly mentally deficient persons by psychologists, usually in papers not intended for the general population. And you're privy to this inside information from...where?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.