Not to take away from other death threads, but this is one of the most despicable people to graze this planet. I for one feel only sad that he dies totally unprepared for what comes next.
[ December 18, 2011, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh, well then, long live Kim Jong III!
I wish this spelled the end of so much oppression and death in North Korea. Instead, now the people have to shoulder a power struggle as well and the whole region has to wonder if North Korea is going to suddenly go bonkers on them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Kim Jong III!
That is a horrible, but astonishingly unexpected, joke.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I gotta say that I sighed at that as well.
The whole region has always had to wonder if N. Korea was gonna go nanners, its one of those things you have to consider when you live in Asia in general. The additional stress is the "rightful heir" to this nuclear capable country is a twenty something who for all we know could be more insane and and domination interested than his father. I couldn't help but see the irony that the AZ Republic headlines were "Kim Jung Il is dead" and "soldiers return home from war" some part of me believes it knows exactly where those troops are headed next.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The whole region has always had to wonder if N. Korea was gonna go nanners, its one of those things you have to consider when you live in Asia in general.
I think the threat of this leading to mayhem or civil war is overblown. His death was not unexpected and the natural death of leaders simply hasn't been a major cause for wars in the past two centuries or more. Wars of succession have nearly always been fought between countries not within them and I really don't think South Korea (or anyone else) is going to see Kim Jong Il's death as a reason to invade. Its not like there can be a military coup, the military is already running the country. The only way there will be serious instability is if there is a split in the military.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There could be instability but only as a result of N. Korea finally imploding.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Graze?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Or China could stop beating around the bush and absorb it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Or China could stop beating around the bush and absorb it.
That would never happen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Or China could stop beating around the bush and absorb it.
Seriously man this is takes a fairly astounding degree of ignorance to say seriously.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
On that note, why doesn't the US stop beating around the bush and absorb Mexico already?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Been there, done that. 100 years ago.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Or China could stop beating around the bush and absorb it.
Seriously man this is takes a fairly astounding degree of ignorance to say seriously.
So why don't you enlighten him rather than declaring his ignorance and calling it a day?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What he's referring to is that China's first priority when it comes to North Korea is to prevent a catastrophic flow of North Korean refugees into China. Thus, as manji is alluding to, China absorbing North Korea in order to solve this problem would be like the US absorbing Mexico in order to stop illegal* Mexican immigrants, a non-starter.
* The parallel breaks down a little here, China already has its version of Mexican illegals, the millions of migrant workers moving from the countryside into the cities, usually despite weakly enforced hukou laws on where they can live. AFAIK, North Korean refugees are in more of a legal limbo since China only started drafting a proper immigration law midway through last year
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
NOBODY BUST ON CHINA!
---------
Anyway, yeah, if it was meant seriously (which I'm skeptical of), it was pretty ridiculous. Goodness, North Korea has got to have one of the most costly populations on the planet, in terms of what it would take in order for the nation to start generating positive returns on all sorts of levels, if that makes sense. The costs would far, far outweigh the benefits for generations at least, and what returns would they even see?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Dead? I had no idea he was even il.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Isn't his son even crazier than he is?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Dead? I had no idea he was even il.
:facepalm:
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
That is my question as well, only time can really tell seeing as anything that actually comes out of N. Korea about the mental well being and fortitude of their leader carries the same authority as Vladimir Putin sexy calender.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Isn't his son even crazier than he is?
I don't think a whole lot is known about him aside from some basic biography and some anecdotes about some of his schooling in Europe.
There's not much suggesting that he's crazy.
Well, for that matter there's not a whole lot suggesting that the father is crazy unless you're just broadly using "crazy" as a synonym for something like brutal or uncompassionate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, that's putting a fine point on it. Many analysts believed that he was a psychopath, or dwelled somewhere in that area of the spectrum of anti-social personality disorders. Not crazy, granted. But not exactly balanced either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't think a whole lot is known about him aside from some basic biography and some anecdotes about some of his schooling in Europe.
There's not much suggesting that he's crazy.
He has his government tell everyone he shot an unbelievable golf score with multiple holes in one the very first time he played. If his cooks displease him, he punishes them horribly. Spreading laughably ridiculous lies in order to create a cult of personality and being childishly brutal for minor displeasures are both pretty clear signs of something severely mentally wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: NOBODY BUST ON CHINA!
---------
Anyway, yeah, if it was meant seriously (which I'm skeptical of), it was pretty ridiculous. Goodness, North Korea has got to have one of the most costly populations on the planet, in terms of what it would take in order for the nation to start generating positive returns on all sorts of levels, if that makes sense. The costs would far, far outweigh the benefits for generations at least, and what returns would they even see?
North Korea has infrastructure and I imagine a population willing to work extremely hard for a generation or so once a better life opportunity is present to anyone willing to grab it with both hands and feet. The big problem is what to do with its demobilized military and the question of integrating the former bureaucracy, intelligentsia, elites and other agencies into a unified government and the issues of rehabilitation.
The problem is still a contentious problem in Germany, it would likely be more difficult in Korea due to the greater degree of isolation and indoctrination.
It's not about 'busting' on china, its spreading a misinformed opinion out there like its fact.
Now China actually does somewhat have an interest in seeing N. Korea implode peacefully, a unified Korea would be a Korea without US forces deployed to it.
quote: He has his government tell everyone he shot an unbelievable golf score with multiple holes in one the very first time he played. If his cooks displease him, he punishes them horribly. Spreading laughably ridiculous lies in order to create a cult of personality and being childishly brutal for minor displeasures are both pretty clear signs of something severely mentally wrong.
Odd, is any of this on wikipedia?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It'll take a lot more than a generation; east Germany had a much smaller gap in comparison, and a probably far more peaceable reunion, and it took them a lot longer.
I'm having a harder time finding my source for the cooks bit; that's based on a secondhand account of a foreigner brought in to cook for Kim Jong-il.
One might also include having your military foreign filmmakers to make films for you in the list of obviously mentally problematic activities. Or lying to the country that the South Korean populace would love to come North (and that life is hugely better in the North), except they are cruelly prevented by corrupt leaders and the Americans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: He has his government tell everyone he shot an unbelievable golf score with multiple holes in one the very first time he played. If his cooks displease him, he punishes them horribly. Spreading laughably ridiculous lies in order to create a cult of personality and being childishly brutal for minor displeasures are both pretty clear signs of something severely mentally wrong.
Odd, is any of this on wikipedia?
Anyways, I'm not sure that those two anecdotes really do demonstrate that he is crazy. In the first, that kind of thing may be laughable to us, but how laughable is it to a population that has been oppressed, in many cases, all of their lives, and may never even have seen or played on a gold course? Did he actually make it up himself or did he simply instruct his propaganda departments to propagandise and they competed to see who could be the most complimentary? In the second, I'm not so sure that many people in the same position would act differently. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. etc.
As Orincoro touched on, these kinds of things may show that he is (was) psychopathic. But it doesn't seem to show that he was crazy. A crazy or delusional person in charge of a nuclear weapon is worrisome in ways that a "mere" psychopath wouldn't be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Anyways, I'm not sure that those two anecdotes really do demonstrate that he is crazy. In the first, that kind of thing may be laughable to us, but how laughable is it to a population that has been oppressed, in many cases, all of their lives, and may never even have seen or played on a gold course? Did he actually make it up himself or did he simply instruct his propaganda departments to propagandise and they competed to see who could be the most complimentary?
I didn't mean laughable to the population, I meant laughable on an absolute scale. And I'm not sure how any of those objections lead to "not mentally disturbed". If anything, constructing an entire propaganda apparatus to spread and enforce belief in blatant personal aggrandizing lies is even more crazy.
quote:In the second, I'm not sure so sure that many people in the same position would act differently. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. etc.
I agree completely. I think being in such a situation would make almost anyone crazy
Psychopathy is included in what I call crazy, though I think he is extremely deluded about the state of reality in addition to that -- he's surrounded by people who tell him he's beyond superlative constantly, and that will have an effect. The few accounts we have from people who've met him long enough to form an impression indicate he really does believe he's as great as his propaganda machine says.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say 'weird' is probably more technically accurate (whatever that's worth for a word like that!) than 'crazy'. Strange, alien, etc.
Hell, I'm listening to a report on him and I think they even hedged on how old Un is! Or even when exactly he began any sort of real grooming process into being the heir apparent, and that the West in general knows very little about NK.
Given these kinds of things, I'm not sure how anyone can claim much real certainty about what'll happen.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm having a harder time finding my source for the cooks bit; that's based on a secondhand account of a foreigner brought in to cook for Kim Jong-il.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... I meant laughable on an absolute scale.
quote:If anything, constructing an entire propaganda apparatus to spread and enforce belief in blatant personal aggrandizing lies is even more crazy.
It's totally irrelevant whether it's laughable on an absolute scale. The only thing that really matters to a propaganda department is whether the propaganda convinces the target audience and whether that propaganda bolsters the regime/state.
In this case, a simple description of the North Korean regime would be a Stalinistic-state hybridized with a family dynasty ruling with divine right. Since there is no such thing as divine right, the propaganda department has to manufacture it with accounts of miracles and superhuman feats. The target audience is North Koreans, not Americans, nor any "absolute scale." It would perhaps be irrational to propagandize if it wasn't working, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think people bandy "crazy," around quite a bit when what they *mean* is psychopathic. To the average person, and at a glance, it can really look like the same thing. Grandiosity, total lack of shame or remorse, total denial of flaws- these things are not necessarily signs of insanity.
Telling people, in all seriousness, that you are an international fashion icon, when you may know very well that your appearance makes you the source of amusement the world over, may not *be* crazy. It certainly does *seem* crazy. But then, he did rule for almost two decades while doing things like that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Orincoro, what does crazy mean if psychopaths don't count? "Crazy" isn't exactly an official psychological diagnosis. Its only meaning comes from usage, doesn't it?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Orincoro, what does crazy mean if psychopaths don't count? "Crazy" isn't exactly an official psychological diagnosis. Its only meaning comes from usage, doesn't it?
Agree 100%
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Orincoro, what does crazy mean if psychopaths don't count? "Crazy" isn't exactly an official psychological diagnosis. Its only meaning comes from usage, doesn't it?
Agree 100%
Can't speak for Orincoro, but I take it that he means that psychopaths generally don't suffer from delusions and hallucinations. Psychopaths are a lot of things, but they aren't actually "insane."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It's totally irrelevant whether it's laughable on an absolute scale. The only thing that really matters to a propaganda department is whether the propaganda convinces the target audience and whether that propaganda bolsters the regime/state.
In this case, a simple description of the North Korean regime would be a Stalinistic-state hybridized with a family dynasty ruling with divine right. Since there is no such thing as divine right, the propaganda department has to manufacture it with accounts of miracles and superhuman feats. The target audience is North Koreans, not Americans, nor any "absolute scale." It would perhaps be irrational to propagandize if it wasn't working, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Evaluated purely from a political effectiveness perspective, sure. I'm also going from a connection with reality perspective, where that critique does not apply. If realpolitik was all that mattered, the world would be a very different (and much worse) place.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm having difficulty following your train of thought. When you talk about things like what "matters," I think you're trying to bring in ethics, which is irrelevant when we're deciding whether Kim Jong-il is crazy.
The political effectiveness is what matters on that question. If the intent and the results of the propaganda was counterproductive to his survival, then it would maybe serve as some evidence toward the idea that he was crazy. Since it is effective, it doesn't seem to.
When you talk about things like what matters to you (i.e. ethics from context), that only really goes toward evidence that he's a psychopath. But, again, that's a separate issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Orincoro, what does crazy mean if psychopaths don't count? "Crazy" isn't exactly an official psychological diagnosis. Its only meaning comes from usage, doesn't it?
Well, I would say it means "insane."
Psychopathic people are not insane.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
"Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility among others (Cleckley, 1982; Hare et al., 1990)"
From Webster's dictionary: SANE, adj, \sān\ 1: proceeding from a sound mind : rational 2: mentally sound; especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions 3: healthy in body
I'd reckon that "failure to learn from experience" would keep the psychopath from the ability to be "able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions".
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Don't you think if you knew a psychopath in real life, you and your friends would frequently call that person "crazy"?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm pretty certain I'd call someone who held a dancing gala for high level government officials and made them dance with naked pleasure girls, but told them not to touch, crazy.
(Another fun activity of Kim Jong-il.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, I have difficulty seeing why that would necessitate insanity. That barely rises out of what one would normally classify as cruel and sadistic. There are people who pay for that kind of stuff here
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Don't you think if you knew a psychopath in real life, you and your friends would frequently call that person "crazy"?
If you knew a psychopath in real life, you and your friends probably wouldn't even notice.
quote:Perhaps a psychopathic serial killer’s most frightening quality is his ability to live unnoticed among fellow humans. He appears normal. He may even be intelligent and charming – and probably has to be to enable him to lure his victims
quote:Psychopaths – also labelled sociopaths or antisocial personalities – do not suffer from mental illness but from a character flaw. They have a firm grasp of reality, know right from wrong, and know that killing is wrong. But they simply don’t care. Psychopaths lack a vital component of the human personality that most take for granted – a conscience. They may have no conscience at all, or it may be the case that their conscience is too weak to inhibit the violence they commit. Psychopaths kill without guilt and without remorse.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It'll take a lot more than a generation; east Germany had a much smaller gap in comparison, and a probably far more peaceable reunion, and it took them a lot longer.
I'm having a harder time finding my source for the cooks bit; that's based on a secondhand account of a foreigner brought in to cook for Kim Jong-il.
One might also include having your military foreign filmmakers to make films for you in the list of obviously mentally problematic activities. Or lying to the country that the South Korean populace would love to come North (and that life is hugely better in the North), except they are cruelly prevented by corrupt leaders and the Americans.
Oh your referring to the father? I thought you were referring to Kim Jong Eun who I really don't think we know anything about. I was however thoroughly disappointed when I found from pictures he was a little chubby. As a chubby person myself well... I know what comes with the territory, if he was thin I would place good odds on him being energetic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: "Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility among others (Cleckley, 1982; Hare et al., 1990)"
From Webster's dictionary: SANE, adj, \sān\ 1: proceeding from a sound mind : rational 2: mentally sound; especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions 3: healthy in body
I'd reckon that "failure to learn from experience" would keep the psychopath from the ability to be "able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions".
An argument from etymology is pretty weak in this case. Psychopaths can and do understand the consequences of their actions. The "not learning from their experience," refers to recitivism, which is high, because psychopaths do not have a normal capacity for fear and shame, not because they do not understand consequences. You are out of your depth, if this choice of words forms the basis of your argument.
It is a commonly accepted fact that psychopathy is not insanity, so as I said before, while I understand the use of the term "crazy" to refer to psychopaths, they are nevertheless not necessarily insane.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
You're arguing that a psychopath ISN'T sane -- that one word isn't correlated to another. Isn't that an etymological argument?
From an objective standpoint (and allowing for Wikipedia research) it appears that the psychological community is even having a difficult time deciding whether it is (or isn't) a personality disorder.
I would contend that a psychopath isn't ENTIRELY sane, as most of the texts state that decision-making is compromised in some capacity, refuting the "sound mind" primary definition of sanity. From a lay-person standpoint, psychopaths are definitely deviant (to say the least), in that most of their emotional responses are feigned. They AREN'T normal. From my objective viewpoint, they aren't sane.
As a laymen, I would have an entirely different definition of sanity. I think that most normal, rational people would behave in a similar manner toward a similar set of stimulus. To behave differently from a prediction of normal behavior would be -- IMO -- insanity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: You're arguing that a psychopath ISN'T sane -- that one word isn't correlated to another. Isn't that an etymological argument?
No. Not any more than saying a car is not a horse constitutes an etymological argument. Insanity is a discrete state, different from psychopathy- I don't base that statement of fact solely on the definitions being different. The two things are not the same.
quote: I would contend that a psychopath isn't ENTIRELY sane, as most of the texts state that decision-making is compromised in some capacity, refuting the "sound mind" primary definition of sanity.
The primary definition you are referring to is a dictionary definition, not a clinical definition. It is not appropriate to base your view of a cognitive pathology on how its clinical description matches up with a dictionary definition of "sanity." In doing so, you are interjecting your very much *not* objective bias towards the assumption that abnormal behavior or a particular cognitive deficit constitutes insanity.
According to that logic, in case you are not following- we could assign virtually any cognitive deficit as a determination of insanity. The mentally retarded are "insane," according to your reasoning; as are those suffering from clinical depression, bipolar disorder, memory loss, dementia, and other common cognitive deficits.
quote: From my objective viewpoint, they aren't sane.
Your viewpoint does not encompass a complete understanding of the difference between a cognitive pathology and insanity. And you are not being objective- you are favoring a personal bias based on fallacious reasoning.
quote: As a laymen, I would have an entirely different definition of sanity. I think that most normal, rational people would behave in a similar manner toward a similar set of stimulus. To behave differently from a prediction of normal behavior would be -- IMO -- insanity.
Again, this is an argument based on your private etymology. Your "objective viewpoint," is one from which insanity and psychopathy are indiscernable as discreet classes of object. That does not establish a strong argument in favor of your conclusion, but constitutes only an argument from incredulity. *You* do not appreciate the distinction, and therefore the distinction is *not* appreciable. This is not a reasonable basis for an argument.
quote: To behave differently from a prediction of normal behavior would be -- IMO -- insanity.
Unfortunately for you, this is not what insanity means. Behavior that deviates from the social norm does not even establish the existence of a pathology.
Honestly, do you realize what you're saying? Do you realize that that brand of reasoning is what put homosexuals into mental hospitals in centuries past? What caused depressives to be lobotomized in the 20th century? The idea that a person who doesn't act normal is insane, is aside from being completely wrong, is actually fairly scary.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm glad you can shift so freely between dictionary definitions, subjective definitions, and clinical definitions -- while ignoring all three. I guess we don't all have to be bound by . . . sanity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And an ad hominem attack on me, for some reason, to round things out.
I'm sorry you're out of your depth, but it's not my fault you don't know what you're talking about. That's you're fault. I may be smarter than you, but I wouldn't call your inability to reason this out properly a sign that you are insane. You're just mistaken.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I apologize that I upset you, Orincoro. However your argument is a rambling mess.
Definition is bound by consensus. I've quoted dictionary, clinical, and my own subjective definitions -- you disagree with all three. I understand that.
Do you have a good reason why? I'll engage in a rational debate. But for you to try to "win" by resorting to logical fallacies makes no sense.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Okay, the book that has "the most influential clinical description of psychopathy in the 20th century" is called "The Mask of Sanity" and describes it as a mental disorder.
I don't purport to be a definitive source, nor that I can can twist a logical argument to alter fact. I'll just refer to the experts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Definition is bound by consensus..
Yes it is, and you are committing the logical fallacy of claiming the consensus viewpoint, when you do not, in fact, possess it.
quote: But for you to try to "win" by throwing out logical fallacies makes no sense.
Actually it does. Your assessment of the facts here is incorrect. I can show you how it is incorrect by pointing out the inconsistencies in your reasoning, and the fallacious quality of your arguments. I don't *win*, I defend the statement I made against fallacious arguments, which is easy.
quote: I apologize that I upset you, Orincoro. However your argument is a rambling mess.
You haven't upset me. You've insulted me repeatedly in an attempt to upset me, and now you've made a facetious apology in an attempt to patronize and undercut me, because your reasoning is too weak to stand on its own. This rather conveniently demonstrates how weak your position on this actually is. And it does not upset me, it tickles me.
So don't worry, not that you were worried.
quote: Okay, the book that has "the most influential clinical description of psychopathy in the 20th century" is called "The Mask of Sanity" and describes it as a mental disorder.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a mental disorder. Do PTSD victims qualify as insane?
What you are not understanding is that mental disorder and insanity are not the same. Psychopathy is a mental disorder. Yes. However, being psychopathic does not make a person insane. It does not inhibit a person's ability to tell right from wrong, or to appreciate the reality around them, or to act rationally in response to that reality. Everything that is wrong with a psychopath is related not to his/her attachment with reality, but to his/her ability to experience emotion in a normal way.
quote: Seriously, I don't know why I let you get me so worked up. . . .
I don't know. Maybe you should take a break if you're not enjoying yourself.
[ December 20, 2011, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Looks like we were posting at about the same time (but I got here first). Again, it's all about consensus, man. As I said, the experts can't reach consensus. Don't see how we will. But this seems like the definitive source. Do you agree?
And I never meant a lighthearted ribbing as to the state of your sanity to be an insult, as it was the topic of our debate. If you were insulted, I frankly apologize. I just figured by the nature of your output that it was fair game.
As an afterthought . . . aren't you applying ad hominem by accusing me of it? That made me laugh.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
For the record, this is from Robert Hare, probably the foremost researcher of psychopathy today - from p 143 of his book, Without Conscience:
quote:“Psychopaths do meet current legal and psychiatric standards for sanity. They understand the rules of society and the conventional meanings of right and wrong. They are capable of controlling their behavior, and they are aware of the potential consequences of their acts. Their problem is that this knowledge frequently fails to deter them from antisocial behavior.
That said, the next section goes on to describe a kind of "moral insanity" he says psychopaths possess, but that doesn't really fit the definition of insanity in common use.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Hervey Cleckley versus Robert Hare FTW!
So, Hare's point is that psychopaths "do not meet current legal and psychiatric standards". I concede, but that doesn't preclude a colloquial definition.
My point before was that there was dissent within the psychiatric community on whether to change the clinical definition (back) to include it as a personality disorder. I'd assume that the legal decisions would follow a change to the clinical ruling.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Hervey Cleckley versus Robert Hare FTW!
So, Hare's point is that psychopaths "do not meet current legal and psychiatric standards". I concede, but that doesn't preclude a colloquial definition.
My point before was that there was dissent within the psychiatric community on whether to change the clinical definition (back) to include it as a personality disorder. I'd assume that the legal decisions would follow a change to the clinical ruling.
I think that's fair - just wanted to provide some support for my earlier claim.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: So, Hare's point is that psychopaths "do not meet current legal and psychiatric standards". I concede, but that doesn't preclude a colloquial definition.
To bring it full circle, when I initially addressed the issue of Kim Jong-il and his son on the question of whether they were crazy, the colloquial definition would have been the least important to me.
The psychiatric would be the most important, that determines how to negotiate with him. Someone crazy that is incapable of controlling their behaviour and are unaware of consequences is dangerous in different ways than a psychopath that is aware of his mortality but doesn't care about the mortality of others. This is complicated by the fact that pretending to be insane can be a negotiating tactic.
The legal would be next. In these times of falling tyrants, it is worth considering whether Kim Jong-il* (or his son) would (or will) face legal consequences if put on trial in something like the International Criminal Court (or would they be able to avoid being held responsible by reason of insanity). *If he wasn't dead of course
The colloquial (as in what would average Joe call him) is of least interest to me. But YMMV
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Understood. But I'm not certain that a third-party assessment can have much value. A person can be clinically sane and still predisposed to destructive, sociopathic, or psychotic behavior. Even "crazy" people are capable of controlling their behavior, with the framework of their disorders.
Legal culpability, on the other hand, is a different (and more straightforward) matter. I'd like to hear the opinions of a few FBI profilers on the North Korean "royal family".
[ December 20, 2011, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: So, Hare's point is that psychopaths "do not meet current legal and psychiatric standards". I concede, but that doesn't preclude a colloquial definition.
To bring it full circle, when I initially addressed the issue of Kim Jong-il and his son on the question of whether they were crazy, the colloquial definition would have been the least important to me.
The psychiatric would be the most important, that determines how to negotiate with him. Someone crazy that is incapable of controlling their behaviour and are unaware of consequences is dangerous in different ways than a psychopath that is aware of his mortality but doesn't care about the mortality of others. This is complicated by the fact that pretending to be insane can be a negotiating tactic.
The legal would be next. In these times of falling tyrants, it is worth considering whether Kim Jong-il* (or his son) would (or will) face legal consequences if put on trial in something like the International Criminal Court (or would they be able to avoid being held responsible by reason of insanity). *If he wasn't dead of course
The colloquial (as in what would average Joe call him) is of least interest to me. But YMMV
They would certainly not be considered or found culpable, any effort for negotiated unification would hinge on blanket amnesty as a practical matter.
Also the International Criminal Court doesn't all that often deal with war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity without a clear UN mandate and to some extant the voluntary handing over of the suspects in question. Something NK won't do and something a united Korea wouldn't do either.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I live in SK, and I saw something incredibly strange this morning. I can read Korean, though my vocabulary is miniscule. From a taxi, I saw a banner that read "김점일 지령인가" + one other sentence.
The first word is Kim Jong Il, so I wrote it down quickly. I couldn't get the second sentence because the taxi moved on.
Anyways, my Korean friends tell me the banner was an order from Kim Jong Il? None of them have any ideas what the order might have been, or who might have put the banner up.
There are a surprising number of people here that are deeply sympathetic to the North; alas, they are the ones that label themselves progressives. (The political left in Korea has a strange sort of nationalism to it that makes it very difficult for me to understand)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, it's got to be easier to figure out than their deal with fans.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Edit: That's a fan made video, of course. There is no real proper video for it. But the band puts on a good show. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh yeah I'll give them that but still.
Countrywide terror over the threat of fans.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
It sounds like an urban legend, like some kind of racist stereotype, but it's true. Fan death!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I live in SK, and I saw something incredibly strange this morning. I can read Korean, though my vocabulary is miniscule. From a taxi, I saw a banner that read "김점일 지령인가" + one other sentence.
The first word is Kim Jong Il, so I wrote it down quickly. I couldn't get the second sentence because the taxi moved on.
Anyways, my Korean friends tell me the banner was an order from Kim Jong Il? None of them have any ideas what the order might have been, or who might have put the banner up.
There are a surprising number of people here that are deeply sympathetic to the North; alas, they are the ones that label themselves progressives. (The political left in Korea has a strange sort of nationalism to it that makes it very difficult for me to understand)
Its simple to understand really, they want to unify their country, the north are there brothers and sisters, only they are in the unique position to understand their North Korean brothers and the US+Whoever else are either partly responsible for their country's disunity or responsible for prolonging it. It's their people who are suffering, and they the ones best in the unique position to proceed with engagement towards the inevitable process of unification that can come about some vague time after Kim Jong Il dies and the influence of Kim Jong Eun wanes as he will lack his fathers influence.
Until then everyone else is just bungling around and making the situation worse.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Its simple to understand really, they want to unify their country, the north are there brothers and sisters, only they are in the unique position to understand their North Korean brothers and the US+Whoever else are either partly responsible for their country's disunity or responsible for prolonging it.
I like that you don't mention China by name. :-)
I don't think it is this simple. Actual family ties do still exist with the North, but the nationalism I see here - even from the left - is strangely romantic. There's also a "one blood" element to it, which to my ears is sinister.
My girlfriend - a Korean - was more annoyed with her own government when the North sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong Island than she was with the Norks, and she wasn't alone. I don't get it. When your "brother" blows up one of your ships and shoots at your land, maybe it is time to ditch the minjok romanticism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I'd say the USA is partially responsible for the continued disunity. I'm glad of it, too, and I daresay if the statement is framed at all reasonably and rationally, South Koreans generally are too.
quote:My girlfriend - a Korean - was more annoyed with her own government when the North sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong Island than she was with the Norks, and she wasn't alone. I don't get it. When your "brother" blows up one of your ships and shoots at your land, maybe it is time to ditch the minjok romanticism.
Well, I don't know abouth South Koreans generally, but when I observe this kind of reaction to scummy nutty hostile powers like NK, I think it goes something like this: if a person or organization or nation develops a reputation for hostile, hypocritical behavior like NK to the extent that the whole world mostly agree about the perception...it becomes the status quo, and somehow reacting to it without backing down, whether it's militarily or diplomatically, becomes what is rocking the boat-*not* the crazy, hostile provocation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Its simple to understand really, they want to unify their country, the north are there brothers and sisters, only they are in the unique position to understand their North Korean brothers and the US+Whoever else are either partly responsible for their country's disunity or responsible for prolonging it.
I like that you don't mention China by name. :-)
I don't think it is this simple. Actual family ties do still exist with the North, but the nationalism I see here - even from the left - is strangely romantic. There's also a "one blood" element to it, which to my ears is sinister.
My girlfriend - a Korean - was more annoyed with her own government when the North sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong Island than she was with the Norks, and she wasn't alone. I don't get it. When your "brother" blows up one of your ships and shoots at your land, maybe it is time to ditch the minjok romanticism.
Russia is arguably more at fault then China is, since Kim il-sung could not have started the Korean War without tacit approval from Stalin.
Also remember, 20,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, how would you respond?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not retaliating due to fear of the violence of aggressive tyrants is one thing. Criticism of one's own government for setting off the aggressive, paranoid, violent tyrant is quite a other when they're famed for being set off by damn near *anything*.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am having difficulty parsing your sentence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Its simple to understand really, they want to unify their country, the north are there brothers and sisters, only they are in the unique position to understand their North Korean brothers and the US+Whoever else are either partly responsible for their country's disunity or responsible for prolonging it.
I like that you don't mention China by name. :-)
I don't think it is this simple. Actual family ties do still exist with the North, but the nationalism I see here - even from the left - is strangely romantic. There's also a "one blood" element to it, which to my ears is sinister.
My girlfriend - a Korean - was more annoyed with her own government when the North sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong Island than she was with the Norks, and she wasn't alone. I don't get it. When your "brother" blows up one of your ships and shoots at your land, maybe it is time to ditch the minjok romanticism.
Russia is arguably more at fault then China is, since Kim il-sung could not have started the Korean War without tacit approval from Stalin.
Also remember, 20,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, how would you respond?
What? If I'm in a gang and I ask somebody higher up if it would be alright for me to beat the stuffing out of somebody, how does their saying they don't have a problem with it and giving me a bat make them more at fault than me when I actually administer the beating?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't think you understood my post. Or have some strangely warped idea of history.
China, as in the PRC had nothing to do with North Korea in the 1950's (prior to their intervention in the Korean War), they had some military observers and that is about it. North Korea was entirely Russia's sphere and puppet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I am having difficulty parsing your sentence.
What I mean is that it's one thing to support a cautious policy of attempting not to antagonize a well armed neighboring tyrant. It's quite another to be angry at one's government for upsetting the tyrant if that tyrant is world-famous for paranoia and touchiness, and is also famous for using those characteristics to extort concessions.
Put another way: what *doesn't* upset NK?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I don't think you understood my post. Or have some strangely warped idea of history.
China, as in the PRC had nothing to do with North Korea in the 1950's (prior to their intervention in the Korean War), they had some military observers and that is about it. North Korea was entirely Russia's sphere and puppet.
Ah. I misunderstood your point. But Russia was also going to leave North Korea to their fate, whereas China ultimately decided to get involved.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I am having difficulty parsing your sentence.
What I mean is that it's one thing to support a cautious policy of attempting not to antagonize a well armed neighboring tyrant. It's quite another to be angry at one's government for upsetting the tyrant if that tyrant is world-famous for paranoia and touchiness, and is also famous for using those characteristics to extort concessions.
Put another way: what *doesn't* upset NK?
There is a book online at my education institution written by one of the main diplomatic policy experts from the US State department that would paint the above statement as unreasonably simplistic and uncharitable of the North Koreans, actions aren't in a vacuum of course.
Failed Diplomacy: The Tragic Story of How North Korea Got the Bomb Written By Pritchard, Charles L.
quote: Ah. I misunderstood your point. But Russia was also going to leave North Korea to their fate, whereas China ultimately decided to get involved.
And they're paying for it now with their menntally unstable stepchild getting a hold of the family shotgun. China in my mind right now is somewhat trying to make up for it hoping to get the Korea's to unify as it'll finally be rid of the American presence on Korea and getting a bigger trade partner to boot; who will love Chinese investment.
I am not nessasarily subscribing to the above in my previous post, but framing the mindset of what Korean nationalists are probably thinking, especially in context of disarmament talks during the Bush Jr. years.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:What I mean is that it's one thing to support a cautious policy of attempting not to antagonize a well armed neighboring tyrant. It's quite another to be angry at one's government for upsetting the tyrant if that tyrant is world-famous for paranoia and touchiness, and is also famous for using those characteristics to extort concessions.
Yeah, I agree.
It's more than that, though; many Koreans are not just annoyed that their government "upset" a tyrant, as if Korea wanted to be led by Neville Chamberlain, but that their government upset the family tyrant. They want good relations not because there is artillery in range of Seoul, but because the Norks are family.
Romantic nationalism: never not stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Question, for those who have lived there or in the region, or are knowledgable about its people: insofar as a group of millions could be spoken for collectively, do you think the people of SK would prefer to have closer relations with the PRC, or the USA, as they are now?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I don't really know. On one hand, there's a long history of thinking of China as their big brother. On the other, there is a fierce anti-communist streak here. And on the third hand, whenever American soldiers screw up and do something stupid in Seoul like run over teenage girls with tanks, its practically the end of the world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Conservatives favor better trade relations with Japan and the US, but the Liberals want closer relations with China and are more nationalistic, territorial disputes from fishery rights, that island whose name I can't recall, resentment over 100 years of being Japan's de facto colony there's a lot of friction there that makes it easier as long as China doesn't screw up to build up relations. South Korea's MFN iirc is China right now and the two have a bustling nuclear energy industry and trading relationship, plus the hundreds of years as being protected by the Ming and Qing until Japan came along.
Right now by virtue of being a small nature very dependent on trade of course the smart thing to do is to hedge your bets and make money while doing so, they might need American assistance if North Korea tries something (this is less clear now that South Korea's reserves, population and economy is stronger than the North's), but on the other hand China is clearly a rising power and not to Korean eyes, irresponsibly so.
Money talks, and if S.K absorbed the North its going to be primarily Chinese assistance in order to integrate, bordering China changes much of the current political and economic dynamic, direct land access to China means a huge boon to trade, but also new tensions that weren't there before. It was easier probably to focus on North Korea in the past, but if North Korea isn't there then uncomfortably they may then need to consider China more closely in hypothetical planning, do they bandwagon with China in a potential fight with the United States and stay neutral? Ally China to secure economic access to the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan? Bandwagon with the United States? Ally the United States? before the situation was simpler, North Korea attacked once before and may do so again, without N.K the situation is no longer clear cut.
Other new tensions can include immigration, many North Koreans may migrate to acquire jobs that may not be immediately availiable in unification, (if I was South Korea I would plan for this and supply state employment as a form of stimulus asap if unification occurred and keep the North Korean army in uniform for a while and gradually let the private sector take over) and what I find likely the DMZ may be used to keep millions of eager North Koreans from flooding the South and may instead en masse seek employment in China. This will certainly be a source of friction like the Mexico-US situation now.
The former N.Korean nuclear program may then be considered a state asset and South Korea may decide to dissolve its commitment to the United States regarding non-enrichment, it is hard to say how Russia and China may react, its possible China may be welcoming of Korea increasing its nuclear energy potential or it might not; after all there is hypothetical uncertainty that rogue officials during the initial chaos may smuggle radium or other materials to the black market.
That and without the North Korean boogeyman Korea now unified may find previously unnoticed sources of friction, true Koreans themselves dislike American forces on their soil so things will be fairly even politically in terms of pull, but now Korean politicians may find it useful to sabrerattle against China now over issues of economic exclusion zones, fishery rights, and border demarcation.
On the flipside though as noticed above there is a shared history and culture, a common history of being victims of Japanese aggression and imperialism. Not just the 1898 Sino-Japanese war and the Korean incidents leading up to it, but the previous two efforts by Japan under Toyotomi Hideyoshi to invade China through Korea, causing massive destruction in his ambition's wake. That and when you factor in the above mentioned strong trade relationship that continues to boom there's a strong case that post-Unification Korea is one that will see itself leaning heavily towards China.
A side note, since I forgot to mention it above without further segwaying but yes the USA and the UN is very likely as well to provide humanitiarian and financial assistance probably if North Korea implodes and is absorbed by South Korea, I just don't believe it will be consistent or for a long duration.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)