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.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like an urban legend, like some kind of racist stereotype, but it's true. Fan death!
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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?
IP: Logged |
posted
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*.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am having difficulty parsing your sentence.
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
