Where is the line between a disorder and else?

Why be consistent? Why not treat each issue as a separate and unique issue?

We can always make up a justification for what we want, but consistency often leads to very, very stupid ends.

Rules are often the problem. Sorry but that is simply empty words and of no use or value. A great example is that during slavery there was a consistent valuation of human life. Slaves were not humans and just property.Both inconsistency and consistency can be good or bad; it's time to stop putting value on "consistency" and start thinking beyond rules.

Again, looking from today you can say that a human was not considered a human, but that has nothing to do with the reality.The rule at the time was that slaves were not humans but rather property.It was a conclusion that was repeated many times in many societies. I have no problem with most of that; I just see no value to always insisting on consistency.

And it is examples like you post that demand inconsistency. Each case must be treated as an individual unique case and no one answer fits all.

Bullshit. Utter sophomoric bullshit.What I am saying is that each case is unique and unless a whole lot more information is available I cannot possibly make any ruling.Trying to be consistent without full details is just plain stupid.

No I don't just 'simply throw up the defense that "it's too complicated and I don't know enough" as an obfuscation instead of even attempting to explain what those criteria are.'I'm saying only a fool would say that consistency is required or desirable.As you say, you can make up any shit example you want.Again, I can't say what would lead to a conclusion of "this person is crazy" or "this person is not crazy" that could be anything but made up bullshit.

See, your response is a great example of foolishness. You are just making shit up when you say 'Indeed, "made up bullshit" is exactly the way I would describe your approach toward drawing the line between disorder and not-disorder - devoid of thought, containing only what knee-jerk emotional reflex occurs to you in the moment.'Then you go on and make up even more bullshit when you say 'One would expect that you could interview two individuals who provide identical responses in all ways, and yet you could call one sane, and the other crazy, for no greater reason than that one was interviewed before lunch, and the other after.'It gets even funnier when you say 'How fortunate for any hypothetical patients of yours, then, that you are not in fact a psychiatrist, given that you are apparently incapable of discerning real mental disorder from sane but alien choice beyond the determination of your mercurial and arbitrary gut.'The reality though is that I have consistently said that I can't trust my gut or consistency or what some other example involved over a decision made on a unique example without far more data.

I almost totally agree with that position and think it is nearly perfect. The only change I'd suggest is that someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet should not be eligible for public medical care in the case of an accident where not wearing a helmet caused damage.The seatbelt was developed not for safety but rather to anchor the driver behind the controls, steering, braking, accelerating. When a driver does not wear a seatbelt that driver is NOT capable of maintaining position and control during violent evasive maneuvers. Passengers in a car not wearing a seatbelt become just another projectile that can also interfere with the driver avoiding an accident.The person in another vehicle who is NOT wearing a seatbelt is a threat to people not in that car.The person on a motorcycle not wearing a helmet though is a threat only to himself.I do not think it is reasonable though to expect the public to subsidize medical care for someone too dumb to wear a helmet.

It's not just being throw from your seat but rather that your arms, hands and feet are free to be used to avoid an accident instead of being used to maintain your position.Believe me, it is amazing how much a driver can do if strapped in place.Of course, at least in the US we don't teach accident avoidance or even defensive driving. Correct. But if the wife and kids know that if Dad gets on a motorcycle without a helmet and gets in an accident they will be left without support maybe they may tell Dad it's helmet and highway or just highway.

Again you speak from ignorance.I have been there and done that, seen horrific things.Nor did I say they should not get medical help, only that the public should not have to pay for their stupidity.

Your assertions of what I have experienced or not or what I think or don't think are of no real interest or importance to me and so I simply laugh.If you find what I post condescending maybe you should deal with it.But when you speak from ignorance then that is certainly not my problem.And I have been making more posts then just your quote mine on this subject and have said repeatedly that the public should not have to have to pay for the person wearing a motorcycle and that a person in a car not wearing seat belts should be charged.Yawn.

I kinda enjoy it.