DrW wrote:The definition in the OP was copied and pasted directly from DSM-V.
You're manipulating things again. You quoted the fourth edition, and you've since edited it to quote the fifth edition. Of course, there is no fifth edition yet. What you tracked down was a proposed revision. Irrespective of the proposed revision, your definition still simply doesn't apply.
Don't worry, Mak--I don't think that the definition would apply to you, since you don't actually believe in any of the claims of Mormonism.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:Don't worry, Mak--I don't think that the definition would apply to you, since you don't actually believe in any of the claims of Mormonism.
DrW wrote:The definition in the OP was copied and pasted directly from DSM-V.
You're manipulating things again. You quoted the fourth edition, and you've since edited it to quote the fifth edition. Of course, there is no fifth edition yet. What you tracked down was a proposed revision. Irrespective of the proposed revision, your definition still simply doesn't apply.
I did attribute the criteria in the OP to DSM-IV instead of DSM V by mistake. No changes or alterations were made to the criteria in the OP, only in their attribution. I have since corrected the OP and noted the change there.
Whether the definition is from DSM-IV or DSM-V makes little difference to the point of the OP. DSMs is DSMs.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Doctor Scratch wrote:Don't worry, Mak--I don't think that the definition would apply to you, since you don't actually believe in any of the claims of Mormonism.
You cut me deep that time, Scratch.
Is there some privileged information or context here that the rest of us are missing?
Is it just me?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
maklelan wrote:That belief alone is not what compelled her to murder her children. Millions and millions of Latter-day Saints manage to espouse that belief without murdering their children. Whatever drove her to do it was not that belief alone. Stop misrepresenting things just so you can push your ignorant bigotry.
I am certainly not claiming that this belief was the sole motivation for her to kill her children. I am simply claiming that it is a delusional belief. My understanding is that you said that you agreed, and I appreciate the candor.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:I am certainly not claiming that this belief was the sole motivation for her to kill her children. I am simply claiming that it is a delusional belief.
But you have nothing on which to base that claim. The fact that the belief contributed to a woman murdering her children is not evidence of that at all. All kinds of different ideas contribute to different kinds of crimes when you're dealing with unstable people.
DrW wrote:My understanding is that you said that you agreed, and I appreciate the candor.
Then you have a comprehension problem or you're being dishonest. I quite clearly stated that in that instance that woman was probably delusional, but the belief is not responsible for her delusion, nor is it likely the object of her delusion.
DrW wrote:I am certainly not claiming that this belief was the sole motivation for her to kill her children. I am simply claiming that it is a delusional belief.
But you have nothing on which to base that claim. The fact that the belief contributed to a woman murdering her children is not evidence of that at all. All kinds of different ideas contribute to different kinds of crimes when you're dealing with unstable people.
DrW wrote:My understanding is that you said that you agreed, and I appreciate the candor.
Then you have a comprehension problem or you're being dishonest. I quite clearly stated that in that instance that woman was probably delusional, but the belief is not responsible for her delusion, nor is it likely the object of her delusion.
You seem to be having problems with simple logic.
If Christine was delusional and she killed her children because she believed this act would send them to the Celestial Kingdom, how can the belief that her under eight year old children would go to the CK upon their death not be delusional?
If not on the basis of this false and fatal belief, on what basis did you conclude that Christine was delusional?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:If Christine was delusional and she killed her children because she believed this act would send them to the Celestial Kingdom, how can the belief that her under eight year old children would go to the CK upon their death not be delusional?
Because the belief was not the proximate cause, and because the belief does not in and of itself compel or even suggest such an action. This woman obviously had mental issues antecedent to, and independent of, that belief. The belief merely provided a lens for focusing her mental problems. Any number of beliefs could act as such a lens.
DrW wrote:If not on the basis of thisfalse and fatal belief, on what basis did you conclude that Christine was delusional?
That she murdered her children and claimed that a religious outlook that unilaterally condemns murder compelled her to do it. This is not difficult.