<<<Apparently we stand re-corrected again, since "psychotic" in the adjective form is used by the clinicians. I think that is neother here nor there. As I pointed out, people use medical and legal terms all the time without the use being strict and prtecise. Kissinger (Henry not Clark) is a war criminal guilty of genocide--but he has not been convicted by any tribunal of any such act. It's a matter of using a vocabulary with certain connotations than with literal applications.
As to the use of to apply to somewhat like David Irving, the definitions in the clinician's manual referring to delusions and hallucinations and such seemed pretty apt there. I was explaining Irving to my ten year old daughter, reporting his views in a pretty neutral way. "Is he crazy?" she asked. I couldn't say, honestly, no, just evil--as one might say, perhaps that Kissinger (Henry, that is) is evil. Mere moral condemnation doesn't capture the crazy quality of some evil, its lack of rationality, it's not just being good means to bad ends, but wacko through and through. When that is the issue, words like "crazy" and "psycho" spring to mind.
Anyway, I am so un-PC I sometimes refer to adult femals as "girls." Course I also sometimes refer to adult males as "boys," but I know it's not equal equal. So shoot me.>>>
What's PC? What is usually called Political Correctness by the Right -- e.g., not using racial epithets, sexist remarks, etc. -- seems to me to be a question of morals and manners. "Anti-PC" usually means, "I can't be bothered by what others think & feel about my use of language, I'm gonna use words I like, just because I want to, besides it's just so *fun* to offend liberal sissies, I'm a Real Man who can say N-word and get away with it." Well, I suppose it's free speech, but I'd have to say that this attitude is callous & immature, fit only for the stupidest of the frat boys. Hey, no wonder Hannah thinks you are so uncool! (Theories aside, I'd say Rawls, based upon his manners, wouldn't get caught using words like psychotic to describe his ideological opponents.) Further, morals & manners are important issues regarding whether leftist fora are welcoming places for women, blacks, other racial minorities, the disabled, etc. There is no reason to brag about having worse morals & manners than liberal capitalists, though it might make you feel like a Bad Boy on the Left.
Now, calling Kissinger a war criminal is one thing -- that describes an *objective truth*, even though it cannot be printed in the New York Times. Defining a heuristic position in one's moral philosophy as psychotic as Ken does here is *quite another*:
"My entire paragraph read like this: In this way, we could say that the legalization of abortion is an ethical judgement. But, strictly speaking, it would not be a moral one. In one were to actuall fulfill their moral obligation, the Other, the objective cause of their morality would disappear. The self would be assimilated into the Other (as is the case in psychosis). As ethical judgements, we are always called to be responsible for our transgression - and the power contained / manifest within such choices.
The only way I can make sense of your comments is to read them as follows: a woman who has an abortion, and who sees it as a moral choice, is psychotic."
Perhaps you in fact agree with Ken. If so, I haven't heard any explanation for your endorsement of his theory.
Yoshie