>> From: Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu>
>
>> Actually, he's saying that we cannot apply the terms "insane" or
>> "lunatic" to Joseph Stalin. And in this context, and accompanied by
>> Chris's insistence that Stalin's actions were perfectly "rational,"
>> there's little else it can be but a defense of Stalin.
>
> This conversation is getting quite weird. My point was that Stalin
> knew what he was doing and was not delusional. What exactly is the
> problem?
I recall our conversation much differently. You've objected to the use of the term "lunatic" or "insane" to Stalin. Your main arguments were that a) he acquired considerable political power, which you regard as proof positive of sanity, and b) he could pass simple tests for social comportment (i.e., not chewing the rugs, ability to dress himself, etc.) I've pointed out that these arguments are excessively stringent (to the point where even obviously crazy people would be judged "not insane") and fallacious (acquisition of power as a mark of rationality).