You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
So in your opinion, if what makes them happy is the success and happiness of their friends, their family, their chosen tribe (regardless of why they made that decision), they're ok? Good to go? No reason to fear the torches and pitchforks? That's what I'm seeing here. I mean, if you were a black moslem and your brother was a sociopath who decided to put all his efforts into supporting his black moslem friends and family, that would be all right with you? I'm using black moslem as a hypothetical here. Substitute chinese atheist or white Christian or whatever your chosen tribe is, the point is, as long as a sociopath aligned himself with your chosen ideals and took action that protected, supported, and uplifted people you cared about, he'd be ok in your book? Doesn't that make your definition of evil entirely subjective? Doesn't that mean that, according to your beliefs, a sociopath can choose to be good, so long as his idea of what is good aligns with your tribe's idea of what is good?
It's a philosophical downward spiral, as far as I can tell. Maybe just focus on convicting people for what they do instead of something they have no control over. I mean, if it's genetic, they can't change it, and if it's nature, then they probably aren't even aware of what they're doing until someone makes them aware, at which point, the ball is in their court, isn't it? It's not something I'm qualified to delve into, that's all I know. I just don't care for blanket statements ans generalization. Too often, folks who are just trying to get by get fucked over by that shit.
So you believe in the existence of good sociopaths/psychopaths? That's probably the biggest oxymoron I've ever encountered. He can just as easily choose to be evil, so I'm not sure what your argument is exactly.
If I use your logic and say that the definition of evil is entirely subjective, then that would mean that one person's definition of evil may be very different from another person's definition. If we cannot accurately determine what is evil and what is not, then anything can be admissible in society. And of course that is exactly what a sociopath wants. When his actions are not seen as evil anymore, he can get away with them with no moral repercussions.
When people are murdered, we know that evil has been committed. It should not have happened. I don't care if you're part of a serial killer tribe that condones it entirely, it is still evil.
Your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills need a bit of polish, I think. You're only sketching answers to the questions and points I actually made, loosely basing your responses on my own so that they are near enough to pass from a distance.
Seems I was correct that you have nothing further to offer me, have a good day.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Doomking_Grimlock ago
So in your opinion, if what makes them happy is the success and happiness of their friends, their family, their chosen tribe (regardless of why they made that decision), they're ok? Good to go? No reason to fear the torches and pitchforks? That's what I'm seeing here. I mean, if you were a black moslem and your brother was a sociopath who decided to put all his efforts into supporting his black moslem friends and family, that would be all right with you? I'm using black moslem as a hypothetical here. Substitute chinese atheist or white Christian or whatever your chosen tribe is, the point is, as long as a sociopath aligned himself with your chosen ideals and took action that protected, supported, and uplifted people you cared about, he'd be ok in your book? Doesn't that make your definition of evil entirely subjective? Doesn't that mean that, according to your beliefs, a sociopath can choose to be good, so long as his idea of what is good aligns with your tribe's idea of what is good?
It's a philosophical downward spiral, as far as I can tell. Maybe just focus on convicting people for what they do instead of something they have no control over. I mean, if it's genetic, they can't change it, and if it's nature, then they probably aren't even aware of what they're doing until someone makes them aware, at which point, the ball is in their court, isn't it? It's not something I'm qualified to delve into, that's all I know. I just don't care for blanket statements ans generalization. Too often, folks who are just trying to get by get fucked over by that shit.
[–] 8Ball ago
So you believe in the existence of good sociopaths/psychopaths? That's probably the biggest oxymoron I've ever encountered. He can just as easily choose to be evil, so I'm not sure what your argument is exactly.
If I use your logic and say that the definition of evil is entirely subjective, then that would mean that one person's definition of evil may be very different from another person's definition. If we cannot accurately determine what is evil and what is not, then anything can be admissible in society. And of course that is exactly what a sociopath wants. When his actions are not seen as evil anymore, he can get away with them with no moral repercussions.
When people are murdered, we know that evil has been committed. It should not have happened. I don't care if you're part of a serial killer tribe that condones it entirely, it is still evil.
[–] Doomking_Grimlock ago
Your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills need a bit of polish, I think. You're only sketching answers to the questions and points I actually made, loosely basing your responses on my own so that they are near enough to pass from a distance.
Seems I was correct that you have nothing further to offer me, have a good day.