Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dblack]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

 

[Asclepias]

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I must have missed that request.

natural right
noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.

Natural Law
noun
1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

Inalienable right
noun
1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.

Right
noun
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?

By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.

I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:

"let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect. What did you need to know?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I can tell you why.

Might makes right?

Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Dilloduck: What Kind of Creature Are You?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

The essence of a human being is behavior? You have to follow rules in order to have this essence? This essence leaves should you go to jail?

This is not normal. Disconnect. Separation. Apartness. Superficial.

Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.

Indeed, essence is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing. Check? No. Of course you don't check. You can't. I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level. You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.

Permission, did you say?! Wow! Permission from whom? People like you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I must have missed that request.

natural right
noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.

Natural Law
noun
1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

Inalienable right
noun
1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.

Right
noun
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?

By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.

I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:

"let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect. What did you need to know?

I don't need to know anything in this regard; you do.

 

[Asclepias]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement. What does that mean to you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

They are not built on them; these things are their very essence. Read and think.

 

[dblack]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

The are not built on them; these things are their very essence. Read and think.

I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I can tell you why.

Might makes right?

Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

Of course, I'm saying the same thing: that's the axiom. That's the proof. That's the premise. That's the essence. That's the whole of it. What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else? What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature? Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance. The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.

Question: What do we mean when we say reality?

Answer: We mean that which exists both within and without our minds.

Question: What do we mean when we say delusion/fantasy?

Answer: We mean imaginary things.

Question: Why are they imaginary things?

Answer: Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question: What does your contrivance mean?

Answer: That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

 

[Asclepias]

By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.

I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:

"let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect. What did you need to know?

I don't need to know anything in this regard; you do.

Actually I dont. What makes you think I need to know something about it? Why did you make the statement I never explained my point then? Were you just making a observation?

 

[Asclepias]

I can tell you why.

Might makes right?

Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

Of course, I'm saying the same thing: that's the axiom. That's the proof. That's the premise. That's the essence. That's the whole of it. What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else? What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature? Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance. The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.

Question: What do we mean when we say reality?

Answer: We mean that which exists both within and without our minds.

Question: What do we mean when we say delusion/fantasy?

Answer: We mean imaginary things.

Question: Why are they imaginary things?

Answer: Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question: What does your contrivance mean?

Answer: That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

You sound like you are having mental seizure. You cant say because man decrees it so then it must be. Man has been egregiously wrong before and will be again. When you see proof of rights in nature or laws that provide the basis for those rights please point it out to me. That is the only way you can provide proof. Otherwise all you are doing is talking about sky fairies.

 

[Asclepias]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

The are not built on them; these things are their very essence. Read and think.

I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.

From what I understand he is saying they exist because man says so. The essence thing and all that.

Essence

1.
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, esp. something abstract, that determines its character.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

The are not built on them; these things are their very essence. Read and think.

I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.

Then why did you make this assertion. Yours is one of complexity piled on top of the simple fact of the matter. Your assertion is essentially meaningless, a mental illusion.

Read and think:

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274

You have a sound mind and heart. You can see it once you untangle the fact from your mental illusion.

By the way, why can't dilloduck and Asclepias wrap their minds around this essential fact of humanity at all?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Might makes right?

Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

Of course, I'm saying the same thing: that's the axiom. That's the proof. That's the premise. That's the essence. That's the whole of it. What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else? What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature? Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance. The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.

Question: What do we mean when we say reality?

Answer: We mean that which exists both within and without our minds.

Question: What do we mean when we say delusion/fantasy?

Answer: We mean imaginary things.

Question: Why are they imaginary things?

Answer: Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question: What does your contrivance mean?

Answer: That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

You sound like you are having mental seizure. You cant say because man decrees it so then it must be. Man has been egregiously wrong before and will be again. When you see proof of rights in nature or laws that provide the basis for those rights please point it out to me. That is the only way you can provide proof. Otherwise all you are doing is talking about sky fairies.

The only seizure in sight is that of the sociopath.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?

1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
2) Vanity.

Both true. And the underlying reality of both: sentience.

 

[dblack]

The are not built on them; these things are their very essence. Read and think.

I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.

Then why did you make this assertion. Yours is one of complexity piled on top of the simple fact of the matter. Your assertion is essentially meaningless, a mental illusion.

Read and think:

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274

You have a sound mind and heart. You can see it once you untangle the fact from your mental illusion.

By the way, why can't dilloduck and Asclepias wrap their minds around this essential fact of humanity at all?

Frankly, your stuff loses me when it begins to drift into religious spiritualism. And it's also fairly long. Unfortunately, there are limits on how much time I can spend on this.

 

[Asclepias]

What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?

1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
2) Vanity.

Both true. And the underlying reality of both: sentience.

My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.

 

[dblack]

1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
2) Vanity.

Both true. And the underlying reality of both: sentience.

My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.

Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

I get my definitions out of a dictionary. Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions. Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I can still tell you why.

Read these posts and then read below:

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274

Sociopathy/Psychopathy

Only the sociopath/psychopath typically cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation. Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others. He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition. You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face: he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.

It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic. He still cannot feel shame or empathize. He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child. Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not. He doesn't have to. This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful. The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.

(In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent or sexually deranged. As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)

Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well: he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity. He is of the first order of his breed. He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.

The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we distinguish him from the others: while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on. He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination. In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have. He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological. But what can he do or feel about it? Nothing! However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.

The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.

These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans. These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line. Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.

In any event, the point remains: when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order. The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially. The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him. Trust me. Most all of the latter have left this thread. The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.

That leaves who or what?

All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths. There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.

____________________________________


Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Dilloduck: What Kind of Creature Are You?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

The essence of a human being is behavior? You have to follow rules in order to have this essence? This essence leaves should you go to jail?

This is not normal. Disconnect. Separation. Apartness. Superficial.

Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.

Indeed, essence is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing. Check? No. Of course you don't check. You can't. I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic. You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.

Permission, did you say?! Wow! Permission from whom? People like you?

 

[Asclepias]

Both true. And the underlying reality of both: sentience.

My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.

Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.

Thats what the law calls them I agree.

 

[Asclepias]

I get my definitions out of a dictionary. Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions. Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I can still tell you why.

Sociopathy/Psychopathy

Only the sociopath/psychopath typically cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation. Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others. He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition. You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face: he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.

It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic. He still cannot feel shame or empathize. He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child. Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not. He doesn't have to. This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful. The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.

(In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent or sexually deranged. As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)

Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well: he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity. He is of the first order of his breed. He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.

The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we distinguish him from the others: while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on. He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination. In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have. He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological. But what can he do or feel about it? Nothing! However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.

The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.

These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans. These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line. Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.

In any event, the point remains: when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order. The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially. The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him. Trust me. Most all of the latter have left this thread. The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.

That leaves who or what?

All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths. There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.

__________________________________________________________________


Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Dilloduck: What Kind of Creature Are You?

The essence of a human being is behavior? You have to follow rules in order to have this essence? This essence leaves should you go to jail?

This is not normal. Disconnect. Separation. Apartness. Superficial.

Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.

Indeed, essence is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing. Check? No. Of course you don't check. You can't. I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic. You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.

Permission, did you say?! Wow! Permission from whom? People like you?

I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded. Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?