What's the point of arguing abortion?

[Asclepias]

We agree that almost no human is entirely rational. You consider yourself an exception to this?

I am highly rational, an exception, and humans are a disease.

I see. You do understand how this sounds to another person, right? "I'm intellectually superior and everyone else is a filthy waste no better than dog shit."

Defined by who, who told you its a disorder, and what makes you think everyone accepts it?

It makes no difference whether a sociopath accepts that they have a disorder. It equally makes no difference if an AIDS victim considers himself perfectly healthy. Reality is not subjective. It exists independently of one's own mind. I suspect this is another of those differences in fundamental brain wiring between us though.

Thats not what I asked you. The issue was if "sociopath" was subjective. Since its entirely at the discretion of what people consider to be a sociopath thats the very essence of subjective.

Lolol

Leave the crack alone. Its making you giggle like a school gir.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

How do you know they learned what it was? How do you know it wasnt made up? Matter of fact I guarantee you it was made up. The definition didnt write itself.

I didn't ask anything of the sort. I asked why do you think everyone accepts "sociopath" as a disorder?

The subject is subjective simply because another human or humans decided what it was going to be. There are plenty of people that disagree. Some people think its perfectly normal to be anti social. Thats what "subjective" entails. Do you need to refer to a dictionary since you discovered you were wrong the first time?

Clearly we have a general failure of communication at this point. What do you think sociopathy is?

 

[Asclepias]

Sociopaths have antisocial behavior (stealing, lying,aggression) and lack a conscience. It doesn't matter what society you're in. A sociopath in Africa is a sociopath in France.

You just described white people in their imperialistic mode. BTW there is no word for sociopath in Swahili so you are wrong about that as well.

 

[Asclepias]

How do you know they learned what it was? How do you know it wasnt made up? Matter of fact I guarantee you it was made up. The definition didnt write itself.

I didn't ask anything of the sort. I asked why do you think everyone accepts "sociopath" as a disorder?

The subject is subjective simply because another human or humans decided what it was going to be. There are plenty of people that disagree. Some people think its perfectly normal to be anti social. Thats what "subjective" entails. Do you need to refer to a dictionary since you discovered you were wrong the first time?

Clearly we have a general failure of communication at this point. What do you think sociopathy is?

The only failure we have is that you keep avoiding the question. Why are you doing that? Did you think I wouldnt notice?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Sociopaths have antisocial behavior (stealing, lying,aggression) and lack a conscience. It doesn't matter what society you're in. A sociopath in Africa is a sociopath in France.

You just described white people in their imperialistic mode.

I was already aware that you're racist. I'm not sure what that has to do with her point.

How do you know they learned what it was? How do you know it wasnt made up? Matter of fact I guarantee you it was made up. The definition didnt write itself.

I didn't ask anything of the sort. I asked why do you think everyone accepts "sociopath" as a disorder?

The subject is subjective simply because another human or humans decided what it was going to be. There are plenty of people that disagree. Some people think its perfectly normal to be anti social. Thats what "subjective" entails. Do you need to refer to a dictionary since you discovered you were wrong the first time?

Clearly we have a general failure of communication at this point. What do you think sociopathy is?

The only failure we have is that you keep avoiding the question. Why are you doing that? Did you think I wouldnt notice?

I asked you to clarify on your definition of the term because we're clearly using different ones. What I'm talking about is a personality disorder some people have which combines malicious tendencies with a lack of ability to feel guilt or remorse. They have it regardless of whether they are diagnosed with it. They have it regardless of whether they believe they have it or anyone else believes they have it. They have it regardless of whether they act on it. It's a problem with the way their brain works that exists independently of subjective interpretation or the local definition of normal. I'm aware of what it is without a dictionary. The fact of its existence is unchanged by the fact that I was apparently wrong about the etymology of the term. Now, what do you think it is? Simply being "anti-social"?

 

[Asclepias]

Sociopaths have antisocial behavior (stealing, lying,aggression) and lack a conscience. It doesn't matter what society you're in. A sociopath in Africa is a sociopath in France.

You just described white people in their imperialistic mode.

I was already aware that you're racist. I'm not sure what that has to do with her point.

How do you know they learned what it was? How do you know it wasnt made up? Matter of fact I guarantee you it was made up. The definition didnt write itself.

I didn't ask anything of the sort. I asked why do you think everyone accepts "sociopath" as a disorder?

The subject is subjective simply because another human or humans decided what it was going to be. There are plenty of people that disagree. Some people think its perfectly normal to be anti social. Thats what "subjective" entails. Do you need to refer to a dictionary since you discovered you were wrong the first time?

Clearly we have a general failure of communication at this point. What do you think sociopathy is?

The only failure we have is that you keep avoiding the question. Why are you doing that? Did you think I wouldnt notice?

I asked you to clarify on your definition of the term because we're clearly using different ones. What I'm talking about is a personality disorder some people have which combines malicious tendencies with a lack of ability to feel guilt or remorse. They have it regardless of whether they are diagnosed with it. They have it regardless of whether they believe they have it or anyone else believes they have it. They have it regardless of whether they act on it. It's a problem with the way their brain works that exists independently of subjective interpretation or the local definition of normal. I'm aware of what it is without a dictionary. The fact of its existence is unchanged by the fact that I was apparently wrong about the etymology of the term. Now, what do you think it is? Simply being "anti-social"?

It has nothing to do with her point. It was just an observation.

How can we be using different definitions of "sociopath" if its not subjective?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

How can we be using different definitions of "sociopath" if its not subjective?

One of us has an incorrect idea of what it is?

 

[Asclepias]

How can we be using different definitions of "sociopath" if its not subjective?

One of us has an incorrect idea of what it is?

Who decided if it was incorrect or not? That too is subjective right?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Who decided if it was incorrect or not?

It's not who but what. Say we have a mutual distant acquaintance. This acquaintance is a highly destructive person. She regularly throws those closest to her under the bus when it stands to benefit her in any way. She creates conflict between people for the joy of proving herself superior to the normals. She's constantly cheating on her spouse with his brother just because it gets her off that it hurts him. She does not consider herself to have any mental issues whatsoever. She's certainly never been diagnosed with or treated for anything. Her behavior isn't any different than that of her immediate social circle either, and none of them considers her to have any problems. Do you consider her a sociopath? If so, then why?

 

[Asclepias]

Who decided if it was incorrect or not?

It's not who but what. Say we have a mutual distant acquaintance. This acquaintance is a highly destructive person. She regularly throws those closest to her under the bus when it stands to benefit her in any way. She creates conflict between people for the joy of proving herself superior to the normals. She's constantly cheating on her spouse with his brother just because it gets her off that it hurts him. She does not consider herself to have any mental issues whatsoever. She's certainly never been diagnosed with or treated for anything. Her behavior isn't any different than that of her immediate social circle either, and none of them consider her to have any problems. Do you consider her a sociopath? If so, then why?

Doesnt matter what I consider her to be. You just proved that "sociopath" was subjective by pointing out the fact that there could be two groups of people with different opinions on if she is a sociopath or not. There is a group that could assume she was indeed a sociopath and as in your example a group that doesnt consider her to be a sociopath.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Doesnt matter what I consider her to be. You just proved that "sociopath" was subjective by pointing out the fact that there could be two groups of people with different opinions on if she is a sociopath or not. There is a group that could assume she was indeed a sociopath and as in your example a group that doesnt consider her to be a sociopath.

The difference between us seems to come down to a difference in basic worldview - namely whether truth is subjective or objective.

Your reasoning works in your view because it holds to a subjective reality in which truth is pluralistic. It doesn't matter whether you think she's a sociopath because, regardless of the "facts", she doesn't and her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours or mine. One and one might make two. It might also make one or even three. Who really knows?

Your reasoning doesn't work in mine because it holds to an objective reality that exists apart from our subjective experience in which truth is truth regardless of who believes it. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's not a sociopath because, regardless of anyone's opinion, she clearly meets the definition of combining a malicious impulse with an utter lack of empathy. One and one always make two. Anyone who says they make one or three is mistaken.

Of course, I'm aware that my view doesn't work in yours either. This is what seems to be the real tangent discussion.

 

[Asclepias]

Doesnt matter what I consider her to be. You just proved that "sociopath" was subjective by pointing out the fact that there could be two groups of people with different opinions on if she is a sociopath or not. There is a group that could assume she was indeed a sociopath and as in your example a group that doesnt consider her to be a sociopath.

The difference between us seems to be the difference between absolutism and relativism. Your reasoning works in your view because it considers truth pluralistic. It doesn't matter whether you think she's a sociopath because, regardless of the "facts", she doesn't and her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours or mine. Your reasoning doesn't work in mine because it considers truth to be truth regardless of who believes it. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's not a sociopath because, regardless of the facts, she clearly meets the definition of combining a malicious impulse with an utter lack of empathy. Of course, I'm aware that my view doesn't work in yours either. This is what seems to be the real tangent discussion.

Your attempt at an explanation only works if you didnt say her friends also thought she was not a sociopath. Since there is more than one person that does not believe she is a sociopath it takes your assumption she is simply in denial of the "truth" and places it exactly where I pointed out it was. The realm of subjectivity. A this point you have to find a way to convince the group that believes she is not a sociopath that they are wrong. In doing so you again prove that "sociopath" is subjective. Your thought process assumes the idea of an "authority" that is not to be questioned only accepted.

 

[koshergrl]

Who decided if it was incorrect or not?

It's not who but what. Say we have a mutual distant acquaintance. This acquaintance is a highly destructive person. She regularly throws those closest to her under the bus when it stands to benefit her in any way. She creates conflict between people for the joy of proving herself superior to the normals. She's constantly cheating on her spouse with his brother just because it gets her off that it hurts him. She does not consider herself to have any mental issues whatsoever. She's certainly never been diagnosed with or treated for anything. Her behavior isn't any different than that of her immediate social circle either, and none of them considers her to have any problems. Do you consider her a sociopath? If so, then why?

Not necessarily. Sociopaths tend to be criminal....they don't think laws apply to them. They can be volatile....fly into rages. Low impulse control. If she is like that, and her friends are too....then they are probably all sociopaths. Criminal gangs can be like that. If your girl is just unpleasant but not criminal, she's unlikely to be a sociopath. She's just a bitch who hangs out with other bitches.

 

[koshergrl]

Doesnt matter what I consider her to be. You just proved that "sociopath" was subjective by pointing out the fact that there could be two groups of people with different opinions on if she is a sociopath or not. There is a group that could assume she was indeed a sociopath and as in your example a group that doesnt consider her to be a sociopath.

The difference between us seems to come down to a difference in basic worldview - namely whether truth is subjective or objective.

Your reasoning works in your view because it holds to a subjective reality in which truth is pluralistic. It doesn't matter whether you think she's a sociopath because, regardless of the "facts", she doesn't and her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours or mine. One and one might make two. It might also make one or even three. Who really knows?

Your reasoning doesn't work in mine because it holds to an objective reality that exists apart from our subjective experience in which truth is truth regardless of who believes it. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's not a sociopath because, regardless of anyone's opinion, she clearly meets the definition of combining a malicious impulse with an utter lack of empathy. One and one always make two. Anyone who says they make one or three is mistaken.

Of course, I'm aware that my view doesn't work in yours either. This is what seems to be the real tangent discussion.

He's a sociopath. Anti social, without a conscience, thinks rules and laws are for other ppl.

 

[Asclepias]

Who decided if it was incorrect or not?

It's not who but what. Say we have a mutual distant acquaintance. This acquaintance is a highly destructive person. She regularly throws those closest to her under the bus when it stands to benefit her in any way. She creates conflict between people for the joy of proving herself superior to the normals. She's constantly cheating on her spouse with his brother just because it gets her off that it hurts him. She does not consider herself to have any mental issues whatsoever. She's certainly never been diagnosed with or treated for anything. Her behavior isn't any different than that of her immediate social circle either, and none of them considers her to have any problems. Do you consider her a sociopath? If so, then why?

Not necessarily. Sociopaths tend to be criminal....they don't think laws apply to them. They can be volatile....fly into rages. Low impulse control. If she is like that, and her friends are too....then they are probably all sociopaths. Criminal gangs can be like that. If your girl is just unpleasant but not criminal, she's unlikely to be a sociopath. She's just a bitch who hangs out with other bitches.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Asclepias]

Doesnt matter what I consider her to be. You just proved that "sociopath" was subjective by pointing out the fact that there could be two groups of people with different opinions on if she is a sociopath or not. There is a group that could assume she was indeed a sociopath and as in your example a group that doesnt consider her to be a sociopath.

The difference between us seems to come down to a difference in basic worldview - namely whether truth is subjective or objective.

Your reasoning works in your view because it holds to a subjective reality in which truth is pluralistic. It doesn't matter whether you think she's a sociopath because, regardless of the "facts", she doesn't and her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours or mine. One and one might make two. It might also make one or even three. Who really knows?

Your reasoning doesn't work in mine because it holds to an objective reality that exists apart from our subjective experience in which truth is truth regardless of who believes it. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's not a sociopath because, regardless of anyone's opinion, she clearly meets the definition of combining a malicious impulse with an utter lack of empathy. One and one always make two. Anyone who says they make one or three is mistaken.

Of course, I'm aware that my view doesn't work in yours either. This is what seems to be the real tangent discussion.

He's a sociopath. Anti social, without a conscience, thinks rules and laws are for other ppl.

Youre a crack ho. Anti clean and down for anything to get a hit. Thinks rules and laws were made to procure more crack.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Your attempt at an explanation only works if you didnt say her friends also thought she was not a sociopath. Since there is more than one person that does not believe she is a sociopath it takes your assumption she is simply in denial of the "truth" and places it exactly where I pointed out it was. The realm of subjectivity. A this point you have to find a way to convince the group that believes she is not a sociopath that they are wrong. In doing so you again prove that "sociopath" is subjective. Your thought process assumes the idea of an "authority" that is not to be questioned only accepted.

The definition of the term we're arguing has been provided. Her behavior meets those criteria. She breaks laws, hurts people, and loves it all. She has no empathy for those she victimizes. Her "friends" (realistically more like frenemies) act the same way towards each other and those outside the group. None of them thinks anything is wrong with them. You're correct that it's subjective to assume they are in denial. They may truly be unaware of their condition. However, my understanding of reality holds that their opinion of themselves and the truth about themselves are entirely separate questions. A sociopath is a sociopath regardless of how many people think otherwise. I'm aware that your view is probably in direct conflict with mine. This is why I invited you to explain to me in your own words why you don't think she is one.

He's a sociopath. Anti social, without a conscience, thinks rules and laws are for other ppl.

I think that Paint might be. I haven't seen evidence that Asclepias is yet. I think he just has a completely different interpretation of reality.

Youre a crack ho. Anti clean and down for anything to get a hit. Thinks rules and laws were made to procure more crack.

Like here. He evidently considers people who reject his view that everything is subjective to be objectively drug addled. In all complete honesty I find myself wondering what drugs he's personally used.

 

[Asclepias]

Your attempt at an explanation only works if you didnt say her friends also thought she was not a sociopath. Since there is more than one person that does not believe she is a sociopath it takes your assumption she is simply in denial of the "truth" and places it exactly where I pointed out it was. The realm of subjectivity. A this point you have to find a way to convince the group that believes she is not a sociopath that they are wrong. In doing so you again prove that "sociopath" is subjective. Your thought process assumes the idea of an "authority" that is not to be questioned only accepted.

The definition of the term we're arguing has been provided. Her behavior meets those criteria. She breaks laws, hurts people, and loves it all. She has no empathy for the she victimizes. Her "friends" (realistically more like frenemies) act the same way towards each other and those outside the group. None of them thinks anything is wrong with them. You're correct that it's subjective to assume they are in denial. They may truly be unaware of their condition. However, my understanding of reality holds that their opinion of themselves and the truth about themselves are entirely separate questions. A sociopath is a sociopath regardless of how many people think otherwise. I'm aware that your view is probably in direct conflict with mine. This is why I invited you to explain to me in your own words why you don't think she is one.

The definition was provide by who? What makes you think everyone agrees with that definition when you just admitted everyone did not? If everyone does not agree then that is by definition a subjective conclusion you have arrived at in saying she is a sociopath. I never gave an opinion either way regarding if she was a sociopath or not.

 

[koshergrl]

Your attempt at an explanation only works if you didnt say her friends also thought she was not a sociopath. Since there is more than one person that does not believe she is a sociopath it takes your assumption she is simply in denial of the "truth" and places it exactly where I pointed out it was. The realm of subjectivity. A this point you have to find a way to convince the group that believes she is not a sociopath that they are wrong. In doing so you again prove that "sociopath" is subjective. Your thought process assumes the idea of an "authority" that is not to be questioned only accepted.

The definition of the term we're arguing has been provided. Her behavior meets those criteria. She breaks laws, hurts people, and loves it all. She has no empathy for those she victimizes. Her "friends" (realistically more like frenemies) act the same way towards each other and those outside the group. None of them thinks anything is wrong with them. You're correct that it's subjective to assume they are in denial. They may truly be unaware of their condition. However, my understanding of reality holds that their opinion of themselves and the truth about themselves are entirely separate questions. A sociopath is a sociopath regardless of how many people think otherwise. I'm aware that your view is probably in direct conflict with mine. This is why I invited you to explain to me in your own words why you don't think she is one.

He's a sociopath. Anti social, without a conscience, thinks rules and laws are for other ppl.

I think that Paint might be. I haven't seen evidence that Asclepias is yet. I think he just has a completely different interpretation of reality.

Youre a crack ho. Anti clean and down for anything to get a hit. Thinks rules and laws were made to procure more crack.

Like here. He evidently considers people who reject his view that everything is subjective to be objectively drug addled. In all complete honesty I find myself wondering what drugs he's personally used.

Paint is a psychopath. Schlep is a sociopath.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The definition was provide by who? What makes you think everyone agrees with that definition when you just admitted everyone did not? If everyone does not agree then that is by definition a subjective conclusion you have arrived at in saying she is a sociopath. I never gave an opinion either way regarding if she was a sociopath or not.

The definition being provided by those psychologists and neurologists who have discovered it. Yes, that does mean that I accept an "authority" in a sense. Those scientists, however, are not that authority. They're simply trying to determine the objective truth about the world that exists independently of your or my experience as subjective beings. That objective truth is my authority as to what's true. It doesn't matter to me if everyone agrees with it - either the existence and nature of this particular disorder or reality itself - is not a matter of opinion. I invited you to give me a direct opinion so I don't have to rely on subtle hints about your actual views.