Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No shame.

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 10:41:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My question is whether or not Ron Paul knew who the guy was.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what? Getting a picture with someone does not mean you share their ideology, or else I would be a very confused person.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:23:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.

Paul grew up in Texas during the 40s...even if he knew who this guy was, there's no doubt he's met more racist people in the past and probably wouldn't be as offended by it as a younger person would. Remember hes so old he has a son in the senate...I honestly don't think its that big of a deal and find it hard to judge Paul for taking a photo with someone, he probably took hundreds that day. If he had been elected President he would've had to shake hands with and stand for photos with far more evil men
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:29:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:23:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.

Paul grew up in Texas during the 40s...even if he knew who this guy was, there's no doubt he's met more racist people in the past and probably wouldn't be as offended by it as a younger person would.

The issue is not what Paul did in his earlier years. The issue is what he did recently.

Remember hes so old he has a son in the senate...I honestly don't think its that big of a deal and find it hard to judge Paul for taking a photo with someone, he probably took hundreds that day. If he had been elected President he would've had to shake hands with and stand for photos with far more evil men

That's not relevant here.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:30:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 9:33:56 PM, YYW wrote:
Let me be clear: I am NO fan of Ron Paul (or his son), but this is a bit surprising.

Not exactly, y'know.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:32:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:29:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:23:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.

Paul grew up in Texas during the 40s...even if he knew who this guy was, there's no doubt he's met more racist people in the past and probably wouldn't be as offended by it as a younger person would.

The issue is not what Paul did in his earlier years. The issue is what he did recently.

I'm just saying before we break out pitchforks and torches to try to understand the context. I'm not exactly a moral relativist, but I don't think there's any objective moral law on who it's acceptable to take photos with and that judgement would probably be different for me or you than for someone older. Not too big of a deal IMO

Remember hes so old he has a son in the senate...I honestly don't think its that big of a deal and find it hard to judge Paul for taking a photo with someone, he probably took hundreds that day. If he had been elected President he would've had to shake hands with and stand for photos with far more evil men

That's not relevant here.

It's entirely relevant here...politicians take photos with and shake the hands of men far more evil than what Paul did. It's the nature of the game, I fail to see how its ok to take a photo with a genocidal maniac who serves our realpolitik interests but not some random punk who made a hateful website
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:33:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:32:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:29:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:23:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.

Paul grew up in Texas during the 40s...even if he knew who this guy was, there's no doubt he's met more racist people in the past and probably wouldn't be as offended by it as a younger person would.

The issue is not what Paul did in his earlier years. The issue is what he did recently.

I'm just saying before we break out pitchforks and torches to try to understand the context. I'm not exactly a moral relativist, but I don't think there's any objective moral law on who it's acceptable to take photos with and that judgement would probably be different for me or you than for someone older. Not too big of a deal IMO

Remember hes so old he has a son in the senate...I honestly don't think its that big of a deal and find it hard to judge Paul for taking a photo with someone, he probably took hundreds that day. If he had been elected President he would've had to shake hands with and stand for photos with far more evil men

That's not relevant here.

It's entirely relevant here...politicians take photos with and shake the hands of men far more evil than what Paul did. It's the nature of the game, I fail to see how its ok to take a photo with a genocidal maniac who serves our realpolitik interests but not some random punk who made a hateful website

So, recognize that I said that it was surprising, not that Ron Paul was a bad person. Whether I like him or not, I would think that his people would know enough to be able to recognize big name political crazies when they walk up and try to take pictures.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:34:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:33:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:32:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:29:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:23:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:19:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:16:47 AM, thett3 wrote:
What CR said, and even if he did know...so what?

If he didn't know, he should have known better... and if he did, he should have declined the photo op. One of his staffers, however, should have known -and it is on his staff that this ultimately falls, if Paul didn't know.

Paul grew up in Texas during the 40s...even if he knew who this guy was, there's no doubt he's met more racist people in the past and probably wouldn't be as offended by it as a younger person would.

The issue is not what Paul did in his earlier years. The issue is what he did recently.

I'm just saying before we break out pitchforks and torches to try to understand the context. I'm not exactly a moral relativist, but I don't think there's any objective moral law on who it's acceptable to take photos with and that judgement would probably be different for me or you than for someone older. Not too big of a deal IMO

Remember hes so old he has a son in the senate...I honestly don't think its that big of a deal and find it hard to judge Paul for taking a photo with someone, he probably took hundreds that day. If he had been elected President he would've had to shake hands with and stand for photos with far more evil men

That's not relevant here.

It's entirely relevant here...politicians take photos with and shake the hands of men far more evil than what Paul did. It's the nature of the game, I fail to see how its ok to take a photo with a genocidal maniac who serves our realpolitik interests but not some random punk who made a hateful website

So, recognize that I said that it was surprising, not that Ron Paul was a bad person. Whether I like him or not, I would think that his people would know enough to be able to recognize big name political crazies when they walk up and try to take pictures.

Yeah agreed. Especially since Paul already has an image of being a racist due to those newsletters
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:33:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 10:41:36 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My question is whether or not Ron Paul knew who the guy was.

I'm sure he did. Ron Paul is a racist, who likes to align himself with anything "fringe". He is not a true libertarian, he just associates himself with them because they are the largest 3rd party. He is also Buddy Buddy with Pat Buchanan, a Hamiltonian nationalist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nothing bad about being racist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:08:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ron Paul is an unbalanced, angry old lady.

However, I cannot condemn him for this photo.

Many people present themselves to him for autographs and photos, and handshakes and to lick his boots in one way or another. This photo only shows that the Stormfront people admire him, which was already well known.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 8:02:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:33:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/3/2013 10:41:36 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My question is whether or not Ron Paul knew who the guy was.

I'm sure he did. Ron Paul is a racist, who likes to align himself with anything "fringe". He is not a true libertarian, he just associates himself with them because they are the largest 3rd party. He is also Buddy Buddy with Pat Buchanan, a Hamiltonian nationalist.

Alright, you're going to have to justify this for me haha
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 10:16:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why Stormfront people would admire Ron Paul in any capacity I have no idea.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:48:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).

Sociopathy is virtually synonymous with psychopathy. And, frankly, you didn't really explain anything. Why would you deliberately not care if other people are being mistreated for circumstance beyond their control?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:50:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).

Probably shouldn't have taken the risk then. Sociopathy is just about as bad as psychopathy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:56:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although the definition is iffy, sociopaths are generally in full awareness of the consequences that their actions hold. They are fully functioning members of society who are capable of logical reasoning, and the basis for their actions are at least grounded in what one might consider rationality. Psychopaths are generally detached from society and suffer from delusions.

For example, Hannibal Lecter is a sociopath. A man who killed his family because the demon spoke to him through a hairbrush is a psychopath (along with a host of other mental problems)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 11:58:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:48:55 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).

Sociopathy is virtually synonymous with psychopathy. And, frankly, you didn't really explain anything. Why would you deliberately not care if other people are being mistreated for circumstance beyond their control?

I haven't heard a convincing argument throughout my lifetime as to why I should care. After all, the BOP rests with the other side.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:56:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although the definition is iffy, sociopaths are generally in full awareness of the consequences that their actions hold. They are fully functioning members of society who are capable of logical reasoning, and the basis for their actions are at least grounded in what one might consider rationality. Psychopaths are generally detached from society and suffer from delusions.

For example, Hannibal Lecter is a sociopath. A man who killed his family because the demon spoke to him through a hairbrush is a psychopath (along with a host of other mental problems)

No. I'm sorry, but no. You're understanding of psychology is clearly lacking. Taking a single class in psychology will tell you that essentialy everything you've said is wrong.

The Hairbrush killer is a psychotic, not a psychopath.

What you defined as sociopathy is ACTUALLY psychopathy. A person who has broken with reality has experienced a psychotic break/psychosis.

Sociopathy is generally speaking a lesser form of psychopathy. Psychopathy is the distinct lack of empathy, awareness of the moral implications of one's actions, but a complete disregard for them. Psychopaths generally experience either very little emotion, or very shallow and fleeting emotion. Sociopaths generally share the same problem of difficulty empathizing, but do generally experience emotions.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:05:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:58:48 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:48:55 AM, 000ike wrote:

Sociopathy is virtually synonymous with psychopathy. And, frankly, you didn't really explain anything. Why would you deliberately not care if other people are being mistreated for circumstance beyond their control?

I haven't heard a convincing argument throughout my lifetime as to why I should care. After all, the BOP rests with the other side.

You should care because other human beings are being persecuted and suffering needlessly - and that, if you're a normal minded person, should evoke in you the commiserative capacity so deeply entrenched in the definition of the word, human. As in, there's no argument that proves that caring is a logically necessity, but if you had healthy psychology, this is the emotion you would feel.

I doubt you're a sociopath, I just think you're refusing to express care because sympathy doesn't mesh with your rebellious-teenager personality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:58:48 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:48:55 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).

Sociopathy is virtually synonymous with psychopathy. And, frankly, you didn't really explain anything. Why would you deliberately not care if other people are being mistreated for circumstance beyond their control?

I haven't heard a convincing argument throughout my lifetime as to why I should care. After all, the BOP rests with the other side.

Caring for others doesn't entail any obligation on your part. Sympathy for other human beings is a visceral response that doesn't need to be logically defended.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:24:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 11:58:48 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:48:55 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:43:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:37:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/4/2013 11:23:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:34:43 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:34:03 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nothing bad about being racist.

..what? To be honest I think your entire ideology is quite indefensible and you've shown as much by not defending it. You'd rather just go around spreading this hateful stuff which you can't justify on any level.. your 'anarchist' philosophy makes no sense and is not anarchist.

Considering that you are a person that I've maybe seen once or twice in the forums, I seriously doubt you even know my entire ideology. My ideology is focused on the individual- unlimited freedom, whatever that implies; morality is derived from the viewpoint of the agent. If somebody wants to be racist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Some might say that there is something subjectively wrong, but I disagree.

Of course there are no moral truths, and there's nothing wrong with being a racist or a criminal, or any other miscreant you can conceive of. But I will say this. That you find nothing personally wrong with racism suggests a depraved indifference for the welfare and just treatment of others. In some sense, this borders on sociopathy. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - just an appropriate description.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche teenage Lecter-esque admirer, I would rather embrace sociopathy, or at least specific parts of it, than deplore it. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is well.....psycho (pun intended).

Sociopathy is virtually synonymous with psychopathy. And, frankly, you didn't really explain anything. Why would you deliberately not care if other people are being mistreated for circumstance beyond their control?

I haven't heard a convincing argument throughout my lifetime as to why I should care. After all, the BOP rests with the other side.

Caring about other people isn't something that you need to be convinced to do. It's kind of an innate emotional reaction to seeing someone suffering, generally speaking.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fascinating discussion you guys have going here. I would say 000ike is a hack, that Lordknukle strikes upon a profound problem within society, and sdavio just has a heart.

Lordknukle, I don't think you're so callous as you let on though, otherwise you wouldn't be here espousing such sentiment.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:37:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:35:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Fascinating discussion you guys have going here. I would say 000ike is a hack, that Lordknukle strikes upon a profound problem within society, and sdavio just has a heart.

Lordknukle, I don't think you're so callous as you let on though, otherwise you wouldn't be here espousing such sentiment.

And Dninja gets ignored once again :(
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus