The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/2/2013 5:21:20 PM, Peyton1 wrote:
I've had difficulty trying to find a decent argument in support of abortion rights which does not fall under the trap of trying to define the conditions for personhood.

Have you seen any of my arguments in this topic and elsewhere? I fully accept the fetus is a human being; it is still justified to abort it however, on account of the mother's bodily sovereignty. It has no inherent right to her womb, and therefore, she is justified by removing it by any means available, if she so desires to have it removed. Since abortion is currently the only means available, it is justified.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/3/2013 12:36:09 PM, leojm wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:37:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't think you know what "psychopath" means. Killing a person doesn't make you a psychopath.

yeah, unless you kill many. then you are.

Not necessarily, no. Psychopathy is not purely synonymous with "crazy person". Just look above, I've already explained this.
Forums Home > News

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/3/2013 12:08:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/2/2013 5:14:38 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/31/2013 6:18:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
Why don't you formulate an actual argument?

The idea we should obtain from any form of animal product, because it causes harm, is delusional and psychotic. Nothing more needs to be said.

The worst part about reading this is knowing that a more respectable memeber, like tboone, will probably give it a thumbs up.

Your little pity party says nothing about whether or not I am right (Hint: I am).
Forums Home > Philosophy

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/2/2013 10:37:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:24:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:08:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:33:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Psychopathy (/sa=8;G2;k;4;pə_2;i/[1]) is a personality or mental disorder[2][3][4][5] characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls.

I'm fairly certain that setting up a fake email account so that you can kidnap and "rescue" an underaged girl who resisted your advances even though you already have a girlfriend qualifies one for psychopathy. He doesn't seem to be very remorseful (although that shouldn't really matter), the behavior was clearly antisocial, and he obviously doesn't know how to control himself.

Psychopaths have excellent behavioral controls- you're thinking about sociopaths. The reason why I doubt that he's a psychopath is that psychopath's are geniuses. They carefully think through all the possibility and ramifications before committing a crime- they don't have "poor behaviour controls." Somebody that was foolish enough to use a computer traceable back to him is most definitely not a genius.

No, your thinking of hollywood's definition. Psychopaths aren't high IQ and most of the correlation can be attributed to selective bias (since low income families are less likely to see a psychologist) : "Hare and Neumann (2008) state that a large literature shows that there is at most only a weak association between psychopathy and IQ."

And yes, they do have low impulse control, unless your actually arguing against the DSM definition of psychopathy.

Uh...movies are misleading. So it is sociopaths that are extremely smart?

Yes. Sociopaths are, in a sense, emotionally inept. They tend to be very calculating, and are very good at putting on a show. Typically sociopaths suffer from a personality disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder. They tend to be more organized.

Psychopaths, as the name suggests, are typically disjointed from reality in one way or another, and have very low impulse control. They tend to act out in more overtly violent, and sometimes chaotic, ways
Forums Home > News

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/2/2013 5:14:38 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/31/2013 6:18:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
Why don't you formulate an actual argument?

The idea we should abstain from any form of animal product, because it causes harm, is delusional and psychotic. Nothing more needs to be said.

Fix'd.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/31/2013 6:18:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
Why don't you formulate an actual argument?

The idea we should obtain from any form of animal product, because it causes harm, is delusional and psychotic. Nothing more needs to be said.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/2/2013 2:18:50 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Perhaps my initial comments weren't clear enough. Simple consent issues are not the entire reason for the general repulsiveness of a 20 year old aggressively attempting to have sex with a 15 year old.

I fail to see why age should make it repulsive, which I assume is why you bring their ages up. Unless I'm missing something.

But as a general rule, very few people who are out of high school who are aggressively pursuing freshman/sophomore high school students are anything but creepers. That is to say, the vast majority of people like that are harmful and immoral themselves.

Eh, I'm not so confident with that kind of claim. Perhaps it has something to do with myself being out of high school, and having held romantic feelings for a friend still in high school. Granted, the age difference was 3, not 5. But I hardly see why 2 years makes a jump from acceptable, to creepy.

It's a rule of thumb that is generally true to condemn such situations, considering that.

I don't at all think it's "harmful and immoral" to condemn such relationships; I think that they are prima facie wrong until proven otherwise, just as I would assume the same thing about a 20 year old dating a 6 year old (although obviously to different degrees).

A 20 and a 6 year old is more understandable, only because I have yet to ever hear of a 6 year old capable of consent, so it is worth having skepticism over whether or not it is the case. However, plenty of 15 year olds are capable of consent, and, where it's legal, do consent. So I do not see at all why it should be viewed with predisposed opposition.

You've made the case that it's possible for a 6 y/o and a 20 y/o dating to not be wrong; accepting that for the sake of conversation, I would still presume that the 20 y/o was a creeper until proven otherwise. And if someone's aggressively pursuing a high school freshman/sophomore, I'm going to assume he's a doucher until I have reason to think otherwise, because in general such people are damaged and damaging.

I see no reason to think that, but perhaps this has to do with experience, as in my experience, this has not been the case. Still, I think it is damaging to society to view such relationships with disgust and suspicion, as it only reaffirms a draconian disgust for younger people holding relationships with elder people, which can cause a lot of strife and pain for people in such relationships.

I mean, hell, why do we not think this way about couples the closer in age they get? What if they were 15 and 19? 16 and 20? Or even closer? At what exact point does it go from "normal" and "acceptable" to "creepy"? This all seems highly subjective to me, and so I would suggest it is far better to withhold such judgments, until more information can be gathered. Innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite.
Forums Home > News

Debating Newb PeoplePosted 7 years Ago

At 6/1/2013 5:24:23 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
You're old.

I...don't see your point.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

Apologies for the typos. I was writing from my phone earlier. I hate touch screens.
Forums Home > News

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/1/2013 6:34:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
That's true right up until we're talking about someone under the age that's considered to be fully their own person. What about if he was 20 and she was 6? I mean, there's a clear difference at that point; we probably just disagree in terms of where that line is.

Arguably, that si fine to.

It's not about the age per say, it's about one's capability to consent. Age does not inherently link to that. No, under normal circumstances, the younger you are, the less understanding you have, and therefore, lack the ability to consent. But this does not mean that it is impossible for someone younger to consent. It's entirely possible, though improbable, that a 6 year old could have the mental capacity to consent. But that would have to be one genius child.

In any case, to compare a 6 year old to a 15 year old is ridiculous; hell, even by most laws, 16 is the "age of consent", so this person was less than a year away to be legally capable of consent. And it most certainly is not the case that magically turning from 15 one day to 16 the next is what makes you consent, so I have no doubt in my mind this person was more than capable of consenting to relationship.

Well, that's a bit harsh, doncha think? I think you'd agree with my 6 year old example...so it's just a question of line.

I don't find it harsh at all. I think it is immoral to condemn harmless things, and age itself is harmless. What's harmful is a lack of capability to consent. Which as I previously mentioned, is not necessarily linked to age.

I mean, in my view, complaining about a 20 year old and a 15 year old is no different than complaining a 30 year old and a 25 year old. It's ridiculous. A 5 year difference is nothing.

Well, I agree that it's probably the more sinister answer. But presuming this guy isn't the sharpest crayon in the box, he might have duct taped her mouth with enough duct tape that he accidentally covered her nose, too.

I suppose that is possible.

Jesus...I really would rather it be something more sinister though. I mean...that's just embarrassing at that point, and even more outrageous, because then it was a completely preventable death.
Forums Home > News

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.