REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

When do children/young adults gain full rights of privacy?

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 19:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10637
PAGE 5 of 6

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:40 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

(About 65% of the subjects in Milgram's obedience experiment obeyed despite great conflict. Not saying that proves any point I am making, but that influenced the numbers I pulled out of my ass.)



Milgram is nonsense. The problem with an experiment like that is not only is it biased to try to obtain a particular result and to persuade people that everyone is awful, but also people would self-select OUT of an experiment like that, and you'd have an unrepresentative sample biased towards blind obedience and causing harm. Another problem is that by 1961, most Americans were being indoctrinated to authority in the public school system.

But if Milgram were anywhere near close to true, you wouldn't have had 60% of soldiers on both sides of the war in WW2 unable to even so much as fire their weapons in combat, despite being ordered to by an authority.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 5:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, Byte, then we will have to agree to disagree. If someone lacks empathy, for example, on what basis would they be upset at the death of another, except out of sheer self-interest? (For example, the other is a direct benefit.) There are sadists and masochists and people who have truly fulfilling sex with rubber galoshes. There is nothing that I would put past the bounds of "human behavior" for someone, somewhere.

There is a difference between "the human norm" (i.e. the majority) and "everyone"... unless of course you are considering those outside of the norm to be non-human?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 5:48 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And here's where imma raise some hackles...

If you allow them to grow and flourish according to natures design, you wind up with a human being, obviously - HOWEVER, if you crush those impulses, twist and warp them, substitute something ELSE, something artificial, is the resultant creature actually a human being ?
I mean, if the potential still exists, but they no longer have any way to ever realize it...
Then what are they ?

I don't mean in physical form either - lesse if I can get it across.
Take a wolf cub, freshly born, and treat it like a dog, till it reaches adulthood.
Sure, it may still have the FORM of a wolf, it may still be a correct definition of species...
But is it still a wolf, really ?

Once you have taken all the essence of what a human being really is away, crushed it out of them and twisted them into something else much in the fashion Orcs were derived from Elves, according to Tolkien - then it is my opinion that what remains is something not-quite-human, almost a machine in human form simply following its programming.
Believe me, the powers that be have spent endless years and resources trying to develop just that, and affected much social, legal and political influence in both public consciousness and the public education system trying to achieve it, which is where yon jackboots come from and the core of my resulting disrespect for them and any notion of their own personhood given how willing they are to deny that of others.

So I think the question here, is WHAT MAKES US HUMAN ?
If not form and function, if not DNA and species - what then ?

Cause I think that's really the question we're getting at here.



They are most definitely still human.

The main problem I have with your theory is by having one like that you make room for other people to have similar yet opposite theories of their own about you, dear citizen. "They can't think for themselves, they are weak, they are easy to keep down, they don't deserve freedom, they're more like sheep than human..." Either one feels like a way to rationalize and justify one's hatred of others. "They're not even human..."

And this: "... the powers that be have spent endless years and resources trying to develop just that, and affected much social, legal and political influence in both public consciousness and the public education system trying to achieve it, which is where yon jackboots come from and the core of my resulting disrespect for them and any notion of their own personhood given how willing they are to deny that of others."
Wouldn't that make you have some sympathy for them, the pawns of TPTB? You make it sound like they had no choice...?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 5:56 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

If someone lacks empathy, for example, on what basis would they be upset at the death of another, except out of sheer self-interest? (For example, the other is a direct benefit.)


Just because someone lacks empathy and view people as potential possessions doesn't mean they can't MISS someone or be SAD. Sociopaths can grieve, and not just for their plans they had for the person. It's just when they do grieve, it's kind of in a self-centered way.

Quote:

There is a difference between "the human norm" (i.e. the majority) and "everyone"... unless of course you are considering those outside of the norm to be non-human?


Not at all. And in this case, I really do think that in certain circumstances, it might be everyone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 6:10 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hi ever'body,

Time for a new tack.

How's about can we think in terms of disease and health? Is it at all possible that there is an optimal mental health that is common to all human beings that includes a functional empathetic response? Can we even agree that, barring some kind of maladaptive weirdness or dastardly intervention, human creatures do not themselves enjoy being murdered and/or raped? And if that is true, then people with a functional empathetic response would not feel fine about murdering and raping their neighbors (even when social forces, i.e.: their own psychological surival overrides their empathy)? Can I at least get a mumbled and unenthusiastic "hrm, I suppose so" from the opposition? Can any of you hard science fans agree that mental health is not purely culturally based (any more than, say, cancer is)?

Mental health, and by extension, mental disorder seem to be major human phenomena. In terms of animal behavior we humans get into some pretty unprecedented insanity. It amazes me just how much mental derangement a human animal can tolerate and still function/survive/make babies. From the standpoint of species survival, humans can tolerate a mountain of psychological guck without it having any noticeable impact.

But just because the species can survive stuff like serial killing and pedophile rings doesn't nullify their status as maladaptive and disordered behavior, does it? So bringing up evolution in a discussion of mental health strikes me at the very least to be irrelevant--just as so much of mental health has proven to be irrelevant when it comes to species survival.

As conscious beings, we are no longer obsesses with mere individual survival or subject to the vagaries of the evolutionary process. Humans now can benefit other humans on the other side of the planet without regard to our own immediate survival and many of us, across all cultures, put our efforts toward doing so. Are y'all gonna put such humanitarian interests on the same footing as war and genocide, just because neither makes a dent in the gross human population?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:00 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But if Milgram were anywhere near close to true, you wouldn't have had 60% of soldiers on both sides of the war in WW2 unable to even so much as fire their weapons in combat, despite being ordered to by an authority.



I take it you get that from the infamous S.L.A Marshall Study. The thing is Marshall's work is very much in question.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HK, I think part of the reason why we've* spent so much time on "human nature" is because it is our so-called inherent greed, violence, and never-ending intra-species competition which is at the heart of the argument for capitalism.

Once Nature became the god of The Enlightenment, Adam Smith devised a narrative of individual self-interest leading to the betterment of all, and Darwin demonstrated evolution as one of nature's grand forces, it paved the way for a (social Darwinist) view human nature as the rationale for capitalism. (The Church was portrayed as engaged in fruitless appeal to our "better natures", capitalism was to harness our self-interest and create a better society through less personal struggle against "evil".)

Now, I happen to think that this view of "human nature" is distorted. Most people are NOT rational self-serving individuals, nor are most people violent intra-species predators. Humans have great capacity for cooperation and altruism as well as greed.

HOWEVER, I think that if one is going to design a society (if such as thing is possible) there is a tendency in humans to ALLOW great injustice to prevail, and that must be taken into account. A society which depends on never-ending vigilance and deep self-understanding is a fragile society that can be disrupted by a momentary crisis or a patch of poverty.

* I also notice the complete lack of interest on the part of our notable right-whingers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:43 AM

BYTEMITE


Nick: They may very well both be questionable.

Still, apparently this was enough of a problem that the US government started to change training procedures for US soldiers to make them more reflexive and better able to perform under pressure. So I'd take their response as evidence that this was at least some amount of trouble, and that Marshall has at least some grain of truth.

Milgram suggests that a vast majority of people will do what an authority tells them to. This in comparison to the Nazis; his purpose, or so he says, was to show that the Nazis had something wrong with them, which I'll call bunk on, he had no Nazis for comparison and I believe he was just trying to reproduce Nazi studies. The problem with Milgram's reasoning is that not all of the Nazis were doing the horrible stuff. Only the SS were, and that was a small percentage of the German population at the time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Hey, I never said anything about human nature, in fact I don't think there is a human nature. Humans, as I said, are inconsistent.

(Really, I just did a find on this thread to double check. I mentioned natural rights once or twice, but that's different from "human nature". And I haven't been arguing that humans are good OR bad)

But we all have potential, including potential to feel grief or horror over acts we've witnessed or that have been done to a victim.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 12:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hi ever'body,

Time for a new tack.

How's about can we think in terms of disease and health? Is it at all possible that there is an optimal mental health that is common to all human beings that includes a functional empathetic response? Can we even agree that, barring some kind of maladaptive weirdness or dastardly intervention, human creatures do not themselves enjoy being murdered and/or raped? And if that is true, then people with a functional empathetic response would not feel fine about murdering and raping their neighbors (even when social forces, i.e.: their own psychological surival overrides their empathy)? Can I at least get a mumbled and unenthusiastic "hrm, I suppose so" from the opposition? Can any of you hard science fans agree that mental health is not purely culturally based (any more than, say, cancer is)?



I've never said that anyone enjoys being raped or murdered. What strange stuff you guys spout in an endeavour to prove your own belief system.

I'm going to try to answer your question but I may take a round about route.

we are designed to be empathic and we are designed to be aggressive. All people have those traits (or perhaps I should say the capacity to have those traits) to one degree or another. Different societies might value one trait over another, and those qualities may be fostered or suppressed in children as per cultural values.

As I have said (many times) we are a social species. we need to be able to fit in and get along with our group. A person who is a deranged murderer who kills willy nilly is not going to fit into any social group and will generally not be tolerated in any human society. But some societies may have uses for their more violent members - warriors, priests, torturers, beserkers etc etc. Depends on the society. Some will have no tolerance for them at all. So as a species, will we generally tolerate frenzied killers who kill indiscriminately? Probably no. Can we tolerate people with violent and cruel tendancies. Yes we do and yes we have.

As for the issue of mental health, there are cultural differences in how mental health is seen or how it would be explained. There is no doubt in my mind that relgious/spiritual experiences and what we would not describe as psychosis are very closely aligned. In some societies you might be revered for being a visionary, in others medicated or shunned and in some burnt at the stake. Poor old Joan of Arc.


Quote:

Mental health, and by extension, mental disorder seem to be major human phenomena. In terms of animal behavior we humans get into some pretty unprecedented insanity. It amazes me just how much mental derangement a human animal can tolerate and still function/survive/make babies. From the standpoint of species survival, humans can tolerate a mountain of psychological guck without it having any noticeable impact.

I'd disagree that it was ONLY a human phenomenon. I'd have to say that this is where Frem's discussion becomes very interesting and pertinent. Animals that are not allowed to be as their species intended often suffer from similar neurosis as humans, in so far as we can measure by their behaviour. That has been well documented in zoos, and why they now try to recreat more natural conditions for them to live in. And why there as so many over pampered neurotic pooches out there. Cesare Romero is very clear that dogs are happiest and sanest when they are treated as dogs.

And I think that Frem is correct in that it applies to people as well. Being a social species means we should be living together and caring for our young together. Social isolation and disconnection and poor parenting by inexperienced, isolated and disconnected parents in a major contributor to mental illness. And unfortunately that doens't impinge on our ability to have babies but it does have a major impact on our functioning as a society and I believe we see a lot of the result of that now. Will that impact on our survival as a species? You can't actually rule it out.

Quote:

But just because the species can survive stuff like serial killing and pedophile rings doesn't nullify their status as maladaptive and disordered behavior, does it? So bringing up evolution in a discussion of mental health strikes me at the very least to be irrelevant--just as so much of mental health has proven to be irrelevant when it comes to species survival.

As conscious beings, we are no longer obsesses with mere individual survival or subject to the vagaries of the evolutionary process. Humans now can benefit other humans on the other side of the planet without regard to our own immediate survival and many of us, across all cultures, put our efforts toward doing so. Are y'all gonna put such humanitarian interests on the same footing as war and genocide, just because neither makes a dent in the gross human population?



Because of course we hardlined, coldhearted, amoral, inhuman posters are all in support of war, genocide and serial killings just because we understand values to be learnt rather than innate and because we understand that human physiology, psychology and behaviour to have evolved rather than been created in some fairytale universe?????

Really? You got all that from the discussion???

I'd say that truly understanding ourselves as humans, rather than holding onto some romantic ideal, as well as accepting that values are learnt rather than morality being fixed places us in a very good position for choosing what sort of society we can live in, don't you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 1:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

This would seem to be nonsense as if 99% objected, such cultural practises would never have taken place.
"99%" of Holocaust concentration camps residents objected to being murdered, but yet they were. It's called "weapons" or more generally, "force."



yeah, like 100% of them would have objected. Was their entire cultural/religious class being sent to their death part of their cultural values? Wanting to survive and one's family to survive is nothing to do with morality, innate or otherwise. It's to do with fundamental survival instincts. Same as avoiding pain, seeking pleasure, wanting to reproduce....

It might be more useful to ask what percentage of the European population tolerated the Jews being mistreated and murdered? Or to what part did the 'value' if you can call it that, of anti semitism that was prevelant at the time enabled these actions?

I think it is actually an interesting example of how people, who probably loved their children and were nice to animals, were able to be selective about who and what they felt empathy towards, and kind of demonstrates how empathy/aggression can co-exist in humans quite easily.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 1:20 PM

BYTEMITE


I agree with your points about humans having the potential to be both empathic and aggressive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 1:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Magon, thank you.

Where did you get your insight? I find it remarkably informative.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Well I'm blushing. Thank you.

I'm in the conflict resolution industry - so I spend a lot of time thinking, talking and reading about human behaviour and its puzzling, contradictory nature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:10 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Well I'm blushing. Thank you.

I'm in the conflict resolution industry - so I spend a lot of time thinking, talking and reading about human behaviour and its puzzling, contradictory nature.





I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA


From the last post, as I have been busy and this is gonna be a busy week for me...

Kiki: Disagree all you like, I got no issue with disagreement - but that wasn't disagreement, that was me saying something, and you deciding I meant something else, and then getting progressively nastier when I would not allow you to do that without calling you on it.

And then you have a hissy and do the verbal equivalent of storming off in a huff (and flinging yet another strawman en route) while insinuating things about *my* temperment, oh the irony...

Perhaps if you'd spend more time trying to understand my point instead of distorting it we coulda come to an understanding, if not agreement - heaven knows there's folk here whom I've had far far less pleasant arguments with and we still find understanding, which I feel is more important than actually agreeing about anything, but that's your choice to make.


Signym
Quote:

Just a caution not to make sweeping statements about... well, anything... but most especially about "human nature".

Exactly!

I was kinda trying to say that, but in a fashion that acknowledges what we do know and have scientifically proven without assigning moral character to the drives in question, cause we do at least have a scientific baseline in one direction - but precious damn little understanding in the other.


Pizmo
Quote:

They are most definitely still human.

The main problem I have with your theory is by having one like that you make room for other people to have similar yet opposite theories of their own about you, dear citizen. "They can't think for themselves, they are weak, they are easy to keep down, they don't deserve freedom, they're more like sheep than human..." Either one feels like a way to rationalize and justify one's hatred of others. "They're not even human..."

And this: "... the powers that be have spent endless years and resources trying to develop just that, and affected much social, legal and political influence in both public consciousness and the public education system trying to achieve it, which is where yon jackboots come from and the core of my resulting disrespect for them and any notion of their own personhood given how willing they are to deny that of others."
Wouldn't that make you have some sympathy for them, the pawns of TPTB? You make it sound like they had no choice...?


Ah, first, lemme clarify the point of terminology there - while I might feel someone that warped is a little less than truly human, I *DO* still feel that they are people.
Mind you, my definition of "people" is pretty broad and may include even other species while not necessarily still including humans who have by demonstrable conduct voluntarily cast aside anything that would make them such - while my definition of human is a person who actively tries to achieve what they feel are positive uses of human potential.

Kind of like the difference between "I know everything already, don't waste my time." and "Oh, this is fascinating, tell me more." - the innate realization that there is more to be HAD, and the desire to do so.

So one can be a little short on humanity without in any way affecting their personhood - look at how some persons lack human potentials due to genetic misfire or serious abuse, or even manipulation as you point out at the end there - yes, there is sympathy, they're still PEOPLE.
Just people perhaps lacking in portions of their own humanity, which I see as much the same as being blind, deaf, missing a limb, only less visible/noticeable on first glance, okay ?

So when I say less than human, I am not trying to "de-humanise" them as some would call it, but rather pointing out how terribly crippled they are in terms of achieving their full potential, just cause the damage isn't immediately visible doesn't mean they've not been harmed - thus one cannot use that standard to judge humans as a whole any more than one might consider a dog with clipped ears and docked tail to be natures intended result for that breed, yes ?
Not entirely sure if I can fully get this across, but I was goin in a different direction than it might have looked because of confusion about what I mean when I say "human" and "person" is all.
A human is the critter, the biological form with all of natures drives and instinct.
A person is the ka, the essence, the WHO, which resides within the human.

Does that clarify it some, or did I totally bungle trying to explain this ?


Magonsdaughter: Excellent points, yes - and the dichotomy of humanity is something which drives both scientists and philosophers up a wall sometimes, sure - one can only assume there's something vaguely resembling a sense of humor in whatever one believes is the source of life itself in response sometimes, if for no other purpose than as a placeholder till sufficient explaination is otherwise possible.
I mean, seriously... the platypus ? *snerk*


As for milgram, marshal, sanford and any other loaded study set out to "prove" human nature, I've never found them very convincing for reasons I have explained many times before - but more telling is that those who continually make the argument that humans are raving beasts who need to be leashed for their own good always happen to be the very folk holding out a leash in the other hand intending that THEY be the ones holding it, and frankly I've always felt we've been sold a bad bill of goods on that front because if we needed civilization to force us to cooperate and behave, then how the hell did we invent civilization to begin with, eh ?

Anyhows, outta time, and I must be off.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"At the same time, even psychopaths can be upset by murder or rape happening to people they know."

"Psychopaths can grieve, and not just for their plans they had for the person."


I don't think so. Sociopaths feel physical pain, but on fMRI don't show emotional reactions to anticipated pain. Pain doesn't seem to have an emotional component. Not dreading pain they don't have the capacity to either feel relief from pain, to feel safety from the threat of pain, or to feel sympathy with the pain of others. I've made a study of this trying to understand it, and could recommend a series of books written by the current experts. You can find website support groups for victims of sociopaths. Also, if you go digging, you'll find websites for, by and about self-identified sociopaths.

The current research indicates sociopaths are devoid of fear, grief, empathy and many other emotions we think are basic human feelings.




We have to realize that the biosphere we live in is fragile and cannot be treated like a battered wife because the surface of the planet itself is not fragile. It will simply adjust probably eliminating us in the process. The core of the planet is beyond our ability to affect and can deal up some pretty horrific to us events. The space around the planet is hostile beyond our comprehension. And there are no exits.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"But just because the species can survive stuff like serial killing and pedophile rings doesn't nullify their status as maladaptive and disordered behavior, does it?"

Well ... biologically speaking, the more offspring produced over time that survive to have their own offspring, the more adaptive it is. How it gets there is up for grabs.



We have to realize that the biosphere we live in is fragile and cannot be treated like a battered wife because the surface of the planet itself is not fragile. It will simply adjust probably eliminating us in the process. The core of the planet is beyond our ability to affect and can deal up some pretty horrific to us events. The space around the planet is hostile beyond our comprehension. And there are no exits.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:26 PM

BYTEMITE


That's not really what I meant. Feeling pain and understanding pain is not the same thing as sadness.

They can feel sad.

If they can feel sad, then they can feel grief. Grief is just sadness that comes from the absence of someone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Byte, it's not JUST about pain. Why you mention only that one word of all the other words I posted, I don't know. Read further. In fact they DO feel physical pain. What they don't feel --- are the emotions.



We have to realize that the biosphere we live in is fragile and cannot be treated like a battered wife because the surface of the planet itself is not fragile. It will simply adjust probably eliminating us in the process. The core of the planet is beyond our ability to affect and can deal up some pretty horrific to us events. The space around the planet is hostile beyond our comprehension. And there are no exits.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 2:29 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Frem

Pardon me, but y'all are full of ... yourself.


For someone who CLAIMS to not impute morals - in your words "I never put a moral attribution to them, in fact I mocked the very notion as absurd" - you sure use a lot of moralistic, judgmental words - "full of praise and blame" as UK LeGuin would say:

we're liars and hypocrites
we (consider them) housepets
hypocrisy
lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing
snitching ... for gain
social classism and entitlement
willing particpant in making ... life hell
naturally cooperative, social, empathic critters
twisted, hypocritical parodies of human beings
jackboots


For someone who CLAIMS to be against the demeaning of human beings, you sure make very dehumanizing statements about those who think differently from you.

Once you have taken all the essence of what a human being really is away, CRUSHED it out of them and TWISTED them into something else much in the fashion ORCS were derived from Elves, according to Tolkien - then it is my opinion that > what remains is something NOT-QUITE-HUMAN, almost a MACHINE in human form < simply following its programming.

I don't have it in me to write him off ...


And considering that NO ONE here is arguing that we should lock up our children and beat and propagandize them 24/7 (when we are not spying on them when we do allow them to leave the house), why are you arguing sweeping broad-brush arguments? Who, exactly, are you arguing against?

And I'll hear not one fucking word in support of this kind of conduct from ANYONE
Nor will you EVER be able to play the "If you have nothing to hide" excuse with me here
I ABSOLUTELY contest your assertion
forged in the flames of an injust and abusive society
children are natural anarchists
the amount of bullshit ones thrown at her by society
our fucked up so-called society
you do not parent a child by BREAKING them
when you decide that their will, their rights, mean nothing, you've essentially decided THEY mean nothing
folks ... abdicate their responsibility



If these arguments aren't directed at us who are merely saying that with the occasional child, sometimes, in some circumstances - snooping or spying, for example - MIGHT be the best solution; and that indeed, cultures around the globe do teach their offspring expected behavior - who are they directed to?
If you don't hold human nature to be basically good, then why do you describe everything you disagree with in such inhuman and derogatory terms?

All I see with your posts is the froth and spittle of a man working himself up to holy self-righteousness, and truly, not only unable to appreciate other people's arguments, but even the basis of his own.



We have to realize that the biosphere we live in is fragile and cannot be treated like a battered wife because the surface of the planet itself is not fragile. It will simply adjust probably eliminating us in the process. The core of the planet is beyond our ability to affect and can deal up some pretty horrific to us events. The space around the planet is hostile beyond our comprehension. And there are no exits.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"All I see with your posts is the froth and spittle of a man working himself up to holy self-righteousness, and truly, not only unable to appreciate other people's arguments, but even the basis of his own."

Hello,

I can't help but feel a sense of irony when someone suggests that Frem may be unable to appreciate the basis of his own arguments. Of all people I know, he is the one most acutely aware of the events and experiences that form the basis of his arguments and life philosophies.

I wonder if you feel some contrast between Frem's passionate viewpoints and your own position? You seem intent on pointing out the strong emotions and devotions he feels in regards to this topic, perhaps suggesting that his emotional involvement in the reasoning process is contaminating his logic.

However, a careful examination of your posts suggests to me that you have your own emotional foibles. Do we really want to assail the logic of various beliefs by assailing the human weaknesses of the people who have them? If you'll forgive me for saying so, I don't think such an approach would leave you a leg to stand on.

I humbly suggest to my fellow forumites that the time has come to close out this thread and start fresh with new focus and perspective.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:49 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Byte, it's not JUST about pain. Why you mention only that one word of all the other words I posted, I don't know. Read further. In fact they DO feel physical pain. What they don't feel --- are the emotions.



I suppose I simply didn't understand your last post then.

Of course they feel emotion. A sociopath can be happy, angry, sad, and a few others. They might have a limitation on the amount of emotions they can feel, but they're not emotionless.

Do you mean they can't feel Guilt and Regret? Because those are different than grief. I used to not be able to feel guilt and regret, before I began to develop empathy, but I for sure could feel grief. But, it was self-centered, kind of "My grandfather's dead and I never got to go fishing with him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


TONY, I humbly disagree.

Frem projects his own upbringing and responses onto everyone else. His particular sore point has a lot to do with his unique personality and upbringing, not with any wide-angle view of humans, "human nature", or parenting information; and he tends to prescribe for everyone what would have worked best for him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh golly gee - did I ever say I was free of bias, hmm ?
Do I even pretend not to have an agenda ?

Methinks thou doth protest too much, and in an amazingly hypocritical fashion, to boot.

The hostile language I used isn't directed at specific individuals unless I name them, and in that case I generally do flame them by name, Dobson, Ezzo, WWASPS, Hellcamp operators, AoG and Dominionist culties, etc etc - but rather at a society which I do firmly believe has allowed what I firmly believe to be spiritual/moral atrocities which mind you, have been scientifically proven to cause damage - to be normalized and accepted.

There's things in this world where being accepting, tolerant, amounts to enabling or justifying and I flat out will not do it - to be less than angry about it is to be less than humane about it.

Which ties in with your "broad brush" statement - for example, I will *not* say, argue that beating your wife with a belt is kinder than beating her with an axe handle, because that would entail acceptance of the notion of beating ones wife in the first place, and that's a game I'll not play along with, no.
(Side note: a lot of arguments used to justify what I feel is mistreatment of children were in fact originally used to justify mistreating women and certain minorities, and I don't feel they're any more valid now than they were then - just excuses for the inexcusable.)

Yes, I DO hold with human nature, in the form of the Ka, the WHO, the Personhood, to be generally an empathic, cooperative thing - which if your morality calls "Good" then sure, but remember some moralities (which I do not subscribe to) call it "Weak/Stupid" and thus not-good - no morality is shared by all.

But we weren't talkin about that, or at least I wasn't, when I was discussing natural born hardwired drives which as a general rule are part of every human critter born which doesn't suffer from genetic misfire or damage - assigning a moral attribution to them is ludicrous, they exist, that is all.

Now, one can LEAD to the other, sure - it can also lead in darker directions, and some part of parenting is all about guiding those down what the parent feels is the most acceptable path, but there's a damn long difference than a mere natural potential and a fully realized consciousness and personhood, they're very very different things, albeit with the same root.
A child may say "I'm hungry" - where an adult may say "I want a cheeseburger" - same root, different constructs, different levels of detail and personhood involvement goin on there.

Anyhows, as for the rest of it - I really shouldn't, but it does perplex me with why you have such a personal issue goin on about this and chose to take it to a degree which could be construed as a personal attack in context, simply because I feel very strongly about how children should be treated and consider that certain treatment of them is offensive and have scientific proof on my side that such treatment is in fact harmful to them in correspondent degree with how severe it is.

Why exactly, then - do you have such a burning, personal issue with my OPINIONS, which although almost never reciprocated, I don't feel the need to ram down someones throat on a pike the way others like to do towards me in respect to their religion or morality, all too often with the goddamned law backing it up ?

Does it really BOTHER you so much that I consider human beings to be as a rule fairly decent folk who should be treated in a humane fashion - and get kinda pissed that such is not the case in our modern society ?

Or does it offend you that I am willing to carry the definition of human being to a broader front than many consider socially acceptable ?

I've no idea - but you're welcome to your own opinions, just as I am welcome to not share them.
If mine offend you - frankly, that's YOUR problem.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 6:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... he is the one most acutely aware of the events and experiences ..."

Not that he doesn't know his history, but that he doesn't see the assumptions he makes, or even the contradictions between what he wants to think about his viewpoint, (I'm fair, I know what's what, I'm not moralistic, I'm right, I'm justified, and they are all wrong) and what he actually argues.

I freely admit my emotional foibles.

I was TRYING to discuss this topic at a removed perspective. Everyone has some idea about 'human nature', about what society is, and what they would like it to be. And they have strong opinions about raising children. It's an emotional topic.

The only way I can get a broader respective is to look at human society across the globe and though the years. Where is the bulk of the data? What are the exceptions? What survives longest? And to ask logical questions. How are such stressful situations tolerated by people? How do such systems that seem inherently unstable survive?

But I take exception to being called a binary black / white 100% / 0% thinker as everything I've posted been about the middle. I take exception to be called moralistic as I have tentatively concluded that even a system I object to the most - seems to survive, even thrive. In sum, when someone throws crap at me PERSONALLY, I throw it back.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 6:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Do you mean they can't feel Guilt and Regret?"

Yes, that is what I mean. They also don't feel loss the same way we do. They feel frustrated. They feel angry. They feel cheated. They feel like they lost some con and want revenge. But they don't feel grief.


Robert Hare is one of the leading experts on sociopaths. This is from a book he wrote:


5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain ... as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 6:15 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

. They also don't feel loss the same way we do. They feel frustrated. They feel angry. They feel cheated. They feel like they lost some con and want revenge. But they don't feel grief.


Well, I have to disagree based on personal experience, but that aside, that suggests they do feel something in relation to loss.

Five stages of grief, you know? Not everyone DOES react the same way. Doesn't mean grief isn't felt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 6:40 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Byte

I suggest you read a few books. It's really hard to get the concept over in a few short posts or a handful of quotes. It's really hard to grasp. And I can only reiterate that as hard as it is to imagine, according to everything I've read, indeed, a sociopath doesn't feel those things.

I've read a number of books and studies, if you're interested I'll dig them out and give you the titles and authors.

One name I gave you is Robert Hare, who did a lot of the groundbreaking work on sociopathy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:32 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Byte,

Yeah, as far as I know, kiki has the right of this. If a person can grieve, they ain't a sociopath. It's kinda definitive. You said earlier that you thought you might be a sociopath. Which suggests you may have a pretty eccentric definition in your head, 'cause...and, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a sociopath. It's evident. You aren't. Like, at all. I guar-an-tee.

Some Guy on the Interwebs hereby pronounces you free of sociopathic taint. Go in peace.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Frem

You post and all I read is blah blah blah blah ...

A sort of free-ranging back and forth was going on with no particular direction and you posted this:

"I call bullshit on the lot of you."

The you went into a diatribe about 'control', repeated your broad accusation of anyone who had posted

"And I call bullshit on y'alls arguments here ..."

continued your diatribe about control, were generally hacked off about

using violence to "control" them
a parent spies on their kid
rifles through their room
the ENDLESS breach of privacy and trust
stockholm syndrome
damn prison warden to your kid


POINTEDLY directed the above to the posters with this comment (as if they had been arguing for any of that)

I bet you can't come up with any good answers.



Scolded them AS IF they had pointed their collective fingers at all children with a loud J'ACCUSE!

Presumption of innocence, folks - that's what this is about.

THEN continued on to berate them for something no one even said.

And I'll hear not one fucking word in support of this kind of conduct from ANYONE here who has ever even once protested government wiretapping ...

Then ended up with the 'when did you stop beating your wife' question aimed, once again, at the people who had posted before you

Then why inflict it on a child, and if you WANT folk to resist it in the future ...




So, WHO exactly was this directed at, again? Because you sure seemed as if you were addressing it to the people who had posted before you. And all b/c, as best I can tell, their posts were different from what you would have posted.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 2:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem, if you're responding to MY post (?) I did not frame it either as your personal attack on anyone, nor as my personal attack on you.

I recognize that you talk about "guiding" children into acceptable behavior -as opposed to a range of parenting styles which starts with "do as I say because I'm the boss" and end with outright abuse- on the other hand you also vilified anyone who would want to impose any sort of "invasion of privacy" on their children... kinda went for the flame thrower when words would have done.

Anyway, I'm curious- you talk about innate drives in children which should never be stifled. So, two questions, I guess:

NEVER? Am I reading that correctly?

And... what are those drives, exactly? You mention them frequently, but don't list them.

Okay, maybe three questions-

What happens when those drives conflict with societal norms?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:07 AM

BYTEMITE


You people with your trust. I try to tell you what I am, and you think just because I'm POLITE that I'm a nice person.

I said that I was not born with empathy or morality, I used to not have guilt or regret, I'm very impulsive, and I enjoy physical fighting - you could probably call me bloodthirsty.

So yeah, all of those qualify me as a sociopath. And that's not even going into the other obvious tells from back when I was a kid, which I don't really want to discuss. And that's not because I'm ashamed of them, but rather because for the time being, I want to keep your confidence and I've seen how other people react to learning them.

Don't tell me I need to read a damn book. I've lived it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Nah Siggy - I think you and I have hashed it out long enough that we have at least an understanding, if not agreement, I just feel a bit perplexed over how personal Kiki there seems to be taking the mere fact that I have a strong, one might say even aggressive, stance about such things.

And if she'd put down the flamethrower for a moment, she might even notice that I already answered, quite specifically, the question she's asking.

As for any supposed flamethrowing of mine own, that has to do with issues of consent and presumption of innocence (which I note were not even mentioned initially, as if they didn't even matter), cause if you don't start with at least a minimum baseline in that regard, worse is the only way it can go from there, you know ?
You raise a kid in an environment of fear, suspicion and mistrust, it's not gonna end well, states become traits, over time.
http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/perry96.php


As for innate drives, I didn't say never, and I suppose it might depend on the drive in question, for example the drive to procreate (i.e. get laid) is something you might wanna encourage a youth to at least put on hold a bit until they have a fuller understanding of the emotional and social consquences which can result from following that drive, yes ?

But then there's the drive to communicate, to connect with fellow humans on an empathic/social level, things like that which I do believe one shouldn't stifle and in fact am not sure they *CAN* be, my tree root versus sidewalk analogy applies there cause with a few extraordinarily rare exceptions even the most abused or neglected soul will try to communicate and connect, will they not ?

As for when a drive conflicts with social norms - consider what happens when people deny their humanity and try to suppress it, some religions for example...
Conversely the drive to "prosper", which I am not yet convinced is innate, but for the purposes of explaination here we'll let it slide - could potentially have disastrous consequences, sure.

Point of it all is - we have a list of "Don'ts", insofar as we know what will cause damage, in how to treat children, and can kinda-sorta extrapolate a list of "Do", but that's still a lot of bloody guesswork, we don't really KNOW because not a whole lot of effort has been invested in finding out, you see ?

But with at least a minimum standard to begin with, and natural parenting instincts(1) to work with that isn't a half-bad start, sure - and when a parents instincts regarding the child they have created and raised conflict with social norms, as a general rule I figure parents ought to go with the instincts, although like any rule it's not without exceptions.

(1) Mind you I am not sure how innate those are, there's the dopamine reaction which you know far, far more about in the scientific end of detail than I would, but as for how much is hardwiring that's another thing we know cursed little about, alas.


Oh, and Byte ?
I been holding my tongue cause I didn't want you to feel intruded upon, but I understand your point in that the Dark Spark often veers into that territory - difference is, that provided the person afflicted by it survives, it doesn't seem to stay there.
And why that happens is something I would very, very much like to know.
Cause that could be the keystone towards a whole new window of understanding.
Quote:

There are some, however, who seem to have set as their life task to extinguish the painful demands of conscience. At the same time, some of these people take sadistic delight in the pain of others. There is some research that suggests a capacity to distance oneself from the trauma of violence, particularly the trauma incurred when inflicting violence, is, in part, hard-wired genetics. There are people born to be comfortable with violence.

There is also research that indicates that severe trauma, particularly early in childhood, leads to unpredictable neurological changes--some children develop into timid and fearful adults, others are resilient and compassionate. Yet others are exploitative, manipulative or even further--feral conscienceless beings who have seemingly disappeared from the community of men and women. For them, other people are objects of use that move in and out of their field of perception. Their capacity to form attachments to others is minimal or even absent. When contact with another human being engenders a feeling of sensitivity or vulnerability, their reaction is often a deep and profound pain, the pain felt by the exile upon tasting the scent of home on the wind, a pain so deep that they may respond by trying to extinguish that which causes the feeling, which is usually the capacity for sensitivity, or even, in the most extreme cases, the human being who evokes the response.


Emphasis mine, and the quote is from Ellis Amdur's Setsuninto--Katsujinken article.
http://www.koryu.com/library/eamdur3.html

So yes, I do comprehend what you're saying - but I think the essential difference is that for whatever reason, those blessed/cursed with what I call the Dark Spark still retain a CHOICE.
And that, right there, is the vital difference - although it does open the question of whether others did have it, but simply chose the darker path.


Anyhows, there's things we KNOW, stuff we SUSPECT, and a whole lot of guesswork still in the world of human interaction - but I think knowing what NOT to do is a pretty good start, yes ?
And imma be real freakin busy in the next couple of days, so I might not be around to respond, alas.


-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:51 AM

BYTEMITE


I think people like me hit a breaking point, and they fall one way or another. Either they finally recognize a world outside of their own self interest and concerns and start trying to understand it, or they lash out at it.

And it tends to happen during pubescence, because that's a hard time of life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:42 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
You people with your trust. I try to tell you what I am, and you think just because I'm POLITE that I'm a nice person.

I said that I was not born with empathy or morality, I used to not have guilt or regret, I'm very impulsive, and I enjoy physical fighting - you could probably call me bloodthirsty.

So yeah, all of those qualify me as a psychopath. And that's not even going into the other obvious tells from back when I was a kid, which I don't really want to discuss. And that's not because I'm ashamed of them, but rather because for the time being, I want to keep your confidence and I've seen how other people react to learning them.

Don't tell me I need to read a damn book. I've lived it.



Or a normal child. Every seen an empathic baby? It's all about them, and it needs to be. The whole empathy, guilt, regret emotive range tends to kick in around seven onwards in children. It seems to happen quite naturally - as if something clicks over in their brain - some earlier than others, but it still needs to be fostered to be developed properly.

Prior to that kids are pretty sociopathic and if they aren't appearing to be so, they are usually just following rules without much sense of why. ie They don't hit their brother because there will be consequences for them, not because they care whether their brother is upset or in pain.

Again, this is not an exact science. Some kids will demonstrate empathy earlier, some later. Some will struggle to show much empathy ever.

As for not being born with morals, welcome to the human race, Byte.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Nope. I've always been different from everyone else, even as a kid. Making my mother cry and getting out of punishments was a game for me (not that any kind of punishment really affected me, or that they lasted long enough to). I made no attachments and felt no need to make attachments. And my interaction with all my peers on the playground basically amounted to whether or not I considered them a threat - I attacked everyone equally, but whether I liked them or not dictated how much damage I did to them or how much I scared them. The few people I really liked I would go after anyone who bullied them in retaliation.

I don't buy the empathy at seven thing because of that, because I *KNOW* everyone else was Not Like Me. And what positive changes I underwent in my teen years, I can't be sure I'm really all that different from what I was even now. Also, I have reason to believe part of those changes was to do with a status I like to refer to as "medication lobotomy."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I did say everyone was different and empathy and when and how much it sets in is definitely a variable.

Takes a lot more than a lack or demonstrative lack of empathy to make one a sociopath btw. Sociopaths on the whole are charming and manipulative. They feel little empathy for others, but they certainly don't appear that way, at least not initailly.

You generally work out who are sociopaths on internet boards. They are the ones who end up manipulating others into doing things, rallying behind them for financial or other purposes. I once was on a board where a member had convinced everyone she was lying in hospital having being beaten to a pulp by a family member.

So are you manipulative, Byte? Do you have a whole lot of superficial charm that use for your own gain at the expense of others. Do you take pleasure in hurting animals and or people?

Lots of people are not emotionally demonstrative and/or lack a degree of empathy. Often they are diagnosed as being autistic or having aspbergers, but really we are all somewhere on the empathy scale. Some people are very empathic, others not so.

Without meaning to target you directly, because you know you better than I do obviously, but what you have said strikes at the chord of something that I feel strongly about. False expectations around human behaviour, in particular children's behaviour leads to a lot of misdiagnosis and misconstruing of children, that have a lasting impact on them even into adulthood. Sounds a bit to me like there were expectations around how you SHOULD be, which were not as you were and that has had an impact on you. Did you ever consider that you weren't broken, but just different and that was never accepted? Just a thought. I could be wrong.

Anyway, gotta run. Have spent far too much time on this thread.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:44 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

So are you manipulative, Byte? Do you have a whole lot of superficial charm that use for your own gain at the expense of others. Do you take pleasure in hurting animals and or people?



For the last time, YES. And this was the stuff I didn't want to go into, but you're leaving me no choice.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you all to understand. It's pretty obvious based on my anecdotes, my interactions, and my relationships around the board.

People thought I was a good girl when I was a kid, and yet wondered how I could do the things I did. And suffice to say, no, I did not have Frem's kindness to animals thing to redeem me.

And all that said, and my treatment of animals improved, my dark side still LOVES a good brawl, and likes to imagine them everywhere and anywhere.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:23 PM

CANTTAKESKY


OK, Byte. I'll take your word for it. You're a sociopath.

But I can't help but notice key words like "used to not feel guilt" and "treatment of animals has improved."

Sociopaths still have choices. It sounds like you have chosen to move away from being so different? Fairly important choice, I'd say.

If you are a sociopath, I find it fascinating that a sociopath would make such diligent and compelling arguments about innate morality.

Sociopaths are actually more prevalent than some would think. And I think there is such a thing as a Sociopathic Spectrum, with some being able to internalize the desire to avoid harming others or erect one's own moral framework.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:32 PM

BYTEMITE


I really wanted to give the devil her due, you know? It doesn't mean much if I make an argument and none of you realize I'm a sociopath. That's why I've been trying to tell you all that I am one. But it's been frustrating because apparently I fit in well enough that none of you believed me.

Quote:

And I think there is such a thing as a Sociopathic Spectrum, with some being able to internalize the desire to avoid harming others or erect one's own moral framework.



I'd agree with this. And I'd also say that there's a difference between someone who's a sociopath because they're born without a moral center in their brains (as discussed in the above debate), someone who became a sociopath because of internalizing and emulating abusive treatment, and someone who's a sociopath because they have a lot of chemical imbalances (hi everyone!).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 3:18 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I'd also say that there's a difference between someone who's a sociopath because they're born without a moral center in their brains (as discussed in the above debate), someone who became a sociopath because of internalizing and emulating abusive treatment, and someone who's a sociopath because they have a lot of chemical imbalances (hi everyone!).

Yes.

And prognosis also depends on why.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 4:06 PM

BYTEMITE


On an entirely unrelated note:

I am about to eat VEGETARIAN HAGGIS.

It seemed important to mention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 4:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


A Byte a stor, a chara,
I'm sending you a letter about this. But the sensored and less embarassing senopsis of it is that I don't believe you are a sociopath. I believe that when you were a child you had something that could have turned out very badly, but it didn't, I believe you hit puberty and, as all children with that particular difference, you were either going to grow out of it or you weren't. You hit the point of definition and you did grow out of it. I had no empathy until I was about 7, none, I was fairly mean, not out of control, but not a nice child. I grew out of it. You grew out of the diagnosable part of it too when it counted, you sought empathy and learnt it, it came to you even if it took a while. If it hadn't come to you then you wouldn't be my friend. The fact that the idea of being a sociopath worries you is evidence to me that you really aren't one. You view the world differently than others but you're someone who cares about morality and their fellow humans. Sometimes you care very intensely. I don't see you as a sociopath and I know the idea of you being one is something that plagues you, evidenced by your repeated assertions on this forum.

Frem, I see that your definitions of "human" and "people" are different than those of other people. But if one doesn't know that going into your argument about some people being more human than others then you sound frightening and no one will trust you fully. Orcs and Reavers are pretend, every person is just that, a person, no matter what happens to them, whether their parents raised them in a way you approve of, whether they've committed crimes or not or are horrible or not. They are still human and I believe that they still have a Ka/soul/spirit/insert similar name here. If someone kills five people in cold blood then their right to live may be taken away, I believe they've forfitted that right, but they are still human, they still have a soul/ka/insert similar name here. To say otherwise is to walk a slippery slope and I'll have none of that. Now, based on your personal definitions of the word "human" and "people" what you're saying seems slightly less offensive, since you specify that they still are creatures with personhood. I think you believe in something like the "noble savage" concept, whereas Kiki and Magon's and Signe believe that a lot of those things are learnt.

I believe that the innate qualities that we nearly all have are the desire to love and be loved and the desire to seek, be it knowledge, prosperity, fulfillment, to seek.

Oh Magon's I must have not been clear in what I meant. Anthony explained what I meant better than I did, thank you Anthony. I understood that your fat child reference was your way of pointing out that different cultures did different things and that most people go along with what they've been raised to accept as normal. I was trying to look at what you said from the point of view of Byte and CTS, I was trying to point out to you what they might be struggling with in understanding where you were coming from. I pointed out your detached manner in this thread to show that maybe they were getting distracted by it and viewing the points you were making through that filter. I then went on to point out that detached manner often distracts me too, but I know you are a kind person who tries to do good things in the world and cares about people. The mistake that I made was to say "humanity" instead of "relatability" I ranked the three of you based on "relatability" and should never have used the word "humanity" in there. I meant humanity as in able to relate to/connect with, not in the literal sense of the word. So in essence my misspeak was similar to what I called Frem out on. I guess the word "humanity is very loaded. I meant to say relatability and I will try never to use the word humanity in that context again because I see it was mean even though I hadn't meant it to be. From now on I'll be careful about that.

CTS, I love Secondhand Lions! Its an amazing movie and my dad and I watch it about once a year, a beautiful film. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 4:34 PM

BYTEMITE


Update: It was delicious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 4:40 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Byte

Just a short note - you may not have shown much empathy b/c something else was in the way.

I don't know about you, but I was born scrambled in some way that I can't clearly describe. I was like a blind person trying to describe sight. I saw what others could express, or experience or perform, I didn't understand it.

The sense of being an outsider bereft of what other people took for granted - some occasional inner peace, some sense of solidity perhaps, some inner vision I didn't see - led me to feel that my most important question was 'But what about ME???" and to do what it took to get MINE. Even if MINE was empty and hollow.

Anyway, age, brain development, better diet, something, changed that. I still don't do some of the things I see other people do. My visual processing is measurably scrambled. My mind jumps from one thing to the next. I get easily overwhelmed. But my emotional perspective has changed. Whatever was getting in the way before seems to have gone. I have empathy where before, my drives were all about me.

It's possible that some dysfunction was getting in your way, making you not a born sociopath, but a functional (or perhaps DYSfunctional) one.

Something I hope you consider.

ETA: "... apparently I fit in well enough that none of you believed me." Well, no, you don't fit in all THAT well, not even here with its cast of characters! But you also don't fit in as a sociopath, IMO.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 4:55 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, it's a start. But I'm not sure you all should be really trying to justify it or make me out to be a better person than I am, because there's no telling if that could come back to bite you.

I know that I've lashed out at people here at times, because I have a hair trigger, and at times I teeter towards emotionally unstable. I know that's true. I don't know how manipulative I've been here, as it's hard for me to judge - mostly I think I've tried to defend myself and just say what I think at the time of me thinking it. But I know I have that ability to make people think I'm better than I am, and well, people seem to be okay with me around here, which makes me wonder what I've done.

Quote:

My visual processing is measurably scrambled. My mind jumps from one thing to the next. I get easily overwhelmed.


Huh. That sounds familiar too. I also have really poor eyesight. I don't know when it started, but I first got glasses when I was five. Maybe I couldn't see faces well as a kid or something, maybe I never developed facial recognition very well, and if a person doesn't do that, maybe it's much harder to develop EMOTION recognition or parental attachment. Also, I have a really hard time remembering faces and names.

Quote:

Well, no, you don't fit in all THAT well, not even here with its cast of characters!


Oh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... because I have a hair trigger ..."

Oh, yeah. Me too. Odd thing is, I never know what will trigger it. Something will just catch me in the wrong spot and BLAM! I go to great pains to not blow up, but it doesn't mean I'm not seething.

"... at times I teeter towards emotionally unstable ..."

I used to be like that well into my 30's, but again, something happened around then which was - uhhhmmmm - more like a large freighter turning. A shift in direction which, while slow, opened up a different horizon. Which I have been on and off heading toward ever since.

"I also have really poor eyesight."

Mine was great until maybe second grade. Then very suddenly my right eye went bad and my left eye went offline - something went way wrong.

"Well, no, you don't fit in all THAT well, not even here with its cast of characters!"
Oh."

But you are welcome here.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:52 PM

WISHIMAY


Sounds like Aspergers...

Hubby has it and he seriously thought he was psychotic for years because of feelings that he had, or lack of them. Really, I think some of those thoughts is just anger looking for an outlet.

Might ask yerself...

Are you good at establishing patterns?
Do you tend to be obsessive? Esp with hobbies?
Do you miss facial cues?
Do you tend to have several different thoughts all going off in your head that get you confused?
Were you a slow bloomer?
Do you have food aversions?
Do you HAVE to have a set routine?
Do you have an above average intelligence?
Tend to clench your fists alot?
If anyone can answer yes to all these questions...
ya just might have Aspergers...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"But you are welcome here."

ETA - Well, at your age that statement coming in my direction would have made me REALLY uncomfortable. Like I had inadvertently manipulated/ fooled/ scammed people in some reflexive but cold-hearted sympathy grab. I still do get that feeling sometimes, though far less than before. (BTW, I now identify that feeling as depression.)

I take it back. You are warily tolerated here.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:56 - 2077 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:53 - 13 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:52 - 4 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL