1 in 25 Americans is a monster

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Magical Realist, Oct 9, 2013.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The irony is that he is the most hateful, bigoted poster's on this site and he believes there is nothing wrong with him because he is religious.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Yes. This is why I teach my children not to go to America.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I've been posting this for years!

    A few notes, the words sociopath and psychopath can and are used interchangeably and both are colloquial; the clinical term is antisocial personality disorder. Sociopaths aren't going to cut your throat ear to ear (well, some will) and most are extremely high functioning individuals in society. One could even argue THEY made THIS sort of society to suite their needs. They were probably the warriors, leaders, the priests, and of course are now our banking CEOs, Congressmen, Presidents and Prime Ministers - yeah, they play these roles like you'd put on a pair of pants (SEE: Military Industrial Complex, War on Drugs, War on Terror, TBTF Banks, Industrial Prison Complex, ObamaCare, etc...).

    Oh, and due to 100 years of Progressive Socialism our Fascist Republic seems to be breeding more of them:
    The 1991 Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that in the fifteen years preceding the study, the prevalence of antisocial personality disorder had nearly doubled among the young in America, It would be difficult, closing in on impossible, to explain such a dramatically rapid shift in terms of genetics or neurobiology.


    I am of the opinion the Peaceful Parenting can go a long ways toward mitigating their destructive impulsiveness. Only a total change of society seems to be able to mitigate the outright disorder (SEE: East Asia). Some people think multiculturalism may exacerbate the problem. Others wonder if the Americas weren't mainly colonized by sociopaths and that explains the relatively high concentrations.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I have bee told by inmates the first 10 years are the hardest to adjust . If you asked If you had a choice in life would you do it again, the answer usually noway , and they write their family brothers or kids , not to the same as I did . It usefully remains me the story of Jesus about Lazarus and the rich man
     
  8. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    What do you consider yourself ?
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
  10. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    People are born with intelligence and the rest is learned.

    Try reading the Code of Hammurabi and see if you can figure out what you're saying. Do you mean to tell us that belief in the gods of ancient Babylon leads to developing a sense of right and wrong, or just the particular beliefs you have?

    Besides, who needs gods when the punishments often exceed the crime? Under your system, primitive people would have slaughtered their children for being a drag to their own survival, and you would never have been born. So what informs the mother not to harm her child when there is no Bible around; and how many ways does the Bible pervert the way people would think according to their own nature?
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't buy her premise. There are many reasons people just don't give a shit.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    The keyword there is "learned". And the topic is about "sociopaths". That's all the information we need to answer your question.

    We "learn" right and wrrong from "society". Sociopaths fail to learn society's "right" and "wrong" just like creationists fail to learn evolution.

    Blindly accepting the dictates of an alien overloard is not "learning".
     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Right we learn from the society, right and wrong , but in us there is an element of selfishness , many time in a moment to act we act in our favor and forget the consequences.
    Keep in mind , before there was a society there was only a cluster family and as family grew it become society and the rules perpetuated

    Why accuse me I believe in creation but I believe in evolution is that some thing wrong ?
    What is wrong with the idea creation ? can you explain
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    You can't believe in both equally, to be honest, arauca. Creationism stems largely from Christian doctrine, thus uses the Bible as its interpretive 'model.' And Christianity proposes that humans have souls. Evolution attests to no such thing.

    Many creationists believe that evolution could have been possible, but you can only believe to a certain point. As a follower of Creationism, your faith will not permit you to accept evolution in its entirety. If you say you accept it in its entirety, then you would have to reject the part of Creationism that speaks to humans having souls, given to them from a Divine Being.

    Say what you will, but you can’t accept both schools of thought, equally. So, why say you believe in evolution, if your faith doesn’t allow you to fully accept it?
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Selfishness and social responsibility are two aspects of our biology. On the one hand we want to look after the interests of the individual (self) and on the other we want to look after the interests of the group. The "right" and"wrong" that society teaches us define how much of our self-interest we subordinate to the group interest.

    For the purpose of this discussion, "family" and "society" are equivalent.

    I'm just saying that creationists have failed to learn their science. If you can maintain your religious beliefs without throwing science out the window, good for you.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Actually, morality is programmed into the DNA of our synapses by evolution. Humans have the distinction of being the only species that is an obligate carnivore with no fangs or claws. The only way our ancestors could survive was to gather in small clans of a few dozen people who had known each other since birth, and develop group hunting techniques using our uniquely colossal forebrains and the tools these forebrains helped us invent, starting with flint blades.

    Any individual who did not feel an instinctive urge to cooperate with other people was more likely to die at an early age (from either malnutrition or predation) so his DNA was eventually lost to the species.

    This primitive model of morality is still what drives us, and it's why even the worst of us don't usually mistreat our own clan/family members: we instinctively rely on them. But most of us have learned to extend that sense of clan/family to include ever-larger groups of humans, for the simple reason that it has made our lives safer, easier and more pleasant. First it was a village where several clans joined together to cultivate crops and raise animals, since division of labor and economies of scale make large communities more productive and prosperous than small ones. Eventually these villages grew into small cities, with the work being so efficient that a few people were able to have "jobs" that were not concerned with producing and distributing food.

    The cities grew into states, the states grew into nations, and today we see the nations growing into trans-national hegemonies; each new version being significantly more prosperous than its predecessor. Today most people work only forty hours per week (sitting down!) and have belongings, services and other luxuries that our Stone Age ancestors could not have imagined. Cooperation has been a highly successful strategy.

    Unfortunately in the few hundred generations since the end of the Stone Age, there hasn't been enough time for our instincts to evolve to match our new lifestyle. There's still a caveman inside each of us. Occasionally he gets tired of the constraints of civilization, and does something terribly Paleolithic. Usually he doesn't do any serious harm and life goes on. But every now and then one of us does something that can't be ignored. There are also a few who aren't wired up to code and feel no instinctive sense of kinship with the human race, but are smart enough to fake it.

    We deal with these problems on an individual basis, and civilization goes on.

    But occasionally an entire community channels their Inner Cavemen at the same time, and tragedy results, usually a war. And religions always exacerbate these tragedies. Religion is an artifact of the Stone Age, teaching every clan that they're just a little better than the other clans, so they don't have to treat them with respect. Today the Christians, Muslims and Jews each think they're better than the other two "clans," so it's okay to threaten each other with nuclear weapons.

    So I routinely barge into discussions of this nature to offer the observation that, despite conventional wisdom, religion is not a force for good but in fact is always on the verge of sending us back to the Stone Age.

    I also contrast humans with dogs: in those same 12,000 years since the Neolithic Revolution, they have undergone ten or twenty thousand generations of breeding. This was enough for significant changes to occur in their biology. Perhaps the most striking difference between dogs and wolves is in their instincts: dogs are much more social.
    • They're happy to belong to packs with dozens of other dogs, whereas there are seldom more than ten individuals in a wolf pack.
    • Dogs don't have a strong alpha instinct, and happily concede leadership to a biped who is such a good hunter that he brings home a dead cow once or twice a month.
    • Dogs bark, wag their tails, roughhouse with each other, chase sticks, and perform other feats that reinforce their pack bonds and also endear them to us, until the day they die. Wolves stop doing these things almost completely when they reach adhulthood.
    • In addition, dogs can live happily without hunting, and in fact the reason those first lazy wolves came to live with us in the first place was a decision to take up the easy life of eating our gigantic piles of garbage.
    The instincts of dogs are better adapted to civilization than our own.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Wow, Fraggle Rocker! Honestly, that's a pretty outstanding post. :thumbsup:
     
  19. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Seriously?! No one is gonna jump on this shit:

    Well, Balerion did--but he was uncharacteristically terse. And Fraggle--what gives?

    Just sayin', you (MR, not Balerion or Fraggle) have undoubtedly inherited some of your mother's Protestant hubris and aversion to thought. You might want to work on that.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    You can't believe in both without some pretty severe distortions. In other words, you could discard parts of creationism* and keep evolution, or you could twist evolution severely and come up with intelligent-design creationism - but you can't believe in the 'standard' version of either without a lot of conflicts.

    (* - choose your religion; they are all fairly similar in terms of creationism.)
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I do have a job after all. I can't spend all my time cleansing SciForums of bullshit.

    Well-trained dogs make rational decisions all the time. Ever watch sheep dogs at work? And when the master is away they may loosen up a little, but they don't wreak havoc.
     
  22. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    There is an instinct in the female to preserve a small child or creature ( I wonder if butch overrides that instinct )
    I agree with your first paragraph .
    I agree whit your second paragraph , and if I add

    One mina ( 1/60 of a talent ) was made equal to 60 shekels ( 1 shekel = 11 grams ) . Among the surviving laws are these:

    1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
    2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
    3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
    4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
    5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
    6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
    7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (§4 in some translations)
    8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
    9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
    10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
    11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
    13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)
    14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
    15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
    17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
    18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver. (15)
    19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
    20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
    21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver. (18)
    22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (19)
    24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him. (21)
    25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt. (22)
    28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver. (25)
    29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case. (26)
    30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses. (27)
    31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (28)
    32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (29)
     
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You are wondering if masculine lesbians might not care about the well being of a small child? And you think your morality is superior? Not even fucking close.
     

Share This Page