Anyone encounter this psychopath before?

Started by Baruch, July 31, 2018, 03:06:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 27, 2018, 09:57:02 AM
You missed the point. HIS views are more correct than others.

According to whom?  Not I...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Sal1981


Cavebear

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Sal1981

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 10:06:58 AM
Details would be good.  ;)
I don't think he's a psychopath given how he talks about language, I do however think he's either a full-blown schizophrenic or other schizoid personality type. I could only bear to watch 4 minutes of that.

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Cavebear

Quote from: Sal1981 on September 27, 2018, 10:13:11 AM
I don't think he's a psychopath given how he talks about language, I do however think he's either a full-blown schizophrenic or other schizoid personality type. I could only bear to watch 4 minutes of that.

As I said (and will expand upon slightly) my view of psychopath is broad.  It includes sociopaths, and I consider all theists sociopathic in a general way.  Theism is a form of unsanity and it is entirely possible that a majority of the population is therefore unsane,  That has nothing to do with the majority view of reality.  At one time , the majority thought the Earth was flat and immovable.

I won't quibble about the subsets of unsanity.  Today, anyway...

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 07:37:00 AM
Let's discuss that.  I personnally think that all people who willingly commit crimes without provocation are psychopathic.  What is your view about that?

My view is that to come to that conclusion you have to be re-defining psychopathy.

The broadest definition of psychopathy that I'm willing to use is that a psychopath is someone "completely without conscience".


Going by that definition it makes no sense to say that anyone who willingly commits crimes without provocation is psychopathic. As some crimes aren't even immoral. And some crimes are completely victimless.

And in some countries, for example, it's illegal to be a homosexual. By your definition... all homosexuals in such a country are psychopaths. I think that's absurd.

Legality has nothing to do with psychopathy.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 27, 2018, 09:57:02 AM
You missed the point. HIS views are more correct than others.

No... some views are more correct than others. Anyone can be wrong sometimes.

But if someone defines psychopathy as an unripened banana then I think it's fair to say that that view is less correct than some other views on psychopathy . . .

To be more specific: Views that make more logical sense are more logically correct than views that make less logical sense. That should be obvious.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 12:34:16 PM
My view is that to come to that conclusion you have to be re-defining psychopathy.

The broadest definition of psychopathy that I'm willing to use is that a psychopath is someone "completely without conscience".


Going by that definition it makes no sense to say that anyone who willingly commits crimes without provocation is psychopathic. As some crimes aren't even immoral. And some crimes are completely victimless.

And in some countries, for example, it's illegal to be a homosexual. By your definition... all homosexuals in such a country are psychopaths. I think that's absurd.

Legality has nothing to do with psychopathy.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 12:34:16 PM
My view is that to come to that conclusion you have to be re-defining psychopathy.

The broadest definition of psychopathy that I'm willing to use is that a psychopath is someone "completely without conscience".


Going by that definition it makes no sense to say that anyone who willingly commits crimes without provocation is psychopathic. As some crimes aren't even immoral. And some crimes are completely victimless.

And in some countries, for example, it's illegal to be a homosexual. By your definition... all homosexuals in such a country are psychopaths. I think that's absurd.

Legality has nothing to do with psychopathy.

I neither mentioned legality (an artificial social construct) nor homosexuality. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:45:11 PM
I neither mentioned legality (an artificial social construct) nor homosexuality.

It is untrue that you didn't mention legality.

You said that psychopaths are people who willingly commit crimes without provocation.

I pointed out that not only is that not what psychopathy is, but in some countries it is illegal to be a homosexual, so by your definition homosexuals in those countries are psychopaths because they are willingly committing crimes without provocation. So your definition leads to absurdity.

It has nothing to do with crimes. And to suggest that crimes have nothing to do with legality is absurd. If legality were not a thing illegality wouldn't be a thing and crimes wouldn't be a thing.

Yes, legality (and crimes) is (are) a purely social construct. That helps my point, not yours. Psychopathy is a lack of conscience. It has nothing to do with legality, crimes or social constructs.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 12:50:37 PM
It is untrue that you didn't mention legality.

You said that psychopaths are people who willingly commit crimes without provocation.

I pointed out that not only is that not what psychopathy is, but in some countries it is illegal to be a homosexual, so by your definition homosexuals in those countries are psychopaths because they are willingly committing crimes without provocation. So your definition leads to absurdity.

It has nothing to do with crimes. And to suggest that crimes have nothing to do with legality is absurd. If legality were not a thing illegality wouldn't be a thing and crimes wouldn't be a thing.

Yes, legality (and crimes) is (are) a purely social construct. That helps my point, not yours. Psychopathy is a lack of conscience. It has nothing to do with legality, crimes or social constructs.

Perhaps I should have said "unethical acts".  "Crimes" in some places are not crimes in others.  Sorry.  I tend to think of "crimes against humanity".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:55:37 PM
Perhaps I should have said "unethical acts".  "Crimes" in some places are not crimes in others.  Sorry.  I tend to think of "crimes against humanity".

Ah.

But then, what about incredibly minor ethical acts? Would you consider anyone who willingly engages in a very very minor unethical act to be a psychopath? Because I think that's pretty much everyone! Is anyone really morally perfect? And doesn't your view lead to the idea that because almost no one is morally perfect, (or no one is morally perfect), then almost everyone is a psychopath (or everyone is a psychopath)?

Or do you mean that you think that anyone who engages in severe unethical acts, is a psychopath?


Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 02:32:02 PM
Ah.

But then, what about incredibly minor ethical acts? Would you consider anyone who willingly engages in a very very minor unethical act to be a psychopath? Because I think that's pretty much everyone! Is anyone really morally perfect? And doesn't your view lead to the idea that because almost no one is morally perfect, (or no one is morally perfect), then almost everyone is a psychopath (or everyone is a psychopath)?

Or do you mean that you think that anyone who engages in severe unethical acts, is a psychopath?

The later assuredly.  The minor stuff, possibly, but not all unethical acts are considered crimes equally everywhere.  Some acts are almost universally considered crimes.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:36:44 PM
The later assuredly.  The minor stuff, possibly, but not all unethical acts are considered crimes equally everywhere.  Some acts are almost universally considered crimes.

How is what is considered to be ethical or unethical relevant?

Otherwise we just go back to my point about the fact that in some societies homosexuality is considered a crime, and not a minor one either, and under your definition of psychopathy that would mean that homosexuals are psychopaths in those societies... if you are to continue to give credence to the fact that different societies have different views on what is and isn't a crime.

Is what is considered to be ethical or unethical in different societies relevant?

Now, if we go to your point about some acts being almost universally considered crimes...

If I am to steelman your position... we could say that: you think someone is a psychopath if they willingly engage in a moral crime that is almost universally considered to be a moral crime across almost all societies, how would you feel about that representation of your position? Would you say that that is what you are trying to say?