Anyone encounter this psychopath before?

[Baruch]

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.

Psychopathy isn't a logical proposition.  It is a medical condition.  It comes in several flavors.  This guy (in the video) is very loquacious ... but seems quite irrational to me (in the medical sense).  You are speaking like a Vulcan.  That could be a symptom of something.  I was like that once upon a time.

[Baruch]

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?

PS - on another thread, there was a 3 parter on Youtube on what the current definitions of psychopathy are.  But most posters here are lay people, not doctors.  It would seem you are up on your DSM V.

I think that Sal1981 nailed this particular diagnosis, yesterday, in this string.  I also use words, creatively.  But I see that as an opportunity for correction and education.

[Cavebear]

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?

There being no actual deity, morals ("sins") do not exist.  All is humanistic ethics.  So only ethics are relevant...

Your definition of "crimes" seems rather religious, which is why I expect that you will eventually reveal yourself as a theist.  It will take some time.

And your assumption that "crimes" are constant across all cultures suggests to me that, that even if you THINK you are an atheist, you are not.  I would happy to be wrong, but I would be surprised.
 
And, in further support of my suspicion, I will note that you keep referring to "morals" rather than "ethics".  That is very typical of theists.

Enjoy...

[luckswallowsall]

Psychopathy isn't a logical proposition.  It is a medical condition.  It comes in several flavors.  This guy (in the video) is very loquacious ... but seems quite irrational to me (in the medical sense).  You are speaking like a Vulcan.  That could be a symptom of something.  I was like that once upon a time.

The truth of what you say regarding psychopathy being a medical condition goes in favor of what I was saying, not what you were saying. I am saying that psychosis and delusions is not the same thing as psychopathy and the fact that psychopathy is a medical condition doesn't mean that it's a completely different medical condition to what it actually is. Psychopathy and psychosis are indeed completely different, as I said.

[luckswallowsall]

PS - on another thread, there was a 3 parter on Youtube on what the current definitions of psychopathy are.  But most posters here are lay people, not doctors.  It would seem you are up on your DSM V.

Whether we are talking about the pathology of psychopathy, or the medical condition of sociopathy/ASBD, or merely the notion of a psychopath being a person without a conscience... we are not talking about psychosis. And there is literally no sense in which psychopathy refers to psychosis or being delusional.

[luckswallowsall]

There being no actual deity, morals ("sins") do not exist.  All is humanistic ethics.  So only ethics are relevant...

You were the one using "crime" to refer to "moral crime" rather than legal crime after I said that your definition of psychopathy led to law breaking=psychopathy which is absurd. I never suggested anything religious.

Your definition of "crimes" seems rather religious, which is why I expect that you will eventually reveal yourself as a theist.  It will take some time.

I didn't give a definition of crime besides legality, you did. And you only did it after I criticized your view that those that willingly commit crimes are psychopaths. You're the one with the made-up definition of a crime, not me.

And your assumption that "crimes" are constant across all cultures suggests to me that, that even if you THINK you are an atheist, you are not.

I never said that crimes are constant across cultures. Again, you were the one with the alternative definition of crime, not me. I said that whether crimes differ across cultures or not is irrelevant as you are the one claiming that psychopaths are people who willingly commit crimes, not me.

 I would happy to be wrong, but I would be surprised.
 
And, in further support of my suspicion, I will note that you keep referring to "morals" rather than "ethics".  That is very typical of theists.

Enjoy...

So far throughout my stay on this forum you have shown yourself to be both irrational and very fond of misrepresenting what I say... a quality which is much more in common with theists.

Morals have nothing to do with atheism or theism. Just like philosophical determinism has nothing to do with atheism or theism... despite what you say on another thread.

And, ironically, your peculiar and irrational insistence that certain things that have nothing to do with god imply a god show more of a sign that you're the theistically inclined one here... as if you really think all those things imply theism then it would take far less of a change in views for you to become a theist than for me.

Furthermore, and further ironically, you suggest that morals are theistic and yet you were the one who said that a psychopath was someone who commits a moral crime, not me... so that would make you theistic under your own terms (and even more hilariously, you only changed your definition of crime like that after I showed that what you were saying under the normal definition leads to an absurd conclusion).

[Baruch]

luckswallowsall ... you shadow box a lot.  Part of PE in college?