Psychopaths

[Cunt]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Uh? what? most of this thread is TL:DR to me, except for little gems not by the paddlers.

maiforpeace said that she was not going to bother with him anymore.
I said that I don't take him seriously anymore.

Others have said similar things, but he still acts as if he expects to be taken seriously.

Is there an opinion on this that he wants to share? I don't know, but I do know that he accuses everyone who disagrees with his ideas 'paranoid', or 'psychotic' or the favourite 'lies'. I simply assume all of his other communications are of that quality.

My honest suspicion is that he cannot allow a conversation about his pet obsessions to continue without him dominating the thread. I will continue observing and hopefully will prove myself wrong.

[hadespussercats]

Wow! This is the first time I've tried ignoring someone. Maybe I should make Schneib a trophy.

Here, the Schneib-- have a trophy!


Unfortunately, he's still in a lot of quotes. What a shame. The OP deserved better.

More luck next time, Cunt.

[Svartalf]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Uh? what? most of this thread is TL:DR to me, except for little gems not by the paddlers.

maiforpeace said that she was not going to bother with him anymore.
I said that I don't take him seriously anymore.

Others have said similar things, but he still acts as if he expects to be taken seriously.

Is there an opinion on this that he wants to share? I don't know, but I do know that he accuses everyone who disagrees with his ideas 'paranoid', or 'psychotic' or the favourite 'lies'. I simply assume all of his other communications are of that quality.

My honest suspicion is that he cannot allow a conversation about his pet obsessions to continue without him dominating the thread. I will continue observing and hopefully will prove myself wrong.

You're all completely wrong, now bumit to the Will of Gawd (as expressed by I his Phopretr) and all will be better.

and Hades, can I have a live performance?

[Schneibster]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Schneibster wouldn't go through all of this if he wasn't keen on communicating his POV...he wants badly to be heard. I think everybody has been fair and patient trying to do so, how are we all failing so miserably? I'm being totally sincere and honest when I say this too. Maybe someone other than those of us who are having trouble might shed some light on this?
I know we all think we are being just as reasonable and rational as I know Shneibster thinks he is...which I guess just adds to the frustration for us all.

Let's start over. Mai, I'll take your statement at face value. I see you trying to be fair and I intend to meet you there.

Mai: ETA: I'm sorry.
Hades: ETA: I'm sorry.
Cunt: ETA: I'm sorry.

I honestly think there's things changing in neuroscience that are finally going to give us some of the things Freud promised and never could deliver. It's like moving from the immediately pre-industrial time in medicine, when germs were unknown far less viruses, bleeding was common, and they fed people with syphilis mercury which somewhat helped some of the symptoms and thought they were "treating" it, when today you'd get an antibiotic shot after they checked to be sure you didn't have an antibiotic-resistant form, and move on. Being "cut for stone" doesn't involve being sliced into while conscious and having someone fumble around in your guts, and if it did, they'd wash their hands first.

Y'all, IMHO, are looking at various types of things done over the last hundred years in horror; and well you should. In the 1960s they were still lobotomizing people, crippling them, essentially, with no knowledge of what they were slicing out, and for ridiculous stuff: neuroses, for example. But we're learning fast right now; much faster than we were able to before. That's because we have access to information we didn't before. New techniques let us look, not statically, but dynamically; we can watch thoughts make the brain light up, and see where they go, and how they're structured, and because of all the research done over the last hundred years or so, we know what the basic functions of different areas are, so we can identify what's being lit up and from that make conclusions about the nature not merely of thought but of individual thoughts. We can see stuff being called up and integrated in with sensory memories in the amygdala, for example, emotional content being associated with incoming views of a person, and we can then ask the subject what they were feeling about that person. And, in particular in the case of this thread, we can see emotional content not being associated with a sensory impression of a person, and contrast that not only with other views of people scanned in other subjects who are criminals but not psychopaths, but also, we can compare with scans of normal people that have already been done and are being done all the time as research goes on. Pretending that this study exists in isolation is not just wrong, but wrong-headed. It tells us just where the problem is; we've eliminated all of the brain but a small piece of the frontal lobe, in the neocortex. We now can follow from there to find out why nothing is coming out; and for the moment, while we do, we can, if we can identify people at risk for psychopathy, offer cognitive therapy based upon this new knowledge of the mechanism underlying the disease. Whether it will work remains to be seen, but it can't hurt. What we ought to try doing is getting the potential psychopath to practice feeling things about people, to exercise that function. And that we can now know based upon this research.

Now, what's the big problem with that? I just don't get all the hostility. Will someone try to explain it rationally, and without assuming the person they're talking to has no ethics? I'd think I'd've posted here long enough and openly enough that people would know that I hold ethics pretty dear, and would avoid making unethical choices. OTOH, I'm not afraid to make hard choices, either, if I think there's a good enough reason; but to risk a human life requires the very best of reasons. So treat me like an adult and like a friend, if you want me to be your friend, and let's see if that doesn't work out better.

Good job of moderating, Mai. I appreciate your effort and your outstretched hand.

[hadespussercats]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Uh? what? most of this thread is TL:DR to me, except for little gems not by the paddlers.

maiforpeace said that she was not going to bother with him anymore.
I said that I don't take him seriously anymore.

Others have said similar things, but he still acts as if he expects to be taken seriously.

Is there an opinion on this that he wants to share? I don't know, but I do know that he accuses everyone who disagrees with his ideas 'paranoid', or 'psychotic' or the favourite 'lies'. I simply assume all of his other communications are of that quality.

My honest suspicion is that he cannot allow a conversation about his pet obsessions to continue without him dominating the thread. I will continue observing and hopefully will prove myself wrong.

You're all completely wrong, now bumit to the Will of Gawd (as expressed by I his Phopretr) and all will be better.

and Hades, can I have a live performance?

The hills are alive, with the sound of the fucks I give.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, not "here," answer the question.

The nerve of you: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1054336 - "answer the question" indeed... I'm waiting.

You're gonna wait a long time if you don't answer the question.

I did answer your question.

No, you didn't. You made up a bunch of bullshit to try to create a theory out of whole cloth that nobody is allowed to examine the underpinnings of because if they do, they find out you didn't answer the question.

I think anyone reading my answer would conclude that I answered your question fully and completely. I leave myself in the good graces of everyone following this discussion. I merely didn't give you the phrase you wanted to excise from my answer.

Answer the question:

Answer my question. If you had any integrity at all, you would.

Why does me saying "that's a lie" mean I'm calling the person who said it a liar?

It means you're calling someone a liar. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying. A statement divorced from its intent is an untruth or a falsehood. A lie is only a lie as a function of the intent of a person making an assertion. You said yourself, Schneib. A lie must be "deliberately" made. That means that if one person says "the Civil War started in 1870" knowing it is false, and another person makes the same statement thinking it is true, then it is a lie when uttered by the first person, and it is not a lie when uttered by the second person. It's untrue in both cases, but it is a "lie" when one uttering it knows it to be false, and it is a mistake when someone honestly believes it is true.

And, I was very clear that if you identify another person, or if another person is identified, and you point out that that other person was lying (because you have some evidence of their state of mind or intent to deceive), then your accusation would have some merit. Example: John Smith posts here that the Civil War began in 1870. You point out that YOUR FRIEND "Bill Jones" said the same thing and he knew it was false at the time, so Bill Jones is a liar. That would be reasonable. But, you don't do that. Your practice - is to call statements "lies" that have no third party attribution outside of the confines of your own skull. You'll take a statement like "The Civil War Started in 1870" and say it's a lie, but nobody has referred to any third party who said it before with some deceptive intent That's why what you do is so idiotic - you'll call something a lie or more cretinously "first lie" without ever identifying that third party you think is lying. The only persons involved are you and the other person you're responding to.

You have some notion that if you think a statement is false, that all you have to do is imagine that someone else said it before with the deliberate intent to deceive and then it is from that point on always a "lie" no matter who says it and no matter what their intent. You have some weird idea that this constitutes "denouncing" someone and calling them out, and that this is some "reality" that "bites" and we're all expected to "deal" with it.

Moreover, the things you claim are "lies" are very often things that are mere differences of political opinions, different opinions or views on what the facts are, or reliance on different sources, and you leap from there to calling the other side a liar or calling different positions "lies." You portray things as black and white that simply aren't. You portray things as clearly proved that just aren't. You have claimed that there are things that are lies because they are contrary to some "established science" that you learn through the googles. One day you'll figure out why you're off base about that. But, I've tried sufficiently to set you straight, and unfortunately you're just not getting it. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

They might be my friend, and I might be advising them of something they don't know.

You're actually pretending to claim that if you say something Hades said is a lie, that you "might be advising an [undisclosed] friend of yours of something they don't know?" Is there even a single post, anywhere on this forum, where you have said "that's a lie. And, the lie was told by my friend..." (or anything to that effect?) - if so, where? let's see it.

That would be the non-paranoid assumption, anyway.

We don't need to assume your intent. You can tell us. Have you ever said something was a lie on this forum and in doing so you were referring to an undisclosed friend who you were advising of something he or she did not know? One would think that if that is what you were doing you would have made that clear by saying so, and maybe you did. Can you link to the post where that was the case?

[Bella Fortuna]

I think we've fully confirmed now that Coito's a masochist!

[Schneibster]

Why does me saying "that's a lie" mean I'm calling the person who said it a liar?

It means you're calling someone a liar. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying. A statement divorced from its intent is an untruth or a falsehood. A lie is only a lie as a function of the intent of a person making an assertion. You said yourself, Schneib. A lie must be "deliberately" made.

It is being deliberately made. That's why I call it a lie. That doesn't mean the person who immediately said it is lying; they might just be repeating the lie. But it's still a lie, whether they're the one telling it, in other words know it's a lie, or not; it was still crafted with intent to deceive. IMO, actually, they're likely a victim. But that's neither here nor there; you are assuming insult where none exists, and in so doing, insulting in your turn, and without justification.

I'm even more likely to use "that's a lie" if IMO the person using it is being insincere or disingenuous, pretending they don't know it's been debunked. And in your case, I know that for a fact, because you've been there when a considerable amount of conservatroid horseshit has been debunked, and whined about every word of the debunking as much as you're whining about this.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we've fully confirmed now that Coito's a masochist!

Hurt me, Bella! Hurt me!

[Bella Fortuna]

I think we've fully confirmed now that Coito's a masochist!

Hurt me, Bella! Hurt me!

That way madness lies...

[Schneibster]

So now we know who's sincere and who's not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why does me saying "that's a lie" mean I'm calling the person who said it a liar?

It means you're calling someone a liar. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying. A statement divorced from its intent is an untruth or a falsehood. A lie is only a lie as a function of the intent of a person making an assertion. You said yourself, Schneib. A lie must be "deliberately" made.

It is being deliberately made. That's why I call it a lie. That doesn't mean the person who immediately said it is lying; they might just be repeating the lie. But it's still a lie, whether they're the one telling it, in other words know it's a lie, or not; it was still crafted with intent to deceive.

You don't know the other people's intent. And, I'm still waiting for these examples of posts where you've accused third parties of telling the lies that someone here is just repeating. So far, you've only suggested that we need to assume you "might" be admonishing some undisclosed friends of their misapprehensions.

IMO, actually, they're likely a victim. But that's neither here nor there; you are assuming insult where none exists, and in so doing, insulting in your turn, and without justification.

I'm not assuming "insult." I'm assuming you're calling someone a liar when you have insufficient knowledge from which to make that determination. You don't know other people's thoughts any more than other people know yours. And, I hope I don't need to link you to the post where you expressed exactly that concern - that people don't know what is in your mind.

I'm even more likely to use "that's a lie" if IMO the person using it is being insincere or disingenuous, pretending they don't know it's been debunked.

See, here is where you go wrong. You seem to think that there is some "debunking authority" that takes issues off the table once a determination has been made about right or wrong on that issue. That isn't the way the real world works. Sometimes issues that were "debunked" one day are "rebunked" later. People don't have to stop arguing just because YOU or some source you've consulted says the issue is settled. And taking issue with settled sources doesn't make people liars and doesn't make what they say "lies."

And in your case, I know that for a fact, because you've been there when a considerable amount of conservatroid horseshit has been debunked, and whined about every word of the debunking as much as you're whining about this.

Post your proof. Give me an example of "conservatoid horseshit" that has been debunked here which I've been around for, and give me an example of me whining about it.

You laid down the ground rule for others - remember - post the proof, right? Don't say it, if you won't post the proof. That was your rule, "Da Schneib." Here's another chance to show the slightest bit of integrity. You already feel no hesitancy in demanding answers to questions you pose, but you have no problem just refusing the courtesy of a reply to questions posed to you. Let's see if you abide by rules you set forth for others.

[Schneibster]

Why does me saying "that's a lie" mean I'm calling the person who said it a liar?

It means you're calling someone a liar. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying. A statement divorced from its intent is an untruth or a falsehood. A lie is only a lie as a function of the intent of a person making an assertion. You said yourself, Schneib. A lie must be "deliberately" made.

It is being deliberately made. That's why I call it a lie. That doesn't mean the person who immediately said it is lying; they might just be repeating the lie. But it's still a lie, whether they're the one telling it, in other words know it's a lie, or not; it was still crafted with intent to deceive.

You don't know the other people's intent.

I don't have to. I didn't claim to. Stick to the subject.

[Schneibster]

So basically y'all started all this shit, and it was all chickenshit. You don't actually have any opinions on it, you were just trolling me.

Real funny. I'm amused.

Hope you didn't want to see any otter shots today, or this fucking century at the rate you're going.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we've fully confirmed now that Coito's a masochist!

Hurt me, Bella! Hurt me!

That way madness lies...

...o' sweet madness....