Psychopaths

[hadespussercats]

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

Hurt me, Bella! Hurt me!

That way madness lies...

You weren't joking about that whip, were you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Because they lie all the time.

That's how they get the stupids to vote for them.

Politicians lie?

Not all of them and not all the time.

See, now there is the first sensible statement I recall you've made yet.

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Two, if someone like a current sitting member of the House or Senate said that they weren't trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House, or words to that effect, then I would suspect they are telling the truth. I highly doubt that any current member of the House or Senate is affirmatively trying to ruin the economy, and I doubt they think Obama is scary.

So, if that is what you think is a "lie" then you have some work ahead of you. Who said that? How do you know they are lying? Do you have ANY evidence, or are you just pulling more shit out of your asshole?

[Coito ergo sum]

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich said he's not a lobbyist. But it looks like he's been introducing clients to Republican politicians.

Newt Gingrich is adamant that he is not a lobbyist, but rather a visionary who traffics in ideas, not influence. But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.

Source.

In other words, he said "IANAL."

So, what is your proof that he was a lobbyist? (speculation in the article that he "comes close to" being a lobbyist aside...)

And, if he was a lobbyist, what would that mean to you? Are lobbyists not allowed to run for office?

[Schneibster]

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

One, when you're talking about lying, you can't just make up your own quote, attribute it to someone, and then call it a lie. That's called a "straw man." Nobody that I'm aware of every said what you just quoted. If you'd like to present evidence that someone has, then that would be your burden. If not, if you like I can give you an estimate of the number of fucks I give about whether or not you respond, at this point.

Fine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... idn_t.html

Quotes and proof they're lies all in one handy package. Knock yourself out.

Two, if someone like a current sitting member of the House or Senate said that they weren't trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House, or words to that effect, then I would suspect they are telling the truth. I highly doubt that any current member of the House or Senate is affirmatively trying to ruin the economy, and I doubt they think Obama is scary.

Mitch McConnell's highest priority, out of his own mouth, is not "fix the economy," it's "keep Obama from getting elected."

Proof that you're wrong and they said they would.

So, if that is what you think is a "lie" then you have some work ahead of you.

All done.

Bring it. Anytime, sport.

Who said that? How do you know they are lying? Do you have ANY evidence, or are you just pulling more shit out of your asshole?

Here's the story, with a quote of Mitch saying it, and then a quote of him trying to deny it a year later. Outright lying, about what he himself said as if nobody's going to remember.

Anytime at all. You call it.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich said he's not a lobbyist. But it looks like he's been introducing clients to Republican politicians.

Newt Gingrich is adamant that he is not a lobbyist, but rather a visionary who traffics in ideas, not influence. But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.

Source.

In other words, he said "IANAL."

So, what is your proof that he was a lobbyist? (speculation in the article that he "comes close to" being a lobbyist aside...)

And, if he was a lobbyist, what would that mean to you? Are lobbyists not allowed to run for office?

Most people would say he was lobbying, thinly disguised.

Honest people, anyway.

Made some millions doing it, too.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile on topic:

The study, published in the most recent Journal of Neuroscience, builds on earlier work by Newman and Koenigs that showed that psychopaths' decision-making mirrors that of patients with known damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). This bolsters evidence that problems in that part of the brain are connected to the disorder.

"The decision-making study showed indirectly what this study shows directly -- that there is a specific brain abnormality associated with criminal psychopathy," Koenigs adds.

Source

Which is what I said. Now, does anyone have any comments on this? Is there anyone left here with any integrity at all, or are apologies immaterial to you all?

Are you ever embarrassed? I would be if I were you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Then there's "we didn't kill the supercommittee."

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes. Sen. Tom Coburn’s mega-compromise, the nucleus of a “Gang of Six” deal that would raise some taxes while cutting spending, got nowhere. The “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner flirted with in the summer, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress. A Gallup poll about the failure had voters blaming the GOP by a 3-to-2 margin (all voters) or a 2-to-1 margin (independents).

Source.

The majority doesn't believe it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you think that is proof that the Republicans are "lying?"

[Cunt]

I don't like anti-psychopath cranks.

[Schneibster]

Then there's "we didn't kill the supercommittee."

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes. Sen. Tom Coburn’s mega-compromise, the nucleus of a “Gang of Six” deal that would raise some taxes while cutting spending, got nowhere. The “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner flirted with in the summer, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress. A Gallup poll about the failure had voters blaming the GOP by a 3-to-2 margin (all voters) or a 2-to-1 margin (independents).

Source.

The majority doesn't believe it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you think that is proof that the Republicans are "lying?"

I'm with the majority. And the majority do.

[Schneibster]

I don't like anti-psychopath cranks.

Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.

Maybe you didn't notice.

[Cunt]

Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.

Maybe you didn't notice.

Lie (and far from the first)
The proof is here, don't be too dense to see it, or I will show everyone your lack.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?

The best you've done is come up with a fairly weak and juvenile argument for why some regulations might be good. I don't, however, deny that some regulation are, in fact, good. See if you can keep up with this. Your assertion was that "regulations are bad for business" is a "lie." You haven't established that the statement regulations are bad for business is a lie. Some regulations ARE bad for business. The reality is that some regulations are good, others are bad. And, neither the statement "regulations are good for business,' or "regulations are bad for business" is a lie.

"government is good" Whatcha gonna do about it when the Sudanese kidnap the next US citizens without a government?
This is easy.

Whatcha gunna do when the next war is started, or the next protest is squelched, or the next sterilization program is adopted, or the next purge or final solution is started? Neither statement is a lie - government is good, or government is evil. Governments are neither good nor evil. They do some good things, and they do some bad things.

What you do is take an argument, and call any opposition to a position that you find persuasive or preferable and you call it a lie. You really need to sit down and think real hard about what a "lie" is, and you need to focus a bit more. Regarding the thing you are claiming is a lie - who said it? What was that person's state of mind? Did that person actually believe it, or could that person actually believe it? Are you talking about a statement that was actually said verbatim, or are you paraphrasing it, such that your really asserting that something was said that wasn't actually said? And, is what you're suggesting a matter of opinion generally?

For example, when you say "we didn't dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?" Did someone actually say that, or is that your characterization of what you think they mean? What you think they are really thinking about? And, is there room for the Republicans to have a different idea on economics than the one you prefer? Are you taking Paul Krugman's word as gospel, and anything that is said that he opposes you are considering that a lie? It sure as heck seems so. You have Krugman built up as this guy who sets forth "the truth," and you fail to even acknowledge that that the guy is basically a fucking Democrat party shill with a left-wing economics agenda.

Can you give your opponents at least the benefit of the assumption that they would really like the economy to be strong, the nation to be strong, and people to be healthy and happy? I mean - you make these assertions as if the Republicans knowingly want the economy to fail. Is it possible - just possible - that they just think you and the people you support are wrong and that what you guys want would be ultimately bad for the US? There is no room in your mind that Newt Gingrich has a desire for a good, strong economy?

[Coito ergo sum]

Then there's "we didn't kill the supercommittee."

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes. Sen. Tom Coburn’s mega-compromise, the nucleus of a “Gang of Six” deal that would raise some taxes while cutting spending, got nowhere. The “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner flirted with in the summer, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress. A Gallup poll about the failure had voters blaming the GOP by a 3-to-2 margin (all voters) or a 2-to-1 margin (independents).

Source.

The majority doesn't believe it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you think that is proof that the Republicans are "lying?"

I'm with the majority. And the majority do.

That's not what determines whether someone is actually lying.

The majority of Americans think Obama is doing a bad job. Is he?

[Coito ergo sum]

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich said he's not a lobbyist. But it looks like he's been introducing clients to Republican politicians.

Newt Gingrich is adamant that he is not a lobbyist, but rather a visionary who traffics in ideas, not influence. But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.

Source.

In other words, he said "IANAL."

So, what is your proof that he was a lobbyist? (speculation in the article that he "comes close to" being a lobbyist aside...)

And, if he was a lobbyist, what would that mean to you? Are lobbyists not allowed to run for office?

Most people would say he was lobbying, thinly disguised.

Honest people, anyway.

Made some millions doing it, too.

Any proof? The article you cited didn't contain proof, and actually, on page 2 of the article basically concluded that the matter had been "legally vetted" and that there is no evidence that he actually engaged in lobbying. I read the whole article. Nothing in there was evidence that he was lobbying.

And, so what? Apparently 43% of Congresspeople go on to be lobbyists. Lots of Democrats are lobbyists. What's the deal?

[Schneibster]

Cranks don't post science articles from major science journalism sites on the 'Net.

Maybe you didn't notice.

Lie (and far from the first)
The proof is here, don't be too dense to see it, or I will show everyone your lack.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1054980

That's my post, from an hour ago, a science article from a major science journalism site on the 'Net. Precisely what I claimed.

Bring it, any time.