Thursday, November 18, 2010

"Put on more weight"

I've always been really interested in torture methods. I heard a passing reference to the practice of "pressing," googled it, and found this:
Pressing, also known as peine forte et dure, was both a death sentence and a means of drawing out confessions. Adopted as a judicial measure during the 14th century, pressing reached its peak during the reign of Henry IV. In Britain, pressing was not abolished until 1772. Giles Corey, an elderly farmer in Salem, Massachusetts, was the only recorded incident of pressing to death in the United States. After eighty years in the settlement, most of them spend in hard work on his farm, he was still hale and healthy when the madness of 1692 started. He was subject to superstitions, as were most people in his day, and mentioned that he had observed his wife, his third, reading books. That was enough to bring her to the attention of the witch-hunters. His efforts to stop the insane persecution landed him in front of the judges. Giles was a crafty sort; he knew that his property might be confiscated by the state if he was condemned as a wizard. To avoid this and to ensure that his sons would inherit his land, he refused to plead. When asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, he stood mute. Under English law, he could be thrice asked to plead. After standing mute, he could not then be tried, but he could be, and was, subjected to the old punishment of peine forte et dure.... When the law was used against Giles Corey, he behaved with dignity. His last words were: "Put on more weight" (Engel 180-181).
I don't know why I find this passage so compelling.  I guess it's because even though Corey clearly recognized the lunacy of the witch trials (such a pristine example of mob mentality), when he was "caught" and tried he didn't seem to complain that the game of life was unfair, or that the people killing him were evil, or whine or preach.  He realized that you can't reason with irrational people, you just have to play the hand that you were dealt.  And he played his hand masterfully until the end.  He is basically a new personal hero of mine when it comes to focusing only on playing the game well and not stressing about the end results.

232 comments:

  1. I don't know if I'd really consider this man as crafty. He tried to save his wife from being killed, and then sacrificed himself so his family would keep the property.

    Seems pretty selfless to me.

    Kick-ass last words though, so long as you don't consider the ear-shattering screams afterwards. He certainly had chutzpah!

    ReplyDelete
  2. his "craftiness" might have served him better applied to the decision to make public his wife's reading habits which found the attention of the witch hunters

    ReplyDelete
  3. After having read some of the posts and comments I have to ask don't you people think you need therapy? Seriously. Not even trying to be funny. It doesn't even matter if you're sociopaths or not. If you all believe half the stuff you write, you need help. If not for your own sakes, then for the sake of your loved ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. understanding and sharing who you are is good therapy. it is a fact that you can't change a sociopath. he has to do the best for himself. not much a psychologist can do to figure out what's best for a sociopath. a socio can, however, find a passion that aslo serves the interests of the society and focus on that instead of being lazy and playing mind games with losers. and you, what are you, lazy or loser to suggest something that is far from the solution?

    ReplyDelete
  5. what do you believe, anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  6. TheNotablePath said...
    I don't know if I'd really consider this man as crafty. He tried to save his wife from being killed, and then sacrificed himself so his family would keep the property.


    i agree. i thought he was more heroic than crafty, but it was a misplaced heroism to sacrifice his life for property.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Outside of 3 or 4 regular commenters, I don’t know if the other regulars are sociopaths or not. I already know that those 3 or 4 won’t be helped. But they should be imprisoned. They have already admitted to being criminals anyway. They need to be put in prison so that they can’t hurt anyone else. I say they need therapy because they also seem self aware. If they are as aware as they sound, then there may be hope for them. Maybe they can use that awareness to see how far off they are from moral sanity. Remember, most sociopaths can’t be helped because they don’t know that they are sociopaths. They think the rest of the world is just like them. These guys know they are different. That knowledge might make all the difference. All of that applies to ME himself as well.

    As for the ones who may not be sociopaths but still post disturbingly cynical comments, there is even more hope for them.

    Very funny Medusa. Humor doesn’t make the truth go away though.

    And Zoe, your saying that the man in M.E.’s post sacrificed his life for property is what I’m talking about. He didn’t sacrifice his life for property. He sacrificed it for his family. Can you see the difference? Plus, he wasn’t stupid. He was honest, sharing something he might have thought was remarkably good news about his wife, only to be met with fear and ignorance. Maybe he was naïve, but that is a risk you take when you are a moral person, when you don’t hide behind juvenile cynicism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i am not a morning person. every morning when i wake up i am in hell. until my first cup of coffee. then i am ready to take on the world! and the mouse wheel doesn't seem so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I feel the love, Anon 8:50. <3

    that is a risk you take when you are a moral person

    So why take the risk?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You take the risk because the rewards, in the form of well being, good relationships with your fellow man and inner wholeness are worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The rest of the world IS sociopathic, since when is this open for debate?

    ReplyDelete
  12. What a disgustingly saccharine answer.

    Define well-being, good relationships, and inner wholeness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. does anyone know of a textbook where a collection of stories are put together as a case study for the students to see different behavioral viewpoints?

    Say a collection of two-page cases, followed by a bunch of discussion questions. and somewhere in the far back listed very differing views of the situation.

    I wish that I saw something like that before finishing high-school. What the heck were they teaching us in psychology? By the way, I'm not the 8:50 am anon who just can't seem to get it that one psychologist just can't go over a whole lot after the damage is already done.

    Dexter's dad is a very lucky situation, but seriously, a psychology teacher who really knows the stuff could reach some cases early on (before 16, preferably before 12) and do some level of social teaching, especially for the brainy sociopaths.

    I only recently realized what a moral, intellectual bully I was. I will never be able to feel otherwise toward stupid and sick, but I can hold back some of my urges to squish their brains with intellect. I mean, seriously, why doing that would be in my best interest? If I'm really into gaining more power holding back intellectual cruelty is a faster path. I just wish I saw clearly that I was doing that. I did think people were not happy around me (my loved ones) but I thought it was because they were insecure about their low lives. Ouch...

    ReplyDelete
  14. wow anon@8:50, so you think a life is worth no more than the property it accumulates? would you expect your parents to give up their lives so that you could inherit their stuff? they don't owe you their stuff, anon. what about rolling up your sleeves and going to work to support them? He sacrificed his life to protect his property. i'm assuming that being tried for wizardry was a better alternative. maybe not.

    morality, anon is determined by society. it does not exist as an absolute. he was either stupid or thoughtless or trusted the wrong person in sharing the comment about his wife reading because he must have known how that was viewed by his society.

    ReplyDelete
  15. See what I mean Postmodern Sociopath? You think you are being awfully smart and sophisticated by saying my answer is sweet. But really, you’re just being shallow. You are using big words to disguise your childishness.

    Well being, like health, is hard to pin down. You know it when you see it and I don’t see it here. But just as no one argues that there is no such thing as health just because it’s hard to define in a way that fits everyone, well being is an equally valid adjective and goal to strive for. I’m thinking well being would be like eudaimonia. Good relationships shouldn’t need defining. The fact that you are asking for one is telling all by itself. Inner wholeness is what integrity is, what moral people strive for. I don’t think any of us can experience happiness without integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zoe, I can only go by the story. The story says he wanted to give his property to his sons. He did it for his sons. Maybe that property, along with the example of standing by one’s convictions in the face of torture and even death, was his legacy to his children. It’s called dignity. Your relativism keeps you from seeing that.

    Morality is partly shaped by society. The fact that there are some morals that have been shared by societies the world over and throughout history should show you that there is more to it than that though.

    Who is the happiest, most genuinely peaceful person you know? I’m betting it isn’t you. I’m also betting that whoever this person is, he or she is almost one of the most moral people you know.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Really? "Saccharine" is a big word? Education really is on a downslope.~ I freely admit to being childish, though.

    The "I know it when I see it" argument is invalid. Quantify and present evidence or you have no case.

    I asked you to define good relationships because I'm sure you have some personal definition to which you think all should adhere. I would classify most of my relationships as good, but it seems likely that you would not. I want your definition.

    And your commentary on wholeness simply drips with religious intangibility. Elaborate.

    And, for the sake of argument, define this happiness which you feel can only be gained through integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No Zoe, what you sense is confidence. A confidence that can only come from living and thinking long and hard about things and making lots of mistakes and learning some hard lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, and as I thought was clear, I did not intend "saccharine" in the sense of "like sugar; sweet". I meant it in the sense of "sickly sweet" or "mawkish".

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm feeling rather jealous right now. Does anyone have a hard lesson to offer me?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh and Zoe, 10-1 odds you sense a hypocrite as well. Think about it. It talks like it knows, but proves it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. now i just sense big ego. you are too sure of yourself and quick to judge. the words you read on this screen are just words, anon@9:18, just text that you bring to life by filling in the spaces with your confident thoughts. in reality, you are arguing with the imaginary people in your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You ask for specificity Postmodern Sociopath. You argue like a lawyer. Daniel Birdick would be proud. But neither of you should be proud of thinking like that. Life and love can’t be quantified, nor can it be put in a box and displayed for the disinterested and closed minded cynic. I can’t parse it out for you in a brief. Nor would I want to, especially since I know the two of you would only look for small holes in the argument, which you would then use to dismiss everything else I have said. You’d pat yourselves on the back for a job well done, but truthfully, you would only be revealing the just how good you are at coming up with facile denials. See, I can sound literate too. What does that matter though to anyone other than those who wish to hide behind their words?

    Read Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius to get the philosophical underpinnings of my thinking. Read Sam Harris and Steven Pinker for a scientific perspective on morality and its connection to well being. Read almost any book on positive psychology to get a sense of how relationships, ones that are non exploitive, enhance happiness. We both know you won’t do that though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, Zoe. I do so love it when you're the voice of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with moralist anon actually, in that I don't think this Salem dude did what he did because he was sticking it to the Man, or 'playing' any kind of system.

    He just wasn't willing to give up his wife, property, and children's security for some stupid idiot fear-mongerers. It's called self-sacrifice, pretty much the opposite of sociopathy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've already read Epictetus and Pinker, thank you.

    Are they all straw men where you come from, or do you just like being ineffective?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Zoe, words like that demonstrate the dangers of indulging in too much Eastern mysticism and not enough actual self examination against the backdrop of real life. Just because you can play with your own thoughts ad infinitum doesn’t mean you have discovered anything meaningful about the world. It only shows that you are a very good mental masturbator.

    Yes, I am judging. I am judging that morality is better than those of you who don’t have it. I am judging that right and wrong matter, to every right thinking person. I am judging that those who say morality doesn’t matter are not right thinking. Immoral people, like many of you admit to being, are deluding themselves and very likely hurting others. If you all only confined yourselves to self delusion, there wouldn’t much to say. But you don’t. You then go out and hurt others. That’s when your self delusion becomes a problem for society.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You would agree with her, Medusa. :)

    Oh shit, random was my word verification.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No Postmodern Sociopath, that wasn’t the voice of reason. It was the voice of solipsism.

    ReplyDelete
  30. lol, Post, anonymi overload.

    anon somewhere above said....
    Who is the happiest, most genuinely peaceful person you know? I’m betting it isn’t you. I’m also betting that whoever this person is, he or she is almost one of the most moral people you know.


    that's just ridiculous anon. surely, you're just playing around. are you m.e.? define "moral people".

    ReplyDelete
  31. Most of the smarter people here are amoral, not immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  32. None of you see the problem with asking me to define 'good relationships' and 'moral people'? It would be remarkable if it weren't a little sad.

    Moral people are people who behave morally, who at least make the attempt to live ethically, who believe in things beyond their own transitory feelings, who are capable of seeing a bigger picture than their own egos and can act on what they see. These are the kinds of people who make society possible.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Better a solipsist than a moralist. Everything with you seems to be "right-thinking", "right vs. wrong", and projecting evils on others with no evidence to support any of it. Why should the world adhere to your conception of rightness? What makes your opinion so much more valid than every other one?

    And I'm the delusional one?~

    ReplyDelete
  34. Medusa, just how often does amorality lead to immorality? It's a distinction without a difference. Again, I have taken the time to read the posts and the comments sections. These people proudly admit to repeatedly hurting others for their own amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon, the people you refer to are people of vision. That many of them appear moral is little more than coincidence. I see a much larger picture than many of my more moralistic acquaintances. I am a strategist, by nature, after all.

    And again, I ask for your definitions. Not abstract, universalist definitions. Yours. The fact that you cannot provide them suggests that they are not as well-defined in your own mind as you'd like us to believe.

    You defensiveness is cute, though. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  36. And as long as we're in attack mode, I may as well ask this, as well:

    What's your great vision? What are you doing to change the world, to reshape it into a form more pleasant for yourself?

    Surely this cannot be a step in your master plan. It would be a rather sad plan overall, if so.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I found this blog while I was Googling something else. The name sounded intriguing, so I stopped by. The blog is one of the more interesting ones out there, I’ll grant you that. And I will also admit that many of you regular commenters are very intelligent. But you remind me of myself at a younger age. That’s why I commented the way I did. I would love to spare you and your loved ones the pain I went through before I finally grew up. However, I see that like me, you all will have to take your lumps like I did. You can’t see beyond yourselves now. I get that. I just hope you do before you waste too much more time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is it windy up there on your high horse?

    Honestly, the way you put yourself on a pedestal so unflappably makes me think you'd fit in here pretty well.

    Am I sensing a touch of narcissism, perhaps?~

    ReplyDelete
  39. Moral people are people who behave morally, who at least make the attempt to live ethically

    Also, most of the smarter people here do behave morally. They may not think morally, but they behave morally. Is morality more than just behavior, anyway? Because intent doesn't count, as I'm sure you know.

    ReplyDelete
  40. how old are you, the moral one. when you look deep enough you may see that you are a narcissist on a power trip, look closely. see if your loved ones really love you or are running away from you w every chance they can. you seem to have found the path to the special snowflake syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  41. moral anon said...
    Moral people are people who behave morally, who at least make the attempt to live ethically, who believe in things beyond their own transitory feelings, who are capable of seeing a bigger picture than their own egos and can act on what they see. These are the kinds of people who make society possible.


    now please define "behave morally" and"live ethically".

    actually, anon, sociopaths believe in things beyond their own transitory feelings and are capable of seeing a bigger picture than their own egos and act on what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  42. First, he blabs about his wife's reading, being a "superstitious" fellow, in a witchhunt environment. Meanwhile his wife was a very sensible kind person who didn't believe in witches and did not participate in witch hunts. Then he works hard, ineffectually, to try and save her and then brings scrutiny on himself. Then instead of trying to fight back, at the risk of the loss of his land (and maybe save his wife), he shuts up and asks for heavier weights and a long slow painful death. His wife gets hung shortly after. And his son in laws get the land.

    Had he fought and dragged it out he might have outlasted the hysteria, saved himself, not been tortured and maybe saved his good wife and kept his land.

    He's an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Postmodern Sociopath said...
    Is it windy up there on your high horse?


    ha

    ReplyDelete
  44. Where's UKan when you need him to detect her polarization process that you consider narcissism?

    ReplyDelete
  45. all the proselytizing, moral anon, makes me wonder if what you read here is hitting too close to home? you are working too hard to put space between yourself and the sociopaths.

    your preaching lacks empathy. your references to morals and ethics lack depth, as if your knowledge does not go beyond a textbook understanding.

    it's time to come out of the closet. you are empathy challenged and no better than anyone else, here, or anywhere. if you are not aware of this, then you may very well also be a narcissist as the others have suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  46. i would like to hear more about this polarization process. moral anon is a she, not he?

    ReplyDelete
  47. He's an idiot.

    lol.

    didn't the witch trials involve submitting alleged witches to tests that if they survived would only prove they had supernatural powers? and they would be executed as witches. he probably didn't have a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @PMS: 21, with an over inflated sense of self importance

    ReplyDelete
  49. We've been averaging one, whack-job sounding Anon a day who ended up being UKan effing with everyone for kicks... most of the time. But I'll indulge, because I'm bored.

    Who are these regulars that are criminally abusing people? We have regulars who have committed violent crimes (past tense) and regulars who sell less than legal product, but I don't see these crazed, violent felons running amok that you feel so righteously should be imprisoned.

    And then you have the gall to hop on your high horse, saying how we remind you of yourself at a young age. Pray tell, did you go to the pen for your morally repugnant deeds, and if so, did it beat the morals into you, or was that from fear of more prison rape?

    What you fail to realize is that sociopathy is not a mental disorder of degenerates, but one of uninhibited opportunism without a conscience in the way. How we decide to act, be it in accordance to or opposed to the social norms, laws, and societal morals, is up to us, one choice at a time.

    There are no perpetual villains. Those are only in your Disney movies.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Pot, kettle, black.

    And how cute, it learned how to click links.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You can't tell, Zoe? I'd almost be humorous to tell you your key word was hypocrite. :)

    They come to your blog ignorant of who they are, WANTING to polarize you. YOU are socio (bad). THEY are moral (good). It's us and them, to them. The most feeble attempt to grasping one's identity I've seen here yet. Have pity.

    You're also correct regarding the lack of empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ anon.
    i understand your stance but i have difficulty in believing in it. the most, as you say, 'moral' people are only human themselves.
    everything is a reaction. you are reacting to your past life you saw as fruitless. in the same way, an inherently kind person will often find kindness to have been fruitless/problematic for them.

    every life with its set of circumstances is unique, and to judge people for not honouring your definition of what is practical and right is a little bit silly, naive and dogmatic.

    i don't ever indulge in hurting people deliberately, it brings me no pleasure whatsoever. but guess what anon, i consider myself ammoral in that i don't follow expected rules of behaviour, but my instinct. it helps me to a degree that i am naturally nurturing, not destructive, but i can still be judged as causing destruction, guess why? because all is relative.

    so what's the difference between someone like me, born with a desire not to hurt, who then goes on to indadvertently hurt others, and someone born with a desire to hurt, who reigns in that desire and becomes some upstanding member of society? is there a difference? is it choice? no. it's an organic reaction.

    so how do you account for this apparent dichotomy, someone who finds little pleasure in destroying others who also considers themselves ammoral?

    ReplyDelete
  53. ...and Mama Morality has left the building.

    Big surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'd like to think tears were involved, even if they were only tears of frustration.

    "WHY CAN'T THEY SEE HOW MUCH BETTER THAN THEM I AM?!"

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'm half expecting a wall-of-text to make me mentally flaccid in T Minus...~

    @notme:
    I think you mistake destructive tendencies with predatory tendencies. The predator seeks to cull the herd of the weak, seek out viable prey, and remove possible threats. Such actions can be destructive, but also constructive, too.

    Those who show as weak only have themselves to blame. It's not like we actively go out of our way to sadistically hunt for victims as a general MO.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @zoe

    I think a lot of the evidence (spectral evidence) was presented by accusers afficted


    according to wiki

    his wife voiced that she thought the accusers were lying and this brought scrutiny and accusations on her

    the man took the punishment not so that his land would be passed on (it was already confiscated) but as a protest against the trials

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mama Morality. I like it Medusa.

    Moaning Mama Morality (and something tells me you will read this), where to begin?

    You imply that asking for specifics is a cheap lawyer’s trick. I say that your refusal to answer PoMo’s and Zoe’s requests for definitions is a cheap form of evasion, designed to hide the fact that your arguments are nothing more than hot air. Of course, everyone here saw that vacuity quite easily, but you don’t. You can’t afford to, can you? It might mean the end of the ‘reformed sinner’ identity you have created for yourself.

    Which brings me to the charge of narcissism. That makes sense. You didn’t come here to help. You came here to make us wrong. But that wasn’t your deepest motivation, was it love? You came here to silence the voice within, the voice that sounds suspiciously like ours. Apparently, that isn’t working so well for you, otherwise you’d be spending your time saving the world rather than on here arguing with people you desperately need to look down on. No, this was and is all about you, isn’t it snookums?

    And your breezy dismissal of Eastern mysticism? What you are really dismissing is an existential confrontation with your own subjectivity. Your dishonesty with yourself is both astounding and utterly banal.

    I won’t even bother addressing your comments on morality and well being and relationships, etc. You didn’t deign to make a case or present evidence or even state a coherent argument. In other words, you did not invite us to reason with you; you opted to preach at us instead. You just threw a bunch of assertions out there. Sweetheart, haven’t you heard? What can be asserted without reason can be dismissed just as easily.

    But do come back Mamma Mia Morality. You were amusing. Plus you gave me the first excuse to write a wall of text that I've had in months.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Daniel Birdick would be proud.

    Apparently Mama got one thing right, at least.~

    ReplyDelete
  60. PoMo, the Big Mama explosion of nonsense words above is what happens when people read without critically thinking about what they read.

    ReplyDelete
  61. It came here to polarize. It had fun. It left. I'm going to make my own kool-aid now.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Haha... yes, Daniel, I suspect so. Oh, well. Such folk are just hopeless.~ If it's not wrapped up in Glenn Beckian propaganda, they just can't process it.~ :D

    ReplyDelete
  63. a conscience constrains free-will. i am more alive, and more worthy of living, than a normal person, even if *some* of my decisions would not be considered ethical by society.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  64. "a conscience constrains free-will."

    How could you tell?

    ReplyDelete
  65. You didn’t disappoint me Daniel Birdick. Your words were nothing more than hollow rhetoric. From what I can tell from here and Dr Robert’s site, your words always are.

    You people are lost. I see that now. It was a waste of my time coming on here. I suspected that, even as I was typing. Yet I hoped. And guess what? You all may make fun of my hope, but I wouldn’t trade places with any of you for all the money in the world. I would rather have hope, to believe that even some of you have goodness within. I still choose to believe that. You are the ones refusing to do the work necessary to excavate that goodness.

    Good luck to you all. I hope you find happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Good luck saving the world, Mama.

    And I mean that sincerely.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Not an diagnosis Postmodern Sociopath. Just an observation.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thank you Medusa! I'm not even offended that you christened me Mama. I thought it was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Not an diagnosis Postmodern Sociopath. Just an observation.

    Aaaaand... that's a yes.

    I was talking about you, hon. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  70. as an uberempath....best blog yet! great arguments both sides..please keep going. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Postmodern Sociopath, you are young. Don’t you think you will want more than this when you get older? Don't you think you will want to love, really love someone else? To know what it feels like to be deeply loved in return?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I would rather have hope, to believe that even some of you have goodness within. I still choose to believe that. You are the ones refusing to do the work necessary to excavate that goodness.

    Who are you to say that we don't, Saint Anonymous?

    Wipe away your hypocritical, pseudo-martyr tears, because they are blinding you.

    This is not "Do-Gooder Sociopath World", this is "Sociopath World".

    I think the closest you'll get to the former is my blog.~ Heh.

    As for happiness, I'm a very happy person. I figured out what to do to be happy in life, and it's been working for the last several years, quite well.

    It didn't involve an old musty tome or a Fortune 500 version of self-help. It involved a lot of introspection.

    I didn't seek knowledge from Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. I have this level of vanity, in which, I actually think that I might have a few good ideas of my own. I think you'll find a lot of 'paths to be quite keen in the areas of practicality, social fairness, and maintaining happiness. It's a leisure we have from not being weighed down from constant emotional burden.

    You call it hollow. You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a 'path, or are one, and are in complete denial.

    You strike me as one of those ex-addicts that found Jesus and has a stick up his bum to help convert the world so they can find peace the way you did.

    You preachy addicts are all the same; Worthless, subhuman waste. Even when you're off the junk, you're on something, and Jesus isn't much better. Not when you throw it around like a righteous hammer.

    It's good to know you aren't getting hammered and diddling little boys. Now go the fuck away.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Don't pull that shit with me, Anon. My age is irrelevant.

    Want more than what, exactly? You don't know what I already have, and yet you presume to judge it insufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  74. my other comment didn't post.

    anon reminds me of my narc dad, and i can vouch that is NOT a good thing. i see when someone is not sincere. i prefer ammorality over insincerity any day of the week.

    go be a preacher, you're clearly on your way there. i won't be coming to your church.

    ReplyDelete
  75. notme: Reminds me of my dad, too. :D Narcs are all alike, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @anon 12:40...why would "they" want or miss a feeling/emotion that "they" never had. You are going by what YOU know and how YOU feel, and what YOU would miss. I dont think postmodern sociopath is that young...define young?
    I am new to this site and I have realized that as an empath and as much as I do side with 'Mama morality,' her argument is based on concepts/ideas that cannot be measured or defined. It is something that one just feels, so it will never make a good argument. However, I must say, it is quite annoying and exhausting fucking feeling all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 'Postmodern Sociopath, you are young. Don’t you think you will want more than this when you get older? Don't you think you will want to love, really love someone else? To know what it feels like to be deeply loved in return?'

    you make it sound like love is something you can engineer. you don't understand it. bless you for trying. I'll be honest, i don't understand you. I don't know if that's cos we're clearly quite different, or if it's cos you make no sense in your own head.

    ReplyDelete
  78. On another note, Mama, I find it very entertaining that you keep dodging my more pointed questions. Adorable.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I still doubt inherent narc in Mama. Hypocritical, yes I mentioned that. Here to gauge her intellect by way of polarizing an arguement and baiting you to tag it, yes and with fully knowing what to expect from it and hiding it though not so well. Pleased with the results? No. There's not enough further argument for narc. I see more unveiled narc on the socio-side, but I assume that's just fighting fire with fire because afterall Daniel did tag it with stunning accuracy.

    My kool-aid was good.

    ReplyDelete
  80. as i am not all-knowing, i will give you the benefit of the doubt anon. for now.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I actually like the morality anon. I like people who are passionate for what they believe in. Its refreshing to know people are out there willing to sacrafice themselves for something. I will go against the grain and say that I like this guy in the story too.
    I don't take offense to her saying I should be thown in jail either. The fact that a jury of my peers would most likely convict me if there was enough evidence shows that the majority would agree. Since they do not have anything, you will have to suffer knowing that people like me will be soiling your streets to the end of time.
    You guys all need a dictionary. I think anon is clear where she stands.
    Polarization is exactly what anon is about. She is to morality as I am to decadence.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Why are you guys so hostile? Yes, I have firm opinions and I am not afraid to share them, but I don’t want any of you fuck off or die or whatever. Maybe NotablePath, you sound hostile because you know I am telling the truth. Being pathological, sociopath or otherwise, is not the road to happiness. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t it. I don’t think you have originality Notablepath. I think you are addicted to your ego. I think that is all you have. You could have more if you tried seeing beyond yourself.

    I’m not a saint. I’m just someone whose been there and done that.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Postmodern Sociopath, I only asked your age because I thought I read somewhere that you said you were 20. I think that if you are that young, you might be limiting yourself unnecessarily and prematurely, that’s all.

    And yes, I am avoiding getting into a point by point by point rebuttal, the way you and Daniel and Zoe would want me to. I already know that’s going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I have one Andrew Jackson that says you're Mama Morality :P

    If so, good show. It killed my boredom If not, oy vey.

    The only thing that didn't seem like you, was the complete lack of logic in arguments, and seemingly blind passion. But, I haven't seen your whole array of anonymous persona available. I fancy that I'll fashion a digital stable to keep tabs on them.

    ReplyDelete
  85. And I don't know why you're so concerned about it. I think you're limiting yourself, too, but your age has nothing to do with my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Oh, NotAble. I guess you'll have to be right, eventually. Don't get used to money if you keep making bets like that, though.~

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm not mama morality. I'm taking a break on entertaining people. I don't cheerlead myself, unlike you Not Able.
    I know what's right and wrong. Doing things wrong feels more right, if that makes sense. If you don't like it I don't care. The fact that I benefit from peoples suffering is humorous. If I could tell you the stories you would surely see some greyness in your world of black and white. Some people deserve to suffer. I'm sure watching me suffer would be just as humorous for you Moral Mamba.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 'some people deserve to suffer'

    yes. you. lol.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Speaking of which, my new pom poms did just come in the mail. They're red and silver.

    @Postmodern Sociopath: Age is overrated. Age without experience and various perspectives bears no fruit of wisdom; just sour grapes of wrath.

    Mama Morality was probably too high out of its mind to remember all those years of wisdom-forming moral fiber.

    Ugh, that image is giving me indigestion.

    ReplyDelete
  90. this place is a moral vacuum that leads to absolutely nowhere.

    anyone who comes here just gets swallowed up.
    you want chaos, you've got it.

    THIS is your legacy. lolage

    ReplyDelete
  91. Speaking of images, I'm imagining notme giving that spiel with a huge, mostly smoked cigar, worn shotgun, a five-o-clock shadow and mutton chops.

    I dunno about the mutton chops. Why not?

    Oh, and camo. Can't forget the camo.

    Goin' for a smoke now. Thanks notme, ya jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  92. did i hurt your feelings?

    mmm a smoke sounds good. ditto.

    ReplyDelete
  93. It wasn't Ukan.

    And yes, I am avoiding getting into a point by point by point rebuttal, the way you and Daniel and Zoe would want me to. I already know that’s going nowhere.

    Well, if you want to convince logical people of something, you have to use their language. Logic.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I like that image, too.

    My MCDs went stale. YUCK!

    I didn't bother finishing it. I'll get another pack in a bit. Kinda killed the smoking mood on that one.

    ;(

    ReplyDelete
  95. It's Bonnie. Of Bonnie & Clyde.

    ReplyDelete
  96. lovely. i'll so superimpose my face on that. quite fetching.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Medusa, they claim to value logic above all else, but I don’t believe them. I think they value their ego above all else and they twist logic to suit their desires and to hide their moral blindness. They cherry pick evidence whether than acknowledge that all the rest of the world, all throughout history and even in the animal kingdom, where morality can be seen also, is right and they are the ones that are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  98. There's some ego in there, sure. Same as you. Same as most everyone, anon.

    It's called being human.

    Morality in the animal kingdom? No, morality is a human construct. Same as science is. Psychology. All that.

    Perhaps you should visit yesterday's post and read my wall-of-text about the predator/prey dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Nurturing your young when you aren't hungry enough to eat them is hardly considered moral behavior. Neither is spending time with your pack and assisting each other.

    That's called survival.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous let's not use logic in describing what you are advocating. Morality and logic are polar opposites.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Notable Path said

    "Those who show as weak only have themselves to blame"

    Well, isn't that a handy way of sloughing off responsibility for your actions.

    ReplyDelete
  102. UKan: I knew you had it in you.

    Notable: I had a debate about survival not too long ago highlighting the whole "helping the pack" for survival factoid. You will find the person you're addressing rejected their pack and regrets it deeply, and chooses to continue doing so for no real reason.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Morality and logic are polar opposites.

    Not really. It really just boils down to a semantics issue.

    ReplyDelete
  104. with respect anon, you are a little confused whilst having a point. socios are ego-ridden, and not only socios but everyone inherently justifies the value of their existence somehow.

    what i do not like about socios, which is part and parcel of their make-up, is this arrogance i see. that they are right and everyone else is wrong. not all socios are like this, but i wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
    but it really isn't hugely different to the general public.

    as for morality, medusa is right, it is a human construct and as always, simply a creation from language.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Yo Mamma: I’m bored now.

    You know sweet pea, I wanted to be annoyed with you, but I couldn’t quite get there. I think it’s because you sound like a hippie to me now. So in the spirit of the New Age and all that good shit, I’ll leave you with a few suggestions you might want to try on, in between your astral projecting and Tarot readings. First suggestion, get a life. Just sayin. It is possible that you are older, but if you are and if you are being sincere (and not one of the other commenters fooling around), then you have not gotten out much. You can’t have and still be this earnest. I had this same reaction to Jesse. I couldn’t quite believe it. I still can’t. I also can’t believe it’s not butter, that’s another story. My 2nd suggestion is that you take a good look in the mirror. You call other people lost. Perhaps you are the one lost. You see what you are. Can you dig it? Third, I suggest you give listening a try. I love how you don’t actually engage with anything anyone here is saying. They ask you questions, you don’t respond or you blithely dismiss what they are saying because you won’t stoop to that level. Apparently logical explanation is beneath you. You can’t save the world if you aren’t willing to acknowledge it exists love. That gives more credence to the possibility that you are in fact narcissistic. Narcissism by definition is solipsistic, isn’t it?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Ukan is seemingly equating morality with emotion.

    Emotion may accompany morality, but they are separate things.

    Morality is the math of survival, both for the individual as well as the group.

    Some attach religious or good/evil value to it, but it is not necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  107. 'Notable: I had a debate about survival not too long ago highlighting the whole "helping the pack" for survival factoid. You will find the person you're addressing rejected their pack and regrets it deeply, and chooses to continue doing so for no real reason.'

    if you regret something anon then you weren't being true to yourself in the first place. who's fault is that but your own?
    don't assume others will betray themselves like you have.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Well, isn't that a handy way of sloughing off responsibility for your actions.

    Not Quite.

    I wrote on the subject, too, but I'd figure you might find something from Psychology Today to be more valid, as the horse's mouth is apparently unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Its not semantics. Morality clouds logic. Sometimes the moral choice is logical, but in order to be moral you have to make that choice for the good in it, not the logic in it. If a logical choice happends to be immoral then you would choose to not follow logic. Morality is king when it rules someones life. It weighs you down with useless feelings like guilt and pitty, which in my opinion is like self loathing and self righteousness.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Medusa, you know how to turn a phrase when you want to. Say more about what you mean when you say Morality is the math of survival...

    ReplyDelete
  111. Not Me: I said that, not Miss Morals. Pretty much sums up the only worthy read. I don't get why borderlines are so hell bent on changing us in one third of their personality while another third of it is perfectly socio, maybe even more so than us! I guess Miss Morals has a lot to compensate for... but it's not Narc. That's a mask, no doubt. It's not even possible for a "normal" sheep to be that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  112. As for morality being seperate from emotion, not sure about that one. In theory maybe, but as it plays out in life, it seems to me that morality as it is popularly understood is always accompanied by one kind of emotion or the other. I agree with Ukan's last comment.

    ReplyDelete
  113. yes sorry anon 2.15.

    thought it was the other one.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Moral people are great. You need them. Their reputation is useful when your own is tarnished. I like moral people because if you get them to like you and slowly introduce them to your grey world they will clear your name for you. I can guarantee you anon you would love me outside of this forum. I know people exactly like you and they make excuses for everything I do now.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Notable, does this mean if some bloke rapes a girl, she is to blame for showing her weakness?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anon @ 2.25: The context of that question seems to WANT (or need) to extend beyond the points in the discussion, and to prove what? That apples and oranges are different? Yes, in fact they are. At least try wearing a mask of thin respect toward the talking points next time.

    ReplyDelete
  117. (continuing my previous post without having read read the in-between comments)

    ... or, if you prefer an alternative semantical approach, with a more traditional view of morality, you have 3 choices to approach living:

    1. Immorality. Going against the established moral code. Rebellion. This approach is often no better or smarter than traditional 'morality', because, when it comes down to it, you are still working within the structure of 'established' morality. Morality shapes your immorality; you can't have immorality without morality. Many of these immoral types end up getting themselves into trouble with their environment, for obvious reasons. Not really beneficial to the self or the group when this happens.

    2. Amorality. Doing whatever serves the self, which eventually often means serving the group by proxy, unless you don't mind prison, stoning, and shit like that.

    3. Morality. Blind adherence to established rules. Most people fall into this category.

    #2 and #3 generally have the same mean (average) effect, taken as a whole. Sure, sometimes #2 will do shit that hurts others, but so does #3, because adhering to anything blindly can have effects that you might not foresee. See: Salem Witch Trials.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Hey Medusa, what if I've enjoyed living out all three of those? Is that bad?~

    ReplyDelete
  119. nice one medusa.

    and serving the self with amorality can take both selfish and selfless forms.

    amorality is rebellion with a cause.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm not confused by the word morality. I never said it was emotion. I don't do the redefine webster debates. The word means what it means and so do I.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Anon at 2:34

    Just trying to follow the train of thought. You'll be okay.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Notable, does this mean if some bloke rapes a girl, she is to blame for showing her weakness?

    Anon @ 2.25: The context of that question seems to WANT (or need) to extend beyond the points in the discussion, and to prove what? That apples and oranges are different? Yes, in fact they are. At least try wearing a mask of thin respect toward the talking points next time.

    *claps*

    To answer your question, anyway, it's not her fault for being prey that she was raped. She's not to blame, so to say. It's nature. There is no fault at hand here, other than nature itself.

    Her being prey enabled a predator to hone into her scent of vulnerability. It enabled.

    I'll break it down for you in simple, animal analogy.

    If a sea creature is bleeding, is it to blame for a predator catching its scent and eating it?

    No. It's the circumstances, and the nature of it.

    My point wasn't to defend predators and belittle prey. Just point out basic animal tendencies.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Say more about what you mean when you say Morality is the math of survival...

    Let me rephrase and say that true morality is a result of the math of survival.

    You programming nerds can equate this with "if/then/else" statements.

    The origin of all religion, good/bad and right/wrong value statements is this very math.

    The problem arises when people skip over this math, and see morals as 'rules'. This is no longer 'true' morality, but law.

    For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with Jesus' teachings, but there is something wrong with the way his teachings have been blindly implemented.

    The Church.

    ReplyDelete
  124. yes. classic displacement. language is a blight when used by the blind.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Not Me: Is that to say that when language is used AS a blight to lead the blind it is "misplacement"? :)

    Notable: You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Therefore, Ukan and Daniel, your version of morality does not refer to 'true' morality, but the instead to the aforementioned rulebook that most people blindly adhere to. What most people, moral or not, will call 'morality'. #3 of my 2:36 pm post.

    Or that's how I see it today, anyway.

    And blah blah blah blah blah

    ReplyDelete
  127. i see language as a creature all of its own. it can be over-fed to a point of non-recognition as to why it needed to eat in the first place.

    creating a monster that devours indiscriminately.

    ReplyDelete
  128. yes anon. whether it's consciously used like that or not.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Ah, I suppose I'll save that one for another day then.

    ReplyDelete
  130. True morality. I wonder how msny people have pushed what they feel is their idea of true morality. Theur morality wasn't tue though right medusa. Only your definition

    ReplyDelete
  131. Notable

    Thanks for clearing that up for me

    ReplyDelete
  132. Ukan, my definition isn't my definition. It's logic. Nature. God, whatever.

    Filtered through language.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Hot damn. I've got a new pack of Black & Golds, supper, and 'Enter the Void' just popped to watch. I hope it doesn't suck.

    Language... *grumbles* ...don't get me started.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Does anyone even read Not Ables comments?

    ReplyDelete
  135. I discovered a neat new word a couple of days ago.

    Apparently, I am an apatheist.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Medusa your definition of morality being the will of a god is not new. Morality is one of the most subjective words in the history of human thought. Its easily influenced.

    ReplyDelete
  137. UKan: You mean that's a real person? I thought it was just a glitch in the comment system.~

    ReplyDelete
  138. Ha, my girlfriend is a self proclaimed apath.eist

    ReplyDelete
  139. I read that more as "Prove to me God exists, now prove to me God doesn't exist as you can do neither." Not necessarily Medusa saying God told her to post about morality here.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Good christ, Ukan, did I say that anything I'm saying is some sort of fabulous new invention?

    ReplyDelete
  141. No I just found it amusing that your definition proves my point.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Alright fuckers, I'm gonna go get a goddamn McRib sandwich now.

    ReplyDelete
  143. My definition proves what point? That people are blind idiots?

    I think we all already knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Medusa can't have you like IKan, UKan. I won't allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  145. My point: 2:11pm

    ReplyDelete
  146. Obvious denial. I already know if I make fun of you enough you'll fall in love with me.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Ok, I didn’t follow all of that Medusa.

    If by ‘math of survival’ you are referring to something akin to the evolutionary algorithm of natural selection and that morality is one of its many products, then yes, I agree.

    Wrt the definition of morality, I go with the simple right/wrong, good/evil distinction. Controversy and conflict comes in when people differ about which behavior gets labeled right and which wrong and why. The only way to label one behavior good and another evil is if you have an objective standard to judge by. That objective standard would comprise ‘true morality’. There is no evidence that I know of that indicates that such a standard exists. In absence of said standard, people are left with only tradition (civic and/or religious), philosophy, emotion and utility to arbitrate moral conflicts. Of those four, emotion is by far the most potent motivator for most. Emotion is very often the deciding factor. Having said that, I do not equate morality with emotion. I do however see that morality as it is practiced and talked about among the general populace, is always accompanied by very strong emotion. Some even argue that proto-moral emotions come first. Rationalization (rule making and justifying, etc) quickly follow.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @PmS /Sheldon Cooper

    "WHY CAN'T THEY SEE HOW MUCH BETTER THAN THEM I AM?!"


    Because your not better than them.
    Your head is so far up your own arse all you can see is your own shit.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I thought it was fairly clear that I was engaging in ventriloquy, not actually saying that.

    Were the quotes not obvious enough? Learn to read context.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Because that may have been too subtle for you Anon, I'll rework the entire thing.

    I'd like to think tears were involved, even if they were only tears of frustration. I'd like to imagine that they're foaming at the mouth and screaming "WHY CAN'T THEY SEE HOW MUCH BETTER THAN THEM I AM?!"

    Are you fucking receiving me on all frequencies now, Pyle?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Not Able Path Said:

    You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a 'path, or are one, and are in complete denial.


    ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  152. Sheldon Cooper Said:

    Are you fucking receiving me on all frequencies now, Pyle?




    ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  153. I'm not sure why Sheldon Cooper should be insulting. He's a (fictional) genius, after all. I don't really see the downside.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Hey P-Mod, what's going to happen when that borderline tweaker's high goes away and they stop posting here? I'm not going to bother returning because any answer you give at this point will be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Are you all sociopaths? (not counting mama anonymous)

    ReplyDelete
  156. I swear, I always miss the fun when the Messiah Complex Care Bears come to play.

    @mt
    No, not everyone here is a sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Hi Pythias,
    I heard my principle tell a teacher that I was a psychopath, so I have been searching for what they meant and I found this site. I am worried that they will be watching for me to do something wrong now. Do you have any ideas of how I can make them think I'm not a psychopath? (What I read online said psychopaths and sociopaths were similar)

    ReplyDelete
  158. Cooperate and act more normal. I had the same thing happen with a court ordered therapist. I told my attorney that we didn't get along and she was slandering me. They got a second opinion and I played along this time. If you are in a country that pays attention to that disorder you got to be more careful on being yoursel, otherwise you will be institutionalized.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Thanks. I live in America. I don't think I act too different. I don't cut up animals like I read psychopaths do online. The only thing is that I've been caught setting fires a few times, but I can just not do that for a while. I don't know why, but everyone loves my sister even though she does really bad things, no one ever thinks it was her. I think I will try to act like her. I will be careful now.

    ReplyDelete
  160. From psycho saint to psycho kid. M.E. attracts them all.

    ReplyDelete
  161. You don't have to cut up animals or be a serial killer. I thought the same thing when this stupid bitch told the court about her percieved image of me. She looked stupid when the other therapist contradicted her. Like I said earlier, you need to use people who have morality on their side to advocate for you. If you try yourself you will fail, because you are to young to immitate it and you tarnished your image already.

    ReplyDelete
  162. don't like to cover old ground but mama morality said 'you people are lost.' this jumped out at me cos it's precisely what my narc dad said to me once. i remember being dumb-founded at the hypocricy of it, coming from him. it really does seem that narcs have key common traits.

    @ mt

    no, not everyone here's a socio, just that many are emotionally challenged in their own unique way. lol but true.

    also mt, if it's any consolation, i have a huge family and the two likely socios are the most outwardly normal-seeming ones of all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Hi UKan,
    I have one teacher who likes me alot and a different one who I think likes me. I'm good at math and social studies, so they like me more. I'll be extra nice with them. I think they would say that I'm a good kid who is pretty smart with a bad home. I don't know why the principle thinks I am a psychopath, but that teacher is the english teacher and I hate english and I don't do well in it, so she already thought I was not good.

    I found the psychopath checklist today and they might be right, but I'm too young for it to count right now.

    Hi notme,
    What do your family members do that makes them seem normal?

    Thank you,
    mt

    ReplyDelete
  164. Wow, mt spells "alot" just like I was taught to.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Hello mt,

    Being extra sweet to the teachers that already like you is a good plan. Are you in high school right now? That's a time when many kids go through weird stages. Especially coming from a "bad home," fire-setting may be brushed off as a phase or a ploy for attention. That would be a good thing.

    If I were you, I wouldn't worry about whether or not I was a psychopath, but focus, as you seem to be, on not appearing to be one.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Hi Aerianne,
    Oops. Like I said, I'm not very good with english.

    Hi Pythias,
    Thank you. I am in 8th grade right now, and next year I will start high school.

    Thanks,
    mt

    ReplyDelete
  167. @ mt

    well, these socios here are better suited to giving you the drill on blending in.

    but since you asked, it helps that the socios in my family are emotionally stable. that helps to give an impression of 'normality.'

    my brother (who i suspect is on the sociopathic spectrum) is very sociable, has a lot of friends. confident, is great at giving advice, as is the other socio. just regular guys. (don't get me wrong, they both have a propensity to be remarkably insensitive, and simply don't realise what jerks they can be, but people who are naive just assume that's regular human/male behaviour). lol. just be measured. i know, boring huh.

    i am not qualified to give you any tips though, that would be patronising coming from a non-socio.

    ReplyDelete
  168. It's okay, mt, I don't mind the spelling. We just had a thread on here last week where I was telling everyone that I was actually taught to spell "a lot" as "alot".

    ReplyDelete
  169. Haha. I see. I was taught "a lot", but I forget.

    ReplyDelete
  170. I just found a thread on a spelling and grammar forum, where in someone says that their spelling book, from the 1980's, taught them to spell it as one word.
    So, the trend did persist past the 1960's.

    ReplyDelete
  171. medusa. care to elaborate? :)

    ReplyDelete
  172. Hmmmmmmmmm.

    I was thinking something similar myself.

    ReplyDelete
  173. well this is what i was thinking: what the hell is going on when we cover everything from sadism to spelling books?

    the switching of subjects is ever so charming i must say. :D

    ReplyDelete
  174. The younger years of sociopathy are the toughest. Everything you do is subconscious and destructive. You are completely unaware anything your doing has a effect on people. Your ability to rewrite history justifying everything you do becomes the reality you live. You don't cover being the person you are so your deviant side is as open as your charming side.
    My principle said that I was a demon with a angel face. I was in there almost everyday. They suspended me, then figured out that I was getting suspended on purpose. They ended up giving me in house suspension where I had to study in the principals office and get picked up from there so I had no contact with the other kids. I would influence the other kids who wanted to fit in to do crazy things like call in bomb threats and set fires around the school so we could get a day off. I liked learning, but not what they wanted to teach me. They ended up expelling me from the entire school district. They had this councel with all the teachers like a tribunal. They pulled out all the dirty laundry including some pictures a teacher had caught me drawing in art class of people being shot, blown up, ak47s (I got good at drawing these), and someone being hung. My teacher wrote a scathing review of how I was outspoken in my twisted views of law and order that I felt my good behaviour was a favor to be given and taken at will, and that I wrote reports that justified terrorism. My parents still have the letter. She was the only teacher that liked me, so I thought she would write it in my favor. Back then I couldn't see how anyone could get so worked up about what I was doing. The tribunal ended up expelling me from the district.
    I never thought anything I was doing was that harmful, and I still have a hard time. My girlfriend made me a 'human point' system. If I do something that's inhumane to someone she takes a point from me. If I do something considerate I get a human point. I'm at -6. I had +4 but I lost several because I did something she thought was awful recently.

    ReplyDelete
  175. @UKan

    When I was in elementary school, my mother found some of my drawings: a guy open with his intestines spilling out (a particularly good one, imho), a person being hanged, etc. When she asked me why I drew them, I told her that I wanted to see what a cut person and a hanged person looked like. She explained that people would see drawings like this as a sign that I was a dangerous child, and that I had better stick to rainbows and mountains. She was a pretty good mother for explaining that instead of freaking out.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Mt, just a note - while you're too young to be diagnosed as having AsPD, you can still be made to see a psychologist of some sort, and if you seem bad enough, if America is like England, they can take you away from your family and into the 'care' of social services (do you have that over there? I'm sure there's something similar anyway). Though you might not mind?

    ReplyDelete
  177. Yawn.

    Sounds like we've played this act before. The only difference is that Notable is stringing alongside PMS and Birdick is leading the chorus.

    Although I find it kind of hilarious, not the actual scene its self, but its participants. It seems as though you have a seething contempt for Notable, PMS. Of course, you express this only with snide remarks, I suppose.

    Why is this, PMS? (Does his coincidentally similar writing style irk you?) Or am I simply sensing tension where there is none?

    Oh, and since I am bored, I'd like to divulge into another matter:

    PMS: "Anon, the people you refer to are people of vision. That many of them appear moral is little more than coincidence. I see a much larger picture than many of my more moralistic acquaintances. I am a strategist, by nature, after all."

    It sounds as though this is your way of intellectualizing your lack of morality. You say that you are a strategist as though you are excusing yourself for your position. Why do you feel the need to excuse yourself? Why didn't the comment simply finish with, "I see a much larger picture than many of my more moralistic acquaintances."?

    Perhaps it was a subconscious slight of hand, but the comment does not read as a person who is unexcusingly immoral.

    Finally, I think the moral anon was trying to argue a moot point. The qualities (s?)he was referring to do not exist on an objective plane of existence. They're merely subjective, man-made notions. Because of this, you can see the absurdity and futility in arguing them to someone who does not accept them. (This is something that the anon failed to convey properly.)

    ReplyDelete
  178. @2:

    On Notable: I hate his constant plugs for his blog and his tendency to cast himself as some dark figure and then to backpedal the moment it turns sour. That's all.

    On "strategist": I fail to see how a remark on my conception of myself appears as any sort of excuse, but I can't very well control how you read things, can I?

    On the moral anon: I know, but I do get so very bored. I can keep my trap shut the next time something vaguely interesting happens, if that would be better for you.~

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.