Saturday, June 22, 2013

Thoughts = crimes?

Can you be punished for being a sexual sadist without ever having acted upon it? Apparently, yes, at least in Canada. The Star reports the sentencing of an 18 year old who shared his sadistic sexual fantasies with a classmate, then spent the next 77 days in pre-sentence custody and years of probation for it:

This sadist is a handsome, strapping young man, in his neat navy trousers and cardigan, nicely groomed. The observer imagines a teenage girl would be quite chuffed to receive a Facebook overture from so pleasant-seeming a boy. Except this sadist wrote: “I wanna cut ur stomach open and stick my d—k in it.’’

From her end of the online chat, the girl responded blandly: “OK.’’

Sadist: “Break ur legs and (obscenity deleted) on ur face.’’

Girl: “k calm down.’’

That, De Filippis concluded, constituted the bodily harm threat, rejecting the defence’s argument that the Facebook conversation utterances were merely desires, not intended action.

And the girl (eventually) felt threatened, so pretty much that in itself is a crime?  

“I find that the defendant is a sadist,’’ the judge wrote. “The Facebook conversation reflects his need to cause bodily harm as a source of sexual gratification. He described the violent nature of the acts contemplated and sought the complainant’s submission to his desire. He also said he did not care if she consented.

Well, which is it? That he sought her submission or suggested he didn't care if she wanted it or not? And isn't playing at lack of consent one of the key elements of BDSM? Is there any way to criminally sentence this guy without criminalizing a host of other sexual "deviants"?

“I have no doubt these words were meant to be taken seriously and that they intimidated the complainant. Indeed, I am confident he derived pleasure from the threats themselves.’’

This is a crime in Canada? To proposition someone and have them be intimidated by it? What if someone propositioned the girl for "normal" sex, which she declined? Also a crime? Makes you want to be careful about who you reveal your fantasies to, right?

At that point, the boy says, “I don’t wanna hurt u so bye,” as if warning her off. Yet she won’t let him get away. “Stop — I do have feelings for you … but u can’t force me into s—t … . I’m not like that. I don’t want to lose what we have but if u can’t respect me then … maybe we should just stay friends.’’
***
“If I hurt u, but not badly, are u okay with that?’’ he asks. “Like if cut u? ... Bruise u … I want to cut u.’’
***
“No u can kiss me and u can only slap my a--.’’

It was entirely a “reciprocal’’ conversation, court heard, and the girl laughed when the youth said he’d masturbated over a picture of her.

Close enough to a crime in the eyes of Canada. He gets probation, including a prohibition on certain internet and mobile phone use and restrictions about what he is allowed to read or view (including no "smut"). But also, 50 Shades of Grey is popular and mainstream enough to be made into a movie... 

In related "shoot first and ask questions later" news, the NY Times reports that a security guard at the Western Wall in Jerusalem recently shot and killed a Jewish man. For what offense? The man had his hand in his pocket allegedly shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great.” The guard shot him multiple times, "apparently suspecting him of being a Palestinian militant about to carry out an attack." Sound like Trayvon Martin? Or how about drone attacks murdering innocent people for saying a few magic words like "jihad" in a mobile phone conversation? People tend to have a quick trigger finger for those whom they believe to be a threat, even if they've done nothing wrong. 

In still more Philip K. Dick's Minority Report related news, a recent study suggests that we can identify criminals likely to be recidivists via their brain scans. Wouldn't that be so great to be able to identify evil-doers before they can even get around to committing evil? And yet people are decrying the violations to their own civil liberties from government monitoring (NSA), for similar prophylactic measures. But if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about, right? As long as you manage to avoid being labeled something evil like sadist or sociopath (or shouting common religious phrases in public or wearing a hoodie at night or having opposing political beliefs as the party in power, or saying "that's the bomb!" in Afghanistan or standing next to someone that did), you're safe, right? Because we basically have a foolproof method of identifying bad people and punishing them.

I feel like this is somehow relevant:

107 comments:

  1. your char/class just took a nosedive

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. with that music orc
      the post reminds me of 1984 (the movie i'm to lazy to read the book)

      Delete
  2. Up until the girl reciprocated I would consider that threatening, I know I wouldn't say that to anyone, and I'm genuinely a sadist. Though I generally go for strangling my partners rather then cutting them as most people are more comfortable with that.

    There is also a big difference between the pretend non consent of BDSM and what could read as a genuine murder threat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Non consent in BDSM is legally actionable harm.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. yes, but it is very rare anyone takes action. The pushing of the envelope (non consent at the last minute) is usually what excites, and no one talks about it because there is a code among bdsm-ers.

      Delete
  3. This gets into a whole different realm. The general BDSM communities worldwide teach, encourage and stress that practices are consensual. They value the care of scene partners before, during and after "playing" together. They offer and suggest proper training and safety constantly. Btw strangling or any kind of asphyxiation play can be deadly and people are warned not to do so. Bummer for so many reasons.

    This young man sounded like he wanted to kill and maim the girl. What he said could have easily been taken as angry threats that were taken back quickly. He could be a psychopath.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The guy was not punished for his thinking. The guy can talk about what he likes in sex with a person who wants to listen, that is to reveal his fantasies, and the girl can choose to go on with the conversation or not. But to tell a person you want to bodly harm her/him is a threat. There is a radical difference between someone saying "I would like to kill people" or "I want to kill you". The first is the revelation of a fantasy the next a threat.

    The second issue here is about minor protection. I don't know about the law in Canada but the girl was 16.

    I'm going to stop using the term evil because I see that here it is taken as an a priori for many people, like if it would be an original sin, people are evil because they are evildoers. So I will use evildoer from now on to avoid this misinterpretation.

    Prevention is very important to avoid crimes. And if there is a validated tool to prevent future crimes it is obviosly welcomed. Further considerations are required on how to apply in practice the results. Clearly, a person should not be punished for a crime he didn't commit, but he should be watched, similarly to a person who has a predisposition towards an illness and it is watched to prevent its apparition, in that case for the person well-being, in the case of the probable recidivist for society well-being.

    Jessi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well stated, Jessi. I like your distinction between fantasy and threat.

      Delete
    2. The law in canada is either both parties must be over the age of 18, or both parties must be between the ages of 16 and 18.

      Delete
  5. Sometimes I like you, Emmie.

    Jessi is starting to sound like Batman.

    I've become numb to what goes on in the court system. I just don't have it in me to feel outraged. You could fill your entire life talking about how the system doesn't work.

    “If I hurt u, but not badly, are u okay with that?’’ he asks. “Like if cut u? ... Bruise u … I want to cut u.’’
    ***
    “No u can kiss me and u can only slap my a--.’’

    That's the end of the conversation that we're shown. The girl is listed as the complainant, so I can only imagine what prompted the case. I highly doubt that it's the conversation we're shown. There's no physical assault, so my guess is that he's being punished for not fucking her. The judge is a total fucktard for letting teenage drama into his courtroom, and must have shit his brains out that morning to actually find a crime in that story.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the girl is fucking the judge or something. Anyone and everyone in power ends up being a corrupt piece of shit. Everyone else is just a piece of shit with no power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies



    1. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the girl is fucking the judge or something. Anyone and everyone in power ends up being a corrupt piece of shit. Everyone else is just a piece of shit with no power.

      "A thief believes everybody steals."... or are you going to say that this opinion comes from your "cognitive empathy" again?

      I hope that next time Jamie provides more information besides the extract of some tabloid when talking about the sentence of a judgment.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the girl is fucking the judge or something. Anyone and everyone in power ends up being a corrupt piece of shit. Everyone else is just a piece of shit with no power

      That's a little dramatic, no?

      I'm just interested in why cutting someone open is a sexual turn on. I'd love to pick that kid's brain.

      I wonder how many people with those types of fantasies do in fact cut their partners. Its probably a very private thing. But honestly, I think the person allowing the cutting is way more messed up than the cutter.....

      What do I know?

      Delete
    3. Power gives them a sexual turn on.

      Jessi

      Delete
    4. I wonder if Jessi has hidden desires of wanting to be abused. She camps out here and plays heroin with her obnoxious aelf righteousness. Its sickening and transparent.

      Delete
    5. Hey- open invitation to those of you who find cutting to be a sexual turn on- WHY?

      Is it simply a variation on the theme of penetration with aggressive/dominating impulses incorporated to "kick it up a notch"? or something else?

      Delete
    6. I agree completely, Andy. This was not a crime or even a threat. He asked and she said no. Asking is not a crime, expressing desire is not a crime. After she said "no", if he responded with "Well, I'm going to do it to you anyway" that is a threat. But he didn't, he actually left her alone. According to this judge's twisted logic, if he had simply said "I want to have sex with you" and she says "no" that is a rape threat. Poor dude, he could have grown up to be a regular guy, but society is now teaching him that anyone who has desires like he does is a criminal. The real abuser is the judge, and society as a whole, for not accepting people as they are. We have to put limits on what people do, but to put limits on what they want to do is unacceptable.

      Delete
  6. ME leaves out some important details--typical of a sociopath who wants to manipulate her readers into thinking sociopaths are a persecuted lot.

    1) The boy had been "expelled from another school for sexual assault and had spent four months in a psychiatric facility."

    2) He sent the girl a link to his blog, "wherein he claimed a doctor had diagnosed him with “necrophilia and sadism.” Included in the blog were photos of famous serial killers, mutilated women and a brief video clip of a woman’s breasts being sliced with a razor."

    3) The girl was 16. The article goes on to say this: "Re-reading the exchange the following morning, the girl became frightened and reported it to her teacher. Police were called and the boy was arrested at school. In his backpack, cops found a handwritten note. In block letters: “KILLER RAPE DEATH”. The note also detailed fantasies of cutting, beating, raping and breaking a girl’s legs. “I can only get pleasure, sexual pleasure, if the female is undergoing extreme pain, being raped, abused tortured or simply crying.’’

    4) The boy is not being "punished." The article notes that his lawyer is pleased with the sentence because "her client had previously sought help through a similar program for sexual offenders but was deemed ineligible because he hadn’t yet committed an offence." He also attempted suicide in the past.

    This is a case where the court is trying to intervene before the young man harms himself or others, where there is clearly a danger he might do so. This isn't a case of someone who's being jailed just for posting naughty Facebook messages, as ME wants us to believe.

    This post is a good example of the "poor me" (or in this case, "poor us") tactic the sociopathic uses to elicit sympathy. There's nothing wrong in trying to do that. But there's also no reason you have to fall for it.

    Sociopaths do deserve to be treated just as other human beings do. But as in the case of alcoholics, you have to be careful about letting them pull the wool over your eyes.

    I'd like to stay at an anonymous distance from ME, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pass more often :)

      Jamie just cares about looking like an innocent victim while being the opposite. There is no intention to post anything factual, just to clean the image of the abusers.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. It's probably a bit more complicated than that. I suspect that ME is employing her analytical nature as she interprets responses to posts like these as a means of refining her cognitive empathy skills. Trying to ascertain where the "line" of good/evil demarcation falls.
      She's done a good job in persuading many non sociopaths (myself included) that the sociopathic brain in and of itself is morally neutral.
      As far as understanding just how much tolerance for sociopathy this paradigm shift will likely bring, ME needs to reality test what parts of the disorder can squeeze by with a "potentially prosocial" pass and which parts must be kept hidden if the sociopath is not to be shunned.
      I suspect that ME's motivations are far from evangelical here in that she's not promoting this particular arousal pattern- rather, she wants to get feedback on this unsavory subject manner for curiousity's sake.
      I may well be wrong on this, but if ME is informally "fishing" for responses to this particular arousal pattern, I am comfortable stating that I think a lot of people have some disturbing fantasies, esp since porn is so easy to come by. As people habituate they need more and more of a "dose" to get off.
      While I hesitate to label any fantasy evil if it is kept within the realm of thought and is never acted upon, I do believe that we all have a choice about which patterns of thought we pursue, and which ones we seek to extinguish- not by denial, but by redirection.
      My feeling about sexual sadism (esp that which exists outside of consensual BDSM communities) is that it's clearly antisocial. The more you dwell on this stuff, even in fantasy, the less you are able to act in a prosocial manner.

      There's a quote I love but can't recall the attribution:
      "Watch your thoughts- they become words.
      Watch your words, they become actions.
      Watch your actions, they become habits.
      Watch your habits, they become character.
      Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."

      If there is any truth to the above quote, applying its message to this discussion fills me with a sinking feeling (my empathic nature betrays me...)
      Gut level what pops into my head is that a long term willful pursuit of sexually sadistic thrills will lead all parties involved to a bad end.

      Delete
    3. "long term willful pursuit of sexually sadistic thrills will lead all parties involved to a bad end."

      All parties? "Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny." The idea is that not all parties will share the same destiny.

      Jessi

      Delete
    4. all parties INVOLVED, Jessi.
      I am guessing that the language barrier is causing you to misconstrue my point. I prefer to believe this because it's hard for me to engage respectfully with the willfully ignorant.

      Delete
    5. I'm afraid the main barrier is neither ignorance nor language between us...

      The parties involved in a sadistic thrill are not just the sadists, the others have another character, they should have another destiny. Better now?

      Jessi

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, you make the same assumption the article makes: you assume that because he is a sadist, he is a danger to other people. You also assume the sadist is a sociopath. Sadism and sociopathy aren't the same thing, despite the fact that people often confuse the two. Sadists can be empathetic and sociopaths can be non-sadistic.

      The assault conviction is a cause for concern, but I don't believe that should be taken at face value. If a guy asking a girl for consent to cut her counts as a "threat," then I have to wonder what exactly he did that the justice system considers "assault."

      Delete
    7. I just read this http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/27/sadist-guilty-of-threatening-bodily-harm-after-school-found-17-year-old-with-handwritten-plot-to-rape-and-kill/

      This reveals more details that make this guy seem a lot less innocent. For example: "In one post he says he plans to marry a woman who shares his homicidal interest and together they will rape and kill. His last post was about the time of his arrest."

      I changed my mind, they were right to prosecute this kid.

      Delete
    8. My feeling about sexual sadism (esp that which exists outside of consensual BDSM communities) is that it's clearly antisocial. The more you dwell on this stuff, even in fantasy, the less you are able to act in a prosocial manner.

      Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. I've been into s/m heavily for years (within a monogamous, consensual relationship) and it hasn't caused me to be more antisocial. If anything, it provides a channel through which to sublimate urges that would otherwise prove more distracting.

      I would get bored stiff if I had to have vanilla sex, to the extent that I would lose interest in it altogether. I need a certain level of kink to even get aroused. I know that makes me a paraphilic, but I cannot change what turns me on any more than I can change my bisexuality (I consider my sadomasochistic preferences to be part of my sexual orientation, so integral and primal are they.)

      I've never been interested in the kind of sadism this guy describes, but I imagine that if I could get prosecuted for my thoughts and sexual proclivities, I'd still be in a lot of trouble. This case sets a dangerous precedent. The freedoms North Americans take for granted are eroding quickly.

      Delete
    9. Even given the new information, I still don't think the kid deserved any kind of punishment given what he did.

      I think if he really has to kill someone or cause real injury to get sexual satisfaction, then he is in a bad place because true non consent is his only outlet.

      But I doubt it.

      I think the kid could probably be satisfied with a masochist lover, and if he has to go to therapy or whatever, I would hope he would get a sound social worker who could teach him to act out his (more reasonable) fantasies with someone who wants to play.

      I am a sexual masochist, it is very much a part of my sexual make-up it is rare for me to enjoy sex that does not involve some kind of submissive act for me. Before I understood and accepted this about myself, I had to deal with self hatred and a lot of confusion.

      Also, as a masochist I am capable of fantasizing about things happening to me that I actually wouldn't choose to happen to me. The idea of them turns me on, but they are just impossible. Kind of the opposite of the kid in the article. Over time, my fantasies get more real, and less an exaggeration of what I actually want, but in my adolescence I certainly fantasized about being killed, even though I would never want that to happen to me.

      Delete
    10. The DSM used to distinguish between minor and major sexual sadism. The latter variety includes acts committed with a consenting partner, including choking, hitting, biting, whipping, minor cutting etc. (is it getting hot it here? Lol) The major subtype encompasses more severe acts committed against non-consenting individuals, often causing bodily harm, such as (actual) rape and lust murder.

      Delete
    11. EDIT: ^I should have said "the former variety" in the above sentence.:p

      Delete
  7. I just came back from collecting some cash, and I found this post to be funny as hell. We shouldn't be prosecuting people for thinking about hurting someone. That guy reminds me of those emo losers at my school when I was a lad that talked about how they wanted to bring a gun and kill everyone. Incidentally they were nobodies who everyone used to stomp over. I think that this guy is just some loser looking for attention. I remember this kid named charles with big goggles and a mole on his freaking nose. All the girls were repulsed by him and I used to kick him in his stomach whenever I saw him in the bathroom. I also took his spare change if he had any just for kicks. Well after taking so much abuse for so long he got fed up and decided to threaten me and my mates. He said he was going to bring a gun and kill us. I guess being a dumpster that everyone throws their sloppy seconds can be disheartening. Well after school one day when everyone left me and my mates pulled his pants down and exposed his tighty whities to everyone within a small radius of him. He started screeching like an annoying bird and I just punched him in the jaw a few times. I told him that he didn't have enough balls to bring a gun and spat in his ugly loser face. That was the end of that and he went back to taking abuse as usual. I am still alive today so all his fantasies of killing me stayed in his mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Mach, I guess this is what you call now "being morally neutral".

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. Hey Jessi, not everyone is a uptight pansy like you. You remind me of the snitches who try to play both sides

      Delete
    3. @ Jessi-

      Ukan is describing actions that are entirely unrelated to the topic we are discussing on this thread. What he describes is repugnant to me, but I don't fault his brain, I fault his choices to act. I doubt, however, that he is looking for my validation so it's a non issue. Your lumping my "morally neutral" statement in with Ukan's story of bullying is sloppy arguing on your part.

      My statement was "She's done a good job in persuading many non sociopaths (myself included) that the sociopathic brain in and of itself is morally neutral. " I am not calling actions morally neutral. I am stating that certain brains are wired to respond to stimuli in a way that empaths would characterize as abnormal. ME has helped me see that different does not automatically equal bad.

      Jessi- you and I are aligned in one important way- we both believe in free will. The reason I believe a sociopathic brain (and its corresponding impulses, thought processing functions, etcetera) are morally neutral is because I believe that the will is the seat of good and evil. Do we fight darkness within ourselves? Do we project it onto others? Or do we submit to the weakest part of our natures and raise the white flag of biological determinism?

      A sociopath is not inherently good or evil. Neither is an empath. Our actions (or more accurately- the patterns of our life choices and the ripple effect they have on the world we share) are the final pronouncement on the state of our souls. Our brain wiring does not define us. Our capacity to choose to feed or starve the "better angels of our natures" is what ultimately determines our destiny.

      Delete
    4. You have to excuse jessi. She is too holy to think about her arguing points correctly.

      Delete
    5. If that is UKan, Monica will eat his shorts. hahahahahahahahahahah

      Delete
    6. Hahaha. No, the holy one is apparently Mach, who takes good and evil religiously. I just think I understimated the Christian influence in her vocabulary when talking about good and evil. There is no darkness to fight against. Some people don't respect others. Point. Maybe "assholes" is a better term than "evil" so some don't get into the religious mode.

      " I am stating that certain brains are wired to respond to stimuli in a way that empaths would characterize as abnormal"

      Yes, sure, when I think about UKhan bullying, I think: "poor kid, his brain is wired to respond this way. He is like Pavlov's dog salivating. To retarded to have a choice". (IRONY OFF)

      Jessi

      Delete
    7. I would never characterize myself as holy, Jessi. I believe that is a pedestal that I am more than willing to let you be the sole occupant of.

      Delete
    8. Lets leave holy to religion then, where it belongs.

      Jessi

      Delete
  8. Where I come from a cop was just covicted for posting his desires rape
    and cannabalize women. He had his plans and accomplisis all laied out.
    He communicated with some one in England. His wife found out, took the
    baby and ran for her life.
    That was a rare example of when nosenyness works. Generally, it doesn't.
    For all intents and purposes we are living in 1984. You can see that we
    have government that is accountable to no one. I could account hair- raising
    examples of government intrusion and dictatorship. It's only going to get
    worse. May God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. M.E. in her book: "My sociopathic traits make me a particularly excellent trial lawyer. I'm cool under pressure. I feel no guilt or compunction, which is handy in such a dirty business. . . The thing with sociopaths is that we are largely unaffected by fear. Besides, the nature of the crime is of no moral concern to me; I am interested only in winning the legal game."

    Maybe the prosecutor in this case felt the same way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. very clever...
      yet...

      Your point underscores the fundamental adversarial stance empaths and sociopaths seem to find themselves locked in, which ultimately causes this comment to validate the point that E/S conflict is a two way street. After considering your post as a response to ME's (including the accompanying video) I would say that you have reinforced her point in offering this conclusion.

      Delete
    2. M.E is a guy.

      Delete
    3. Do you think that Jamie R. Lund is a transexual!?

      Delete
    4. immaterial. (beyond the schoolboy giggle factor.)

      Delete
    5. Good point, anon. Maybe the prosecutor also thought about it as dirty business, maybe he faked part of the interaction they had, maybe he told his client to lie, at the end, the only important thing is to win...

      Jamie looked pretty much like a woman to me.

      Jessi

      Delete
  10. Also, read the actual opinion:

    canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj134/2013oncj134.html

    The opinion stresses specifically that thoughts themselves are not crimes: "The fact that the defendant is sexually aroused by thoughts of causing bodily harm does not end the matter. His desire, however distressing, is not a crime. He can only be condemned if he acts upon his thoughts." You remember the term "dicta" from law school, right? It's fairly clear that the stuff on the defendant being a sadist, when you read the opinion in full, is dicta, and not the legal holding of the court.

    What the case instead turns on is the judge's finding that the defendant did in fact threaten bodily harm. You may very well disagree with this finding--these threats v. free speech cases are always tricky and are the inspiration for way too many wordy law review articles. But the rule of (Canadian here) law still remains unchanged: thoughts themselves are not crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Machavellianempath writes: " Your point underscores the fundamental adversarial
    stance empaths and sociopaths seem to find
    themselves locked in, which ultimately causes this comment to validate the point that E/S conflict is a two way street. After
    considering your post as a response to ME's (including the accompanying video) I would say that you have reinforced her point in offering this conclusion."

    I really don't know what you mean. I'm not even feigning ignorance here, I honestly don't know. What exactly did you think my point was?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that empaths typically view sociopaths as threatening. It's a predator/prey sort of mindset.
    What is interesting about your point is that you highlight how the empathic majority (as represented by the prosecution) skillfully argues against a potential sociopath, using sociopathic methods. A very canny observation, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah, see, I figured you might've misunderstood my point, based on what you wrote. My point was really far simpler: that the prosecutor in this case could've also been a "sociopath," as you all are talking about people.

    And I think you're projecting too much. I don't really care about this whole "empath v. sociopath" thing, and would refrain from characterizing myself along these lines (or really anyone, because it seems more like a spectrum thing than a binary thing, which is why I put "sociopath" in quotations earlier). I'm certainly not threatened, as you say; I'm fairly hyperrational myself, and although I do have emotions, I don't really use them for many decisionmaking purposes. I'm just here from the vicarious lawyer crowd and find it amusing to watch these "debates."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much for the link. Jamie R. Lund tries to be as little factual as possible to defend an imaginary persecution towards a minority of people who are abusers but who she wants people to be seen as free-thinkers and victims of a wild majority called "the empaths", in order to make society forget her confessed fraudulent acts, so any kind of factual information does wonders.

      Jessi

      Delete
  14. I got that you were implying that the lawyer might be a sociopath, but ultimately what is amusing is that sociopathic skills were being employed to advance an empathic agenda. Why do I think this? Because a culture of sociopaths doesn't really care about what people think and certainly wouldn't waste time playing thought police to a teenage boy.

    The irony is amusing and I'm glad that you highlighted it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jessi reminds me of this girl I knew named chelsea. She was quite the judgmental spectacle. She balked so much about how other women were sluts and were dirty. The ironic part was that both her parents went to church and she was hanging out with a bad boy like me. I found that part comical. She bragged about how she was different than the "low life scum" she criticized and how she would let no guy defile her. I thought every word she spewed was completely stupid, but I patiently played along. Needless to say I enjoyed doing the same thing to her that she said she would let so few guys do to her. I left her and bluntly told her that she was pathetic. She gave me the silent treatment for a few weeks and was calling me telling me how much she missed me. Ugh.

    I wonder how pathetic Jessi is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry about me, the only pathetic thing I do in my life is to spend some time here. I was curious if there would be any change after Lund's public outing but there was none... dommage.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. "the only pathetic thing I do in my life is to spend some time here"

      No wonder cannot understand basic arguments. I guess you weren't feigning ignorance at all. I said you are pathetic, but I suppose pathetic people are ignorant to that fact. You must be chelsea's sister.

      Delete
    3. Jessi do you take sloppy seconds or thirds.

      Delete
    4. by "slut shaming" Jessi without any sort of evidence about her personal life you no doubt feed into her persecution complex. As a fellow woman, all I can do is roll my eyes and want to take Jessi's side on this one.
      Her self righteousness is maddening, but I don't think this tactic will defuse her willful ignorance.

      Delete
    5. I've learned some vocabulary here every day. That I value, though. My life is great, thanks. Your guesses show the kind of people you go with. I would change company, in your case.

      Jessi

      Delete
  16. You *could* call it an "empathetic agenda," but it could just as easily be characterized as an agenda of "winning"--that is, finding any potential theory available for a successful prosecution. And, as M.E. argues in her book, sociopaths can make successful prosecutors because they care about winning those individual cases, apart from any agenda. The fact that in this case the individual sociopathic agenda could be seen as overlapping with some sort of collective empathetic agenda is just happenstance.

    (I also put quotes around "winning," because I think that a more comprehensive view of prosecution--something both empaths and sociopaths could reach--would look at more than an individual case. The fact that M.E. looks at it so narrowly in her book to me is less of an indictment of sociopathy than an indication of how much farther she could go in her rationalistic enterprise.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "winning"--that is, finding any potential theory available for a successful prosecution."

      Probably that is not "winning" in the terms of a lawyer who only cares about winning. I am sure there are legal paths and illegal paths that a lawyer can lead towards "winning". I presume that is the exploration of those "extra" paths what makes Jamie think as a more succesful prosecutor.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. jessi do you like getting spanked.

      Delete
    3. What I like is the quote Mach reproduced here today:

      "Watch your thoughts- they become words.
      Watch your words, they become actions.
      Watch your actions, they become habits.
      Watch your habits, they become character.
      Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."

      Jessi

      Delete
    4. Yes jessi. Your habit of coming here tells a lot about your character.

      Delete
    5. No one is perfect...

      Jessi

      Delete
    6. Maybe Jessi just likes to stir the pot and play devil's advocate to a forum that one might argue is the devils advocate- in which case she's just a nonconformist that likes to spar in an unusul setting.
      I admire that quality and I think Jessi coming here shows that she is trying to understand a viewpoint different than her own. The fact she continues to engage shows a desire to educate others (who are not always receptive to her viewpoint), and perhaps have her own perspective broadened as well.
      My frustration surfaces when I feel she gets personal in her arguments rather than keep things at the level of logical argument, but I don't think she's unique in this tendency. Alot of SW commenters do that. The sexual innuendo/bullying tactic seems counterproductive, however, because it just reinforces her perspective that sociopaths are "assholes" (avoiding the word "evil" upon your request, Jessi)

      Delete
    7. or- judging by her statement "I like to be spanked"( see below) once her ability to defend herself logically was exhausted, it's possible that Jessi just wants some attention and picks silly fights so she won't be ignored.

      Delete
    8. So? It was you who impersonated me? I can't believe you took that as my statement Mach...

      Jessi

      Delete
    9. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now think you are trying to create drama bc you have run out of things to say- first with the spanking comment- now by accusing people of impersonating you.

      Delete
    10. If you really think like that then you are much more stupid that what I thought. I will also give you the benefit of the doubt, I guess your paranoia is not that rare in this nest of wasps.

      Jessi

      Delete
    11. It's you who believes it was me.

      Jessi

      Delete
    12. I don't believe anything. The alias impersonator is certainly within the realm of possibility but I don't think I will lie awake wondering about it.
      As far as you, Jessi, are concerned the saying "methinks the lady doth protest too much" applies here :)

      Delete
    13. I complain at you, Mach, not at whoever impersonated me. Childish behaviours just bore me, but you are not a kid.

      Delete
  17. It may be a happenstance point if your focus is narrowed to only see the potential motivations of the prosecutor. The fact that a larger empathic culture is comfortable employing sociopathic methods within its justice system (and its ultimate need to make judgments of moral good and evil) shows that the empathic majority may not be quite as "innocent" as the party line of indignation over sociopathic methods might lead the casual observer to believe.

    The current model of cultural understanding of the empath/social interactions is that the empath is a victim. However, the point you've drawn our collective attention to illustrates that not only is the empath not the victim here, but the weapon used to punish the sociopath is a sociopath, suggesting a level of cynicism (perhaps unconscious) that turns the empathic lily white self image upside down. In using an ends justify the means ethic, they undercut the validity of any moral outrage against Machiavellian strategies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the empath not the victim here, but the weapon used to punish the sociopath is a sociopath"

      Sorry, I got lost in your fantasy this time. Can you explain with more detail why now the 16 years old is not the victim but a weapon?

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. The prosecutor is the "sociopathic weapon" against the 16 year old per the example highlighted by anon 1129 am.


      I think you missed a few comments (they have been coming fast...)

      Delete
    3. Hey jessi, quit trying to turn the tables on Mach. You are bad at probing, so you should just stop. I notice that there is some need on your part to have people feel that you are being attacked. You play dumb by asking questions that are obvious(Thats how everyone can tell you are feigning) and its just transparent.

      Delete
    4. @Mach, I understood him, it is you who I have problems to understand. Nevermind. Let's see if he understands you, since the dialogue was with him.

      Jessi

      Delete
    5. "I notice that there is some need on your part to have people feel that you are being attacked"

      We all notice the wrong things sometimes.

      Jessi

      Delete
    6. do you notice how dumb u r

      Delete
    7. Dear, we might be pretty much on the same boat.

      Jessi

      Delete
    8. Just shutup jessi. Ugh u are sad

      Delete
  18. I don't have this outrage you seem to be projecting on "empathetic" commenters. Indeed, what I work on is reforming these "sociopathic" systems that you describe. (Though I don't characterize it as such--see discussion towards the end).

    And saying the larger empathetic culture is comfortable with the court system is a bit of a reach--I'd say that it just doesn't pay attention. Maybe they'd be discomforted if they did, but there's a lot of other stuff that rises higher in what they care about.

    But in general, I think this whole framework of "empath" versus "sociopath" is a bit narrow. If one looks at cross-cultural psychological studies, a lot of what you're talking about here doesn't apply when one looks at those same experiments apply elsewhere. (See, e.g., http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/). I suspect that these categories of empath and sociopath are more culturally-specific than discussions on this blog might recognize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the fact that the ultimatum game has different results in different countries does not imply that "evolved psychological traits" are not common to all humans. The result could perfectly mean that there where people are wealthier money is less important than other factors ( as to punish the other one). Which could be true for all humans under those circumstances worldwide.

      I just think that the empath vs sociopath is narrow because there is no validated study that shows that this division exists at all. And one thing is to use the term as it has been defined (a term that clusters some characteristics) and another one to create a new concept by extrapolating in an act of fantasy that definition to make a caricature of the world.

      Jessi

      Delete
  19. First of all- interesting link. And I think you and I may be more aligned philosophically than this particular thread may suggest. The point that much of morality (and how we even conceive of morality) is largely a construct of the culture that morality represents is one that I heartily agree with.

    I suspect that my naming of an "empathic majority" is where my difficulty in making my point is located. Perhaps saying "neurotypical" or "conventional" or simply "majority" might have been more effective.

    What I was attempting to address is the very real stigma that identified sociopaths experience when they are identified by the majority of western culture. Sociopaths are a minority who are cast in a role that is very negative. As a culture, we associate this terminology with serial killers and social predators, and there is a visceral need to "protect" ourselves against these individuals.

    What your point evoked for me was the very human tendency "become the monster" as a way of mastering our fear of the monster, rather than to seek the common ground with the monster. That being said, anon 630 suggests that the example cited by ME was incomplete, and that the Canadian justice system was seeking to rehabilitate rather than throw the book at the sixteen year old defendant. If this is the case, then my take that using an unmerciful response to convict a perpetrator society has dehumanized by evoking "monster" is probably moot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like getting spanked

    Jessi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was a long gap between the times someone used my alias. I was almost surprised.

      Jessi

      Delete
  21. Don't tell me that Jessi is pretending to have been impersonated. If not, the person who would do that is sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad, I don't know. A little pathetic to impersonate someone? yes.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. I will pray for your soul impersonator!!

      Delete
    3. That's more like a cousin or something

      ;P

      Jessi

      Delete
  22. I am so glad that the technology is currently present to the general public to analise thoughts.The last thing I want is for someone to know how I truly feel about them. I spend most of my time making sure people can't know what's deep within my soul. It's a cycle of taking and masking. I hide and I cannot come out. Sometimes I just walk next to the ocean by my house to reflect. It gives me a break from the game I have no choice to play....

    My wife begs me to settle down and to live a life of altruism, but I am far from that point. I have too many personas to maintain. I am just a blank sheet that only fills up momentarily. A chameleon never stays the same color for long, and neither can I. I want to fly away like a bird, but that is only a dream...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what do you think about in those walks? You use them to recharge? To turn your brain off completely? To fantasize with another life?

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. Hahahaha

      Whoever wrote that is funny as fuck

      Delete
  23. Machavellianempath writes: " And I think you and I may be more aligned philosophically than this particular thread may suggest." It may very well be. Like I said, I don't really care about this fight. I'm only here out of vicarious interest and to pop in whenever I think the legal characterization is incorrect.

    " That being said, anon 630 suggests that
    the example cited by ME was incomplete, and that the Canadian justice system was seeking to rehabilitate rather than throw the
    book at the sixteen year old defendant. If this is the case, then my take that using an unmerciful response to convict a perpetrator
    society has dehumanized by evoking 'monster' is probably moot."

    My read was the same as 6:30. I just didn't reiterate that part because it was already said. M.E.'s review of the case was kind of superficial and not comprehensive, and it's *that* kind of thing that bothers me, not sociopathy or empathy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How could M.E. entry could possibly not be incomplete since what she wants is to formulate something she knows is not true in order to deceive? M.E. is a lawyer, and she understands what she reads, but as the deceitful person she is, she does not want to inform, but to manipulate, and the classical way of manipulation is to provide partial information and construct an interpretation that opposes with the reality but aligns with her interests.

      Jessi

      Delete
    2. ^This describes most people, yourself especially. The only difference is, ME may indeed be lying to other people, but you Jessica are almost certainly lying to yourself.

      Delete
    3. According to you, in which things am I lying to myself?

      Jessi

      Delete
    4. Well that depends. Are your comments here an accurate reflection of your beliefs and how you actually think?

      Delete
    5. A reflection of my believes yes, the accurate part is not that easy in a foreign language. So, go on.

      Delete
  24. The only thing that could be considered a threat is this: “U see that’s where ur wrong … I don’t care if u want it to happen or not.’’ And even that might not actually be a threat, I would need to see the full context to understand.

    This article is incredibly biased... it acts like being a sadist and being a criminal are the same thing. I have extreme sexually sadistic fantasies all the time, but I have a conscience and I have no interest in hurting anybody. What am I supposed to do, hide this from everyone forever, out of fear?

    ME, I want to tell you that I read your book and it made me much more sympathetic to your goals. Before I read it, I enjoyed the blog but I wasn't entirely sure where you were coming from. Now, I'm fairly certain that you are sincerely interested in helping the empathy impaired coexist peacefully with everyone else. Your motives may be selfish, but I'm still grateful. I think your book is a great thing not just for sociopaths, but for all marginalized people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ought to meet Jessi, she will be more than happy to engage you in your sexually sadistic fantasies. Be careful, she plays really hard to get.

      Delete
    2. @Refudiate, an Anon passed this link before: http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj134/2013oncj134.html

      Jessi

      Delete
  25. I like spanky wanky

    ReplyDelete
  26. Come on Barbie, let us attend a lively social gatheringSeptember 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM

    I imagine those tiny plastic hands gripping and manipulating my pissnis. I call it a pissnis.

    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.