Friday, April 1, 2016

Changing our minds

I was talking with my transgendered friend about this review of a 1999 or 2000 Lifetime type movie about a high school girl coming out as gay, and how it seemed as anachronistic as Mad Men, even though it was just 16 years ago. Back then, the news really would have spread like wildfire and a gay high school student really would have been dropped by countless friends and ostracized by many more in his/her community. Even five or more years ago, this was pretty much the reaction to the transgendered community. It's crazy how quickly and dramatically things have changed. But how did something go from the vast majority of people agreeing one thing (gays/transgendered people = bad) to the vast majority of people agreeing the opposite thing?

The first time I encountered this was one night I remember watching Saturday Night Live with Will Farrell's George W. Bush threatening to come after Osama Bin Laden to avenge the 9/11 attacks. I remember being surprised by how supportive the audience was, given that W. Bush was not at all a popular President (he, for instance, did not win the popular vote). People loved the fact that he was an gun-toting Texan when it meant that he was going after someone almost universally reviled. Even the fact of W. Bush's record for executions in his home state of Texas got cheers. Suddenly, it seemed like a really great idea to show no mercy, and to act now and think later. No many months after, the United States had started the ill-considered Iraq War. And years later, people wondered how people could have been so stupid, how W. Bush could have done such a thing -- but he actually had wide support, at the time.

Perhaps this is almost too obvious/tautological/stupid to say, but although widespread change must eventually reach the majority, it does not often start there. Writer Rebecca Solnit put it this way:

Ideas at first considered outrageous or ridiculous or extreme gradually become what people think they’ve always believed. How the transformation happened is rarely remembered, in part because it’s compromising: it recalls the mainstream when the mainstream was, say, rabidly homophobic or racist in a way it no longer is; and it recalls that power comes from the shadows and the margins, that our hope is in the dark around the edges, not the limelight of center stage. Our hope and often our power.


I understand this, but thing that has always bothered the sociopath in me is the collective amnesia that everyone experiences. No one admits, I used to be homophobic but then I realized I was wrong. Instead there is rampant hypocrisy. There is no humility. There is no healthy skepticism of their feelings of moral certainty. The moral certainty just shifts beliefs, from anti to pro or vice versa. 

115 comments:

  1. Because morals are merely the laws of the game and not the goal nor the victory.

    C'mon ME. Look at your datapoints. You can see the datapoints and you're questioning them. Take the next step.

    Or do you just want to use the datapoints to ping barbs at neurotypicals? No one wins that game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. So I heard this at the Friday prayer sermon and thought it was worth posting:

      While Moses was with the Israelites during the desert, he prayed to God asking for relief. They were plagued by hunger and disease and it had not rained for a long time. God responds to Moses by saying that one of the Israelites has been disobeying Him and sinning for 40 years and has not repented. Moses should announce to the entire gathering that whoever that person is should have mercy on his fellow Israelites and depart from them. The guilty man thought it was him and after a while, when no one else moved, he was certain. He felt trapped and hopeless - the fate of thousands of his people rested on his decision. He felt so ashamed and guilty all of a sudden that he covers himself up with his robe and starts sobbing, seeking God's mercy. As his tears drop to the ground, it starts raining.

      The Israelites were shocked that it started raining despite no one admitting their guilt and leaving. Moses asks God why he brought the rain when He said He wouldn't until the guilty man left. God said the man repented and no longer was guilty. Moses asks God who the man was and God responds: I kept him (and his sins) hidden from the masses for 40 years and you think I will reveal him to you now that he has repented?

      NOTE: One can draw several messages from this story. The key message, however, is the essence of sin. All human beings are fallible and prone to wronging themselves and others BUT the ultimate crime is to "come out" with one's shortcomings and justify them. This is what distinguishes the true psychopath from every other person who goes wrong: the psychopath justifies his actions to himself and eventually, given enough security and "power," to others.

      God Himself covers up evil and exposes the best of people and He asks that we do the same.

      Delete
    4. Why did you choose a sociopath website to preach? Are you self conscious that you aren't as clean and obedient as your fellow muslims so you try to drown your feelings of being an inadequate Muslim by attacking societies most soft target, the sociopaths. The scum of the earth just below Muslims in the eyes of many in the west. But you're such a coward even in comparison to your fellow Muslims that you can only fight the most powerless enemy. At least other Muslims have the balls to battle an opponent they may lose against but like the small man you are you come here and preach to the only people you feel are as worthless as you. You are only further lowering yourself in the eyes of fellow Muslims.

      Delete
    5. Adam dissicted Jonaid better than anyone so far. Jonaid is the biggest loser we've ever had on here and sociopaths should be infuriated with the dissrespect and thoughtless self delusion he's vomiting onto them. A man like that doesn't arrive at this place with those words, by chance. Like all fanatics there is a reason and story to why he acts that way and its often a very sad one.

      Delete
    6. Only God can say who is the "scum of the Earth." I'm well aware that many seemingly sociopathic people are just victims themselves who broke. That doesn't justify their actions but it does distinguish them from a real psychopath. The real scum are the ones who - without any history of abuse or ill-treatment - decide to sell out and behave in extremely selfish and destructive ways.

      Delete
    7. If "only God" can say who is the "scum of the Earth", then it means that you cannot say who is the "scum of the Earth", for you are not God, and therefore do not meet the criteria for judging a person, or a group, as either "scum of the Earth" or "real scum".

      Yet we get this gem:
      The real scum are the ones who - without any history of abuse or ill-treatment - decide to sell out and behave in extremely selfish and destructive ways.

      As we have discerned, using your own logic, that you do not have the authority to judge someone as the "real scum", as you are not God, then it follow that your opinion and judgement on the subject of "scummery" is irrelevant and, therefore, not valid ;-)

      Delete
    8. I clearly meant only God can judge any individual soul and why / how it ended up where it did. This should make it even clearer:

      We have God-given insight to say - objectively - that rape is evil and immoral. We can speak in generalities and say rapists - by which we imply a sane, otherwise healthy adult mind - are sinning and committing an evil act when they rape. What we cannot say is "this rapist is evil" because while we can deduce that the person was seemingly sane and knew what he was doing, we have no absolute knowledge on his inner condition. Maybe his mother used to abuse him and he's grown to hate women - that might not show in any other way except his occasional raping of someone and therefore while it won't hold up in court, it IS in fact an excuse which disallows us from passing ultimate judgement. God is the only one Who knows the person's true nature.

      Delete
    9. I quite agree with the premise you set foreward, Adam. It is never about religion with these people. It is deeply personal. I've been on the sideline nodding my head in agreement or sulking (hehehe) now its time to get some action.

      Delete
    10. Adam, stop sucking your own dick in public, it's embarrassing. But entertaining at the same time.

      **CANNOT LOOK AWAY**

      Delete
    11. @ Adam/Spencer:

      Regarding Jonaid: "methinks he doth protest too much", to coin a phrase.

      A cursory glance over his postings, [as Socioempath and A have also noticed] seems to suggest a pervasive and persistent trend: to make very inaccurate statements about what psychopathic people 'are'; 'facts' [which are usually the opposite of what the research literature suggests]; in order to have other posters attempting to educate him as to the reality ie. usually along the lines of: "your 'facts' are wrong and over-melodramatic and being psychopathic isn't really that 'bad' - or even - not at all bad."

      He then 'manages to sleep easy again', for yet another night, realising he's not the 'demon' he assumes he might be.

      In Jonaid's posts, he's demonstrated: impulsivity, a specific lack of insight, manipulativeness, anti-social behaviour, angry hostility, blame externalisation, pathological lying, fearlessness [in argument, to an extent], callousness, and [for a kid -if he actually is one] assertiveness, plus interpersonal irresponsibility, and low dutifulness [eg. he gets his facts wrong].
      One has no correct data on any criminal activity or recidivism.
      [Unfortunately, he seems to have missed out on positive affect, and 'social potency' ie. charm and charisma.]

      So, it is quite likely this individual is himself 'of the type', scared sh*tless, and comes onto this site to get other people to deny the possibility, to make himself feel better.
      I rest my case.

      XK

      Delete
    12. XK you are an idiot. I just gave you all an antivenom for this jonaid person a blueprint and you still talk to him as if he's rational of mind. I don't know why the average person treats the brainwashed and deranged with such gentle hands. To me such people should be put in a gas chamber. Ive already had to deal with 5 lunatics today during my commutes. I got tired of the last on and asked him if all the nut houses had closed down and allowed him and his ilk out. It shut him up quickly. Thats our fault in dealing with mental cases. We allow them to scream and rant in public and on public transport. Such people think it makes them look mysterious and powerful but decent people need to stand up and demand proper behavior from these lunatics. In my world only brutal reality holds weight.

      Delete
    13. "To me such people should be put in a gas chamber."

      Since you're playing God, "Adam," namesake of mankind's firstborn, you first. In your world brutality rules . . . as you sow, so shall you reap. Unfortunately.

      Mr. Hyde

      Delete
    14. @ 'Adam' at 5.21pm:

      "XK you are an idiot." I've said before, I'm far from an idiot. LOL

      Agreed such people should be put in gas chambers, because demanding proper behaviour from such lunatics politely and otherwise has merely encouraged him - it is indeed time that brutal reality holds weight again.
      One merely suggests that Jonaid's deeply personal problem is that he fears he's what he rants about - a fruitful source of prompting him to vacate the premises, perhaps.
      I do admit I am uninterested in the task of 'taking out the trash' in this case.

      So, Adam, Spencer, Monty et al, u could get to it, OK? Do a 'Haven'? By request.
      Your prose is good to read, and soothing.

      XK

      Delete
    15. I just wanted to say, that I do not believe in Jonaid's God-I I believe in Christ. Jonaid's God may think certain people are "scum", by my God does not.

      Christ considers us all His children, and he loves us all, equally...

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    16. ...that should have read "but my God does not"...

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    17. Just believe that a man died for all your sins and you're saved. He loves you all, no matter how evil your conduct towards his other equally loved "children."

      Just imagine your mother loves you so much that she not only does not stop your brother from throwing you off the cliff but she continues to love him just as much regardless. I can see why some people find this belief appealing.

      Jesus was one of God's greatest messenger. He was everything the Bible says he was minus the illogical & absurd notion that he's God or related to Him somehow (which, incidentally, the Bible does not explicitly say).

      Delete
    18. Excuse me?

      You're wrong again. What a shocker.~

      Incidentally, the Bible stipulates that very notion, quite explicitly:

      "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

      6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

      9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

      14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-14)

      Apparently, your knowledge of the Bible is as reliable as your understanding of the true nature of Islam. :P


      Delete
    19. "Just believe that a man died for all your sins and you're saved. He loves you all, no matter how evil your conduct towards his other equally loved "children."

      Here is what Paul says about that very issue, in which he rebukes any notion that one might curry favour with God through legalistic acts of righteousness, which are all tainted by hypocrisy, anyway:

      9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

      “There is no one righteous, not even one;
      11 there is no one who understands;
      there is no one who seeks God.
      12 All have turned away,
      they have together become worthless;
      there is no one who does good,
      not even one.”[b]
      13 “Their throats are open graves;
      their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
      “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
      14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
      15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
      16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
      17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
      18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
      19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

      21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3: 9-23)

      Delete
    20. Jonaid-

      I thought you were reading The Bible.

      Jesus Christ was not "just a man who died for our sins"-He was God incarnate. He is "The Holy Trinity"-Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

      Yes, redemption is available to all. Yes, all anyone has to do is:

      1. Believe Jesus Christ was the perfect Son of God.
      2. Accept that He died for all of our sins.
      3. Ask Him for forgiveness and redemption.

      It is as simple as that.

      You don't have to be "sinless", you don't have to read The Bible, you don't have to go to church, etc.

      He does love us all, died for us all, and offers us all redemption freely. All we have to do, is accept Him.

      He does not love everything we say and do. That's why we are sinners who fall short, that need to be redeemed.

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    21. The word "redeemed", reminded me of this song:

      Criminal

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    22. I LOVE THE LYRICS TO THAT SONG!!!

      They are worth looking up.:)

      I won't list them here, to spare XK.:)

      I LOVE FIONA APPLE'S VOICE!!! Her voice reminds me a lot of "Adele"-SO MUCH SOUL!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    23. What about "explicit" and "not in the Bible" did I get wrong? Pure reason dictates that when you make an extraordinarily unique and at least seemingly illogical claim you'd have proof beyond doubt for it. You just quoted me verses which one can 1) first interpret as referring clearly to Jesus, 2) then referring clearly to his divinity which he himself never once claims.

      "Explicit" means without any doubt for any reader. Something like "I (Jesus) am the begotten Son of God" or "I am God incarnate" etc.

      One ought to add that only John's Gospel starts off with the "In the beginning was the word..." and his is the last (almost a century after Jesus died) gospel.

      Delete
    24. Here's a definition of God which can make sense to a toddler or a philosophy professor:

      In the name of God, The Merciful, The Compassionate.

      "Say: He is God, the One!

      God, the eternally Besought of all!

      He begets not nor was He begotten.

      And there is none comparable unto Him."

      Qur'an Chapter 112: The Sincerity

      Delete
    25. Here is an example of an explicit statement from God regarding Jesus:

      "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender."

      Qur'an 4:171

      Delete
    26. As I’ve said numerous times before: the Qu'ran is full of shit. It’s author was a charlatan with a political agenda. His ideas about God stem from the hybridization of Jewish, Christian and Pagan ideas that he fused together so as to deceive his followers into granting him divine authority.

      Of course it attacks the deity of Christ, because it is faith in *that* truth that grants Christians their steadfast assurance of salvation. Anything other than mindless, fearful submission to Muhammad simply won't do. :P

      What about "explicit" and "not in the Bible" did I get wrong? Pure reason dictates that when you make an extraordinarily unique and at least seemingly illogical claim you'd have proof beyond doubt for it. You just quoted me verses which one can 1) first interpret as referring clearly to Jesus, 2) then referring clearly to his divinity which he himself never once claims. Something like "I (Jesus) am the begotten Son of God" or "I am God incarnate" etc.

      Can you read? What part of…

      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth"

      Leaves any room for confusion?

      But just in case your “toddler's capacity to understand” what you read leaves any room for doubt:

      "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:16-17)

      It is very clear that he is referring to Jesus here, very explicitly, as the Son of God.

      Just because the earliest copy we have of John *dates* from that period (Papyrus P-52) doesn’t mean that it wasn’t authored earlier. The historical reliability of the Bible has been well established by many scholars- it is in fact the most historically accurate and internally consistent documents we have from antiquity. And you don’t have to take *my* word for it: there more extant copies of the NT than any other ancient manuscript, with which to amply substantiate this claim. Compare this to the dubious authorship of the Qur’an. It is widely accepted and known amongst Islamic scholars that the final authoritative written form was not completed until 650AD under the third leader Caliph Uthman.

      But recently, a manuscript of the Qur’an was discovered to pre-date Mohammed:

      It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.

      As Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, so succinctly states: 'This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.

      Again, you attempt to speak authoritatively about things about which you do not actually possess sufficient knowledge to make such claims- a recurring theme for you- which makes your arguments very easy to refute.

      Unlike you, I don't come here to preach, or try to force my views down other people's throats. But I've *thoroughly* and critically researched the credibility and of the Bible, and *that* means you don’t get to come here and spin your propaganda unchallenged.

      Delete
    27. "We created not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, but for just ends. And the Hour is surely coming. So overlook (any human faults) with gracious forgiveness.

      For verily it is thy Lord who is the Master-Creator, knowing all things."

      Qur'an 15: 85-86

      Delete
    28. Jonaid-

      We are God's children, and created in His image.

      God is a Trinity-Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

      We, in a similar way, are Mind, Body/Soul, and Spirit.

      My God is Father/Son/Holy Spirit. He can do that.

      If your god cannot, it sounds like he is limited...

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    29. Oh, we're back to using quotes, Joanie?

      In the name of Google, The Cognizant, The Knowledgeable.

      How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

      A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

      Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.


      Winston Churchill, The River War, 1899

      Delete
    30. Socioempath-

      THAT WAS AWESOME!!!

      That might be my favorite post of yours yet!!!

      I dig Winston Churchill.:)

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    31. Well if you genuinely feel this way about Islam, we can (assuming you are genuine) still agree that God is Truth, and Just and Loving. Stop justifying your wrongdoings and try to be a better person.

      Peace.

      Delete
    32. And don't play around with the boogie men, "energy," - if you truly believe in God (regardless of what you call Him).

      Delete
    33. Would you look at that!
      Insecurity masquerading as moral superiority, yet again? Use of shaming to coerce someone into behaving "correctly", due to a lack of any meaningful arguments?

      Gee, what a shocker - another narcissistic lash-out.
      It's okay, Joanie, everything's gonna be all right. After all, not everybody can be rational and reasonable - you can still live quite a nice and reasonably rich life even without wisdom, reason and rationality; don't lose hope! :-)

      Delete
    34. Stop fearing the Jinn and start fearing God. Stop debasing yourself like this it's disturbing. Your dark buddies are pathological liars. They have no power over you except what you give them thinking it's a bargain worth making. So stop acting like a lunatic and get real. Belittling me doesn't change the reality.

      Peace.

      Delete
    35. "Stop justifying your wrongdoings and try to be a better person.

      Well thank-you for the advice, narctard, but you don't know the first thing about me. Take the log out of your own eye before you pick at the speck in mine. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone". :P

      How is socioempath calling you on what I called you on a few days ago- that is, your insecurity masquerading as moral superiority, a manifestation of her rubbing shoulders with "evil Jinn" and "dark buddies"? You're the only one obsessed with imaginary friends, here, lol. xD

      Every time someone calls you on your narcissism- which I am convinced is certainly pathological- you devalue the source to the point of demonization. You think anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of evil minion. Your level of narcissism and obliviousness is nothing short of ridiculous- but admittedly quite entertaining. :)

      Delete
  2. Change doesn't require admitting you were wrong. Change is about evolution. Its outside of right or wrong and is the natural flow of things. Clinging to ideas of hypocrisy prohibit growth. We all are guilty of it but we also are responsible for our own growth first and foremost. Not policing the hypocrisy of the rest of the world. That Is nothing but a crutch to keep the focus off ourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The snl skit with will Farrell is gn example of how people react to ununfathomable trauma. I recall the sociopath was not even affected by 9-11. I thought it was so strange then. I get it now.

      Delete
  3. More people need to be on http://sociopath-community.com/

    !!! it used to be connected to this blog but was disconnected over a year ago. We need fresh blood and lots of interesting things have happened recently (relates to kiwifar.ms drama: https://archive.is/M2tXa) that will go down in the forum's history! Be sure to check out http://www.psychforums.com/antisocial-personality/ too, as some of its regulars are regulars on SC too!

    Goddamn ME refused to reconnect the blog to the forum so we SC goers will just have to spam advertisements for the forum in the comments section. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dont'understand how I can ask a question....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting read, something to ponder upon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe in right or wrong, it depends on perspective. Humans are social animals and I think morality is just a tool to prevent chaos in society, nothing more nothing less.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Normalisation is the relevant, deeper driver; morality sets the parameters for that driver's real-time function.

      There are competing drivers too. The human organism itself is so complex. Consider the innumerable activities it's carrying on this instant to keep you alive.

      Delete
  6. You see we forgot where we got the concept of morality from and so we wonder now why it changes so quickly. Here's my attempt at defining it:

    A set of codes and principles which, if followed universally, would result in the flourishing of all individuals, and by extension, humanity as a whole. Just imagine IF everyone was always honest and kind at the same time - how could ANYTHING go wrong? Would there be poverty? Crime? Homophobia?

    All of us have an innate understanding of ethics - we can understand and accept that honesty, kindness, generosity, love, justice etc are objectively good and result in the maximum good for society. Unfortunately, some of us prefer to cheat and not follow those principles (as a rule - everyone falls short at times) because we want MORE and be "better" than others. These are the same people who say "right and wrong don't exist or are arbitrary." These are the same people that stunt the feelings of guilt (as they must in order to cheat) and say "don't be regretful or apologize." They lack humility (in fact they detest it), and wisdom because if they had any they'd know they'd never be happy in the long run by selling their souls and their integrity. Why do you think psychopaths WANT to manipulate, cheat, deceive and enjoy sadistic behavior? Happy people want to spread happiness - not ruin others. Only miserable bit deluded people behave this way.

    Just extend the repercussions of this over decades and centuries and you should begin to see why the world is so messed up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If everyone was always happy and content with their situation, then there would be no change.

      Necessity, competition and ambition are the driving forces towards improvement. Pain is the catalyst of change and creativity.

      If we were happy just living in the nature, just hunting and gathering with what nature gave us, then we would not have invented tools, or farming, or created various civilizations - the "unfairness" of the nature has forced us to band together and "cheat" in creative ways.

      If we were content with just walking, then there would be no vehicles which allow us to go pretty much anywhere in the world much faster and "better" than practically any other species on the planet.
      If we were content with diseases killing us off, we wouldn't have invented various antibiotics, antivirals and other cures.

      And if we didn't want to be "better", we would not have improved our technology, quality of life, and so on.

      Honesty, kindness, generosity, love, etc, without any pain, pressure and so on would lead to stagnation, rigidness, boredom...
      Many great artists are "great" precisely because they have endured "unfairness" and "hardships", with one of the examples Dostoyevski, who found his creativity soaring after he was forced to spend time in Siberian prison, and who would intentionally gamble away all of his money every time he found success so that his creativity would not diminish.

      What you are proposing is satisfying everyone's whims so they do not have to work for anything in their life. Without any conflict and hardships, having only "good" happen to them, people grow lazy, complacent, bored. Rome was weakened and perished because their citizens were enjoying "too much good", which weakened the empire and made it's people "weaker" and unprepared for any serious hardships and dangers, both internal and external.

      Thanks to strife, "unfairness", hardships, which prompted us to advance and better ourselves, today you are living in much better conditions than your ancestors throughout ~99% of human history (you have said you live in USA), without any imminent danger to your life and have all your basic needs met - when was the last time you or your relatives were in danger of starving, dying of diseases or in combat?

      Everything in moderation, dear Joanie - "good" does not always mean "nice", and "dark" does not always mean "evil". Too much of either "evil" or "good" is "bad".

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      Delete
    2. "If everyone was always happy and content with their situation, then there would be no change."

      If everyone were happy and content they would be in heaven and NO change would be needed. You really should stop going off on huge tangents without first trying to understand what I mean.

      I don't disagree with most of what you said here - you really are in your world devoid of my messages when you respond to them.

      Delete
    3. You really should stop assuming I misunderstand what you are saying - if everyone was always honest and kind at the same time, then there would be no necessity, pain and other "negative factors" caused by other people trying to "ruin" you, which are catalysts towards betterment and improvement; if nobody forces you to change, why would you? Your "ideas" run contrary to human nature and nature itself, which demands adaptation and competition.

      Not only are your ideas "impractical" and complainatory, merely "wishful thinking" best left for the world of fiction, but the only response I got from you was that I do not understand "your messages" (I do) and that I "go off on huge tangents" - your comment is completely devoid of any meaningful content, in which you tried to attack my credibility instead of refuting my arguments. Speaks volumes of your character and your personality ;-)

      Delete
    4. Let me break this down and hope you actually read and try to grasp what I said.

      The ultimate aim of objective morality IS and OUGHT to be the best possible outcome for everyone. Is that "practical" is a completely different question. I don't believe that we can come anywhere near an "ideal" because I know God did not intend for this world to be heaven. So don't read me as someone who's clueless and prove again and again that you're lacking not only in humility but intelligence.

      Now just because the ideal goal of morality is unlikely to be attainable does NOT mean that objective moral rules go out the door. The more people subscribe to them, the closer we are to the ideal and the better our world is.

      As for pain and negative factors being catalysts for betterment and improvement: this is true ONLY because the world is already messed up and far short of the ideal. Also, this is ONLY true if you can BEAR the pain and suffering of the world WITHOUT compromising your integrity. That is impossible without God and one major proof for God's existence and objective morality. What you are implying is: pain and suffering helps you overcome the feelings of guilt and empathy which stunt your "progress" in the world (in other words become psychopathic). I know you suffer from this delusion but don't assume therefore that I don't know what you're saying. I would rather die than sell myself and become a low life who thinks he's getting ahead in life by becoming a cheater and deceiver. You can call me a moron if that helps you sleep at night.

      Delete
    5. "Great art can never be created without great suffering."

      You reminded me of that quote, Socioempath.

      ESTP Sociopath

      Delete
    6. Morality is inherently "subjective" and open to interpretation. There is no "ideal" that works for absolutely everyone.
      It depends on the individual and his feelings, the culture and religion. What is "objectively moral" for one person or culture is "objectively immoral" for other.
      Aztecs considered human sacrifice holy, "objectively moral" and "good for everyone" yet today we frown at the thought.

      Killing someone intentionally, not in self-defense, could be considered "objectively moral" (and it would be "moral" in most cases).
      But if you know that a man that will cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent, "good" people, and the only possible way to prevent it is to intentionally kill him, then killing him could be interpreted as "objectively moral", while doing the "good" thing and sparing his life would be "bad".
      There are no "objective moral rules", as "moral rules" depend on the situation, and the individual's feelings and viewpoints, and thus are highly changeable and debatable.

      True, some people may break. But that does not mean they cannot eventually recover. Others, however, will improve and come out better. It all depends on the amount of "bad" and the amount of "good" which counteracts it.
      And where did you get the idea that I am implying that pain and suffering helps someone "overcome empathy"?
      If a group suffers together, they empathize together and create deeper bonds. As I have already mentioned:
      the "unfairness" of the nature has forced us to band together
      It is also the example of the balance between "good" and "bad" - if there was no "bad", the group would never have become stronger and " closer", which turned out "good" in the end.
      In addition, could you explain how you came upon the idea that "negative factors" can help someone overcome "guilt"? Isn't guilt itself a negative factor that compels an individual to do good things towards someone he "wronged"?And of what use is guilt if it keeps you passive and depressed?
      You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that most individuals that suffer pain and suffering do not turn out psychopathic yet turn out better after the experience.

      That is impossible without God and one major proof for God's existence and objective morality.
      No, that is your opinion.
      Buddhists do not believe in a God, yet they can bear pain and suffering without losing their "integrity".
      That the world is messed up is also your opinion. For some people, it is messed up. For others, and me, it is not that much messed up (and I like it). Some even consider it as pretty much an "ideal".

      Try again ;-)

      Oh, and I like that quote, estpy. I have personally observed it to be very much true :-)

      Delete
    7. Q:"Why do you think psychopaths WANT to manipulate, cheat, deceive and enjoy sadistic behavior?"

      If one substitutes a neutral term for the following:
      'manipulate' = influence, using charm;
      'cheat' = ignore rules that are irrational, or against one's self interest;
      'deceive' = be circumspect about possible differences of opinion;
      'enjoy sadistic' behaviour = be occasionally callous and unemotional, for a utilitarian purpose.

      one would have a reasonably accurate answer.

      "Happy people want to spread happiness - not ruin others."
      Only miserable bit deluded people behave this way."

      This is such illogical non-thinking as to only be excused because the utterer is young and not yet reasoning very efficiently.

      "You can call me a moron if that helps you sleep at night."

      Again; the self-important arrogance of youth.
      The sleep of total strangers should not concern one.
      Do not become over-emotional. It becomes boring.

      XK

      Delete
    8. Let's stick to one topic at a time: objective morality:

      "Morality is inherently "subjective" and open to interpretation. There is no "ideal" that works for absolutely everyone.
      It depends on the individual and his feelings, the culture and religion. What is "objectively moral" for one person or culture is "objectively immoral" for other.
      Aztecs considered human sacrifice holy, "objectively moral" and "good for everyone" yet today we frown at the thought."

      Objective by definition means universally applicable and true. You can deny it but you cannot say something can "objectively moral" but disagreed upon. Now as to why it seems that we - cultures and peoples - disagree on "objective" morals is actually a huge misunderstanding between most people and a deliberate muddying of waters by some. For example:

      Is abortion immoral? Note here that BOTH sides on this debate agree on the KEY question around abortion: killing an baby is immoral. Leaving aside agendas and motives, the reason why this objectively moral truth becomes "subjective" is because we disagree on certain questions relating to abortion (and not the act of killing a baby - born or unborn): 1) life of mother vs life of child, 2) when is a fetus a "baby" 3) does a fetus count as a baby? 4) does a pregnancy caused by incest and / or rape make a difference, etc. etc. So you see, the objective rule remains the same and everyone agrees BUT we disagree on the exceptions to the rule in different contexts. IF we had ALL the answers to these questions, then objectively no one could deny it and anyone who did would be (rightly so) shunned by society.

      All cultural and religious differences can be summed up like this as well, including your killing example.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 4:16

      You just changed the definition of words suit your argument. A psychopathic trick. Hide your tail.

      Delete
    10. Interesting, XK.

      I think I'm gradually developing a conception in which the psychopathic mode makes independent sense to me. I like to poke and prod (for my own sake but also to challenge) as I formulate this view so just a few notes on the above:

      - 'irrational' rules: rules are somewhat arbitrary but usually reflect norms. The measure of rationality should be the degree to which they meet their purpose rather than their happenstance contradiction with any individual's self interest (just to make the distinction clear)

      'Deceive': the human brain is designed to convince. Deceit is convincing by cheating, ie creating a false information economy.

      On cheating generally (I deleted my rambling posts about Richie McCaw): playing to the rules is one life (or sport) strategy, playing to the whistle - like Richie does - is another. It's riskier, but the payoffs may be higher in the short term.

      The difference between manipulation and environmental strategy / tactics has intrigued me. Last time I explored the distinction here, someone (VN?) said manipulation was a strategy.

      From my perspective, I think I am simply not inclined to infringe on another's person or to damage them and prefer to compete (often aggressively) within reasonable bounds. That's a key difference between modes, but I thought think it's ultimately an explainable difference.

      The Gambler

      Delete
    11. "You just changed the definition of words suit your argument."

      There was no 'argument'. Merely a display of objectivity. To educate.
      I do not 'emote' when I post.
      Except when I use LOL.
      XK

      Delete
    12. Joanie, you have actually explained - nothing.

      You have just listed dilemmas, and spinned it into "truth", based on your "subjective" beliefs.
      In the case of "baby killing", the Chinese had been killing female babies because of the one-child policy, and for them, it was perfectly moral and justified.

      If it depends on the context, then it is not objective.

      Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings

      "Morality" depends on and can be interpreted as truth based upon an individual's biases, interpretations, feelings and imaginings, and cannot exist as the "truth" outside of those factors, therefore, it is not objective.

      If it can be interpreted as the "truth" based on "subjective" factors, and loses it's "truth" outside of those factors, then it is not objective.

      Something that is objective has a truth that cannot be changed by "subjective" factors.

      For example, dismembering a person will kill him, and it is true regardless of any interpretations, and it cannot be successfully interpreted any other way, and that makes it the objective truth that absolutely everyone can agree upon.

      Delete
    13. You should say "I have understood nothing."

      In the end, psychos know what's right and wrong when it comes to how they want others to treat them. So even for them morality is not subjective.

      Ciao.

      Delete
    14. Lol!
      Is that it? The great Joanie lost his godly eloquence and reverted to simple passive-aggresive insults? Ahahahahhahaha!

      Ciao, indeed ;-)

      Delete
    15. @ North at 5.03pm:

      "The measure of rationality should be the degree to which they meet their purpose rather than their happenstance contradiction with any individual's self interest (just to make the distinction clear)"

      This is too tortuous in terms of logic and assumptions. It is anything but 'clear'. What distinctions? Rationality does not 'meet its purpose'. It just is. It is a mode of reasoning absent of emotional 'weight'.

      "'Deceive': the human brain is designed to convince."

      Probably most neuroscientists would disagree with you. They would suggest the brain is designed to perceive external stimulae, interpret them, assess them for threat/benefit, and respond; mostly, autonomously; as the brain is also designed to monitor and move a physical body without conscious thought, ~99% of the time.

      "(VN?) said manipulation was a strategy."

      Then she would be correct. 'To manipulate': persuade, inspire, direct for a purpose. A neutral activity, for one's own good, or others'. It's a common human behaviour, frequently employed by many women, to 'change their man'.

      Only sometimes it doesn't work. The man manipulates them. Surprise, shock, chagrin, can result. Tables turned.

      VM also said: "We are not your friends".
      A simple, rational statement. Not an 'emotional attack'; just truthful.

      [Richie McCaw? what is that?]

      XK

      Delete
    16. The measure of a rule's rationality. I'm using your language: I would only consider a rule as fit for purpose or not.

      The human brain's primary purpose is survival, absolutely. Social inclusion and management of resource investment are factors in the success of one's genepool. I pulled the phrase from New Scientist (I think): it's somewhat rhetorical, but also very powerful. Consider the value of rhetoric in communication compared with "logic". The "truth" and "validity" are far less important to achieving one's ends than being able to convince others to invest in particular ways and those decisions are usually made at the emotional level. Hence advertising. William Gibson (this actually being spoken by the sociopathic character in his novel Pattern Recognition):


      You ‘know’ in your limbic brain. The seat of instinct. The mammalian brain. Deeper, wider, beyond logic. That is where advertising works, not in the upstart cortex. What we think of as ‘mind’ is only a sort of jumped-up gland, piggybacking on the reptilian brainstem and the older, mammalian mind, but our culture tricks us into recognizing it as all consciousness. The mammalian spreads continent-wide beneath it, mute and muscular, tending its ancient agenda. And makes us buy things.


      Fucking amazing insight.

      "A simple, rational statement. Not an 'emotional attack'; just truthful. "
      And taken for that. This is a purely rational discussion.

      For the sake of clarity, it might be more fruitful to regard manipulation as a tactic (maybe VN said that, I can't recall) in achieving a strategy. So I am interested in the boundary between manipulation and other tactics such as planned communications and environmental manoeuvring. The distinction I've drawn is that I'm personally comfortable with anything that doesn't infringe on the rights or personhood of another. Even being strategic in interpersonal relationships feels quite odd to me; I rarely do it, hence my curiosity.

      Former England five-eighth Stuart Barnes wrote in the English press that "McCaw is a cheat but that is his job". His defenders would suggest that McCaw has been the one man smart enough to exploit rugby's most complex area to officiate and if that fails, they can simply point to the scoreboard.

      Delete
    17. Socioempath @ 2:58-

      You reminded me of this quote in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven", when Eva Green (Sybilla), says this to Orlando Bloom:

      Sybilla: "There will be a day when you will wish you had done a little evil to do a greater good."

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    18. Socioempath @ 5:17-

      "You have just listed dilemmas, and spinned it into "truth", based on your "subjective" beliefs.
      In the case of "baby killing", the Chinese had been killing female babies because of the one-child policy, and for them, it was perfectly moral and justified."

      I believe the Chinese are now experiencing a huge deficit in their female population, due to this practice...

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    19. I believe in cause and effect, and that we only understand this paradigm in part. It is a spiritual law... An overarching principle that extends from the very physical and concrete, to what has been called by various Eastern traditions as "karma", or, as Jesus articulated, the law of sowing and reaping.

      I think this is what forms the very *framework* of objective morality- which comprises more dimensions and variables than we can apprehend with our limited faculties, or penetrate with tools such as intuition, rationality, philosophy, or theology. Morality exists and operates on an objective level, in which the law of cause and effect applies in ways that we do not fully comprehend, by virtue of our limited knowledge, and subjective, imperfect, and incomplete understanding of it as a principle.

      That's my take on the issue.

      Delete
    20. A, what is your take on the increasingly popular ideas of collective consciousness?

      I recently saw a proposal for collective pronouns: WE etc. Being the physically and energetically social organisms we are, I conceive of the emergence of a morality from the adapting collective, this being distinct from any one individual and thereby not subjective. Within my model, however, that morality is perceived and acted upon largely subconsciously (granting such complexity as you describe) and as a factor influencing investment decision making and the operation of individual survival drivers.

      The Gift of Fear is excellent so far. Thankyou for the recommendation.

      Delete
    21. I think that we are effectively creating a collective consciousness. Technology serves as the most important catalysts in this process. It is the reason for the rapid shifts in consciousness that M.E. refers to in this blog post. The human mind is capricious, and readily submits to paradigm shifts dictated by the most vocal and persuasive views articulated by the masses, acclimatizing to and rationalizing away cognitive dissonance very easily. This is a very powerful mechanism for social progress.

      While this represents a natural step in human evolution, this is where you and I will diverge ideologically, because I think it is a process is stunted and tainted by our collective sin. (Which does in fact have biological heritable properties) I think you can surmise where I'm going with this...

      In that great metaphor of the Garden if Eden, what caused humanity to "fall"? The knowledge of good and evil. That which is responsible for our evolution and progress ironically also causes us to stumble and fail. This is why the concept of Saviour is so very pivotal, both metaphorically and literally- a strong data point, if you will- in the course of our unfolding human history.

      This is also prefigured in the story if the tower of Babel- An apt symbol of civilization’s natural propensity and to collapse from within. On the surface, that sounds like a bleak narrative- but it is one laced with hope too, as epitomized in the powerful themes of redemption and renewal that pervade our collective human experience.

      "Our Lord has written the promise of resurrection, not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime.” –Martin Luther

      And you're welcome. I thought it might be helpful to you on your current vector.

      Delete
    22. North-

      Thanks for the music!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    23. A @ 12:48-

      I agree with you completely.:)

      ~Vegas

      Delete
  7. @ A & XK: The doctor decided my pneumonia is severe enough that they're keeping me hospitalized for some time; I went to one of their smaller locations but they moved me to their main campus location, my lungs were in excruciating pain. Nebulizer(? It's the breathing treatment), so many antibiotics, etc. The food is good, and there's free wifi.

    Morality will always be subjective and based on context. Cannibalism may be less taboo in Japan? I recall there was a news story some time ago about a man who cut off his genetalia, cooked it up, and served it to a group of people who paid to consume it. If I remember right, there is also a man there who ate a young woman, somehow got through a loophole in the laws and is now a celebrity? Any where else this kind of behavior would have huge backlash, but perhaps it is safe to assume the culture of Japan is basically the right kind of place for better tolerance towards this kind of behavior.

    Speaking of eating people, on my first trip to the hospital where I got my pneumonia diagnosed, during the ambulance ride (because seizure) the woman sitting alongside me had such a pretty neck and I was feeling quite hungry; I had the interesting abrupt impulse to take a nibble. I genuinely entertained the idea for a moment but after some common sense cost-benefit analysis I decided not to. While watching TV from my hospital bed last night though I was thinking about that moment again and thinking about eating people and I've decided to add it to my bucket list. Whenever I can find a convenient way to do that with someone willing to consent to it I'd like that. Maybe I'll go on a trip to Japan some time.

    ESTP Sociopath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ ESTP at 9.36am:

      "the woman sitting alongside me had such a pretty neck and I was feeling quite hungry; I had the interesting abrupt impulse to take a nibble."

      LOL. Stop posting stuff like that or they'll take away that free wifi.

      "I genuinely entertained the idea for a moment but after some common sense cost-benefit analysis I decided not to."

      Excellent. Good man. 8-) Keep doing those C-BA's. And eat all the good food they'll give you.

      XK

      Delete
    2. Japan is a strange place, man. Have you heard of Sokushinbutsu?
      People who achieved self mummification were revered in Japan. Eventually it had to be banned by the government but not until the 19th century...

      Try and explain the process of Sokushinbutsu to anybody around you in the western culture. You will see a facial expression of profound disgust and unease. I tried it with 2 people. Both had the same exact expression.
      Estp, if you try that with your nurses you will get thrown out :)

      Delete
    3. Actually, nurses are tough. They may not get squeamish. Some could actually be interested in the science of it.

      Delete
    4. Impressionable much, Espy?

      Don't be an asshole. At best, it represents the waste of two perfectly good lives.

      Take, for instance, the curious case of Armin Meiwes, who ate a voluntary victim he found over the internet, starting with his penis- which he and the victim consumed together. Now he gets to spend the rest of his life raping and getting raped in prison, all because he ate undercooked cock sausage. xD

      Winning ~

      Delete
    5. Although a guy like him might not mind that. :P

      Which brings me to my next point: you can sublimate a lot of compulsions and urges without necessarily having to indulge them fully or directly.

      Be smart, not stupid.

      Delete
  8. To me Adam is the most entertaining writer on this blog. His oration is unmatched. He'd be the only one on here I'd read if he ever authored a book. And if I like something that usually means so will everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where have you heard him speak?

      I'm sure he would be the only person you read.

      Delete
    2. "He'd be the only one on here I'd read if he ever authored a book. And if I like something that usually means so will everyone else."

      Not the most potent recommendation for Adam. If everyone likes it, I think I'll avoid it, Monty. Yes, I'm being harsh. But your taste is appalling. Many others here on SW far exceed Adam's lame comments.

      You don't read. Not much and certainly not deeply.

      Mr. Hyde

      Delete
    3. Mmmm. Maybe it is Adam talking. He would only read his own book. Who knows... this site is full of narcissists.

      And yes, just like north i rank high on the narcissisc scale. So does A I assume.

      What about you, Faust?

      Delete
    4. Oh ffs, it is *definitely* Adam; he's blatting his own horn all over the place. He even used the same malapropos expression a few days ago... "his oration is unmatched"... lol.

      "Oration" refers to public speech and diction, Lord Retard.

      And yet, he fancies himself clever troll. :)

      People give themselves away with many tells.

      On that note... no, Old, I don't consider myself as ranking high on the narcissistic scale. I am the least narcissistic person on this site, by far.












      And if you believe that, you're an even bigger April fool than our resident uber-douche. xD

      I'm a huge narc. But at least I'm self-aware.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Hyde-

      I LOVE YOUR POSTS!!!

      That one to Adam/Monty, made me LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!

      I completely agree with you.:)

      YOU ARE AWESOME!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
  9. Mmmm. Maybe it is Adam talking. He would only read his own book. Who knows... this site is full of narcissists.

    And yes, just like north i rank high on the narcissisc scale. So does A I assume.

    What about you, Faust?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think I could ever bring children into this world. I see dark forces and bleakness everywhere. Even in the smiles of people I see daggers. It's a cruel place. If I had a child I would definitely protect him from the world to an extent. Im not the most empathic person but I'd see him as a clean river unpolluted and serene and I'd try to make him as strong as he could be. In my view the whole culture of child raising is messed up. If you aren't financially stable, you have mental health issues or you or your partner is abusive, then you should not be allowed have children. There also should be various intelligence measures put in place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What intelligence measures?

      Delete
    2. None that he'll mastermind, that's for sure. :D

      Delete
    3. This is getting painful to watch/read. LOL

      Adam/Spencer/Monty/Harv; even 'Jerry'? are 'not'.

      Get it? As in:
      'Do you.
      Want to.
      Play a.
      Game?'

      Delete
  11. "...but thing that has always bothered the sociopath in me is the collective amnesia that everyone experiences. No one admits, I used to be homophobic but then I realized I was wrong. Instead there is rampant hypocrisy. There is no humility. There is no healthy skepticism of their feelings of moral certainty. The moral certainty just shifts beliefs, from anti to pro or vice versa."

    The above paragraph has a serious "all" issue. People reflect on their beliefs and changes in them all the time. Also, there are some who never believed a certain way in the first place. And some may continue to believe a certain way. But beyond that, there are plenty of reasons why people may take on and defend a belief and they may have nothing to do with moral certainty. People may feel a certain way and believe what is right and wrong about it because of anger and disatifaction and fear related to varous experiences in their own lives. And they may even be aware of this on some level.

    It's really kind of hilarious reading a sociopaths opinion on this since sociopaths are known to basically lie and take what they want and then lie more about it. They seem to like to define things and then take advantage of the weakness in the definition.


    Song:


    AC/DC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Aspie at 5.18pm:

      Oh, you mean like this?

      "It's really kind of hilarious reading an Aspie's opinion on this since Aspies are known to basically misinterpret everything and examine what they narrowly want and then misinterpret more about it. They seem to like to pedantically and repetitively define things and then take advantage of the illogicalities in the[ir] definition.'

      You mean like that, right?

      XK

      Delete
    2. No I meant that you're an idiot. I hope that helps.

      Delete
    3. aspie @ 5:18-

      Well said.:)

      AC/DC ROCKS!!!

      I LOVE THAT ALBUM!!! Thanks for the song!!!

      "Back in Black" and "You Shook Me All Night Long", are some of my favorites.:)

      I dig you.:)

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    4. aspie @ 8:03-

      YOU ROCK!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    5. "They seem to like to define things and then take advantage of the weakness in the definition."

      Potent, aspie.

      Goes for narcs too. Gives them leverage in their bounded little worlds.

      Delete
    6. "No I meant that you're an idiot."
      "YOU ROCK!!!"
      "Potent, aspie.
      Goes for narcs too. Gives them leverage in their bounded little worlds."

      Here is a stereotypic example as to why it is totally pointless 'talking' to you people. One sarcastically paraphrased paragraph sets you off into abuse, just like lackwit Jonaid; you then gang up in a group, reinforcing each other that you're the ones that are 'potent' [do you actually *know* anyone with ASD? - they're far from 'potent', poor sods; and their EQ is usually 'stuck' at the age range that commonly responds with child-like insults - which you all join in with, like you're still in primary school].

      'Job done'; stuck their tongues out; so all go back to discussing music. Deep.

      What on earth are you posting into this blog for? At all? [Rhetorical question. It's likely the reason is as mediocre as the content you all seem to be displaying in your posts].

      People read this stuff. Spouting a bunch of chaotically constructed words for narcissistic validation that you might, conceivably, harbour an intellect?

      *You* are not coming across as willing or able to step out of your 'bounded little worlds'.

      Why waste your time attempting to insult someone who merely wishes to put forth a different perspective regarding what one posts, in a teasing way.

      You really have no clue how to relate to people with a different personality style. It trips you up *every time*.

      XK

      Delete
    7. It's really kind of hilarious reading a sociopaths opinion on this since sociopaths are known to basically lie and take what they want and then lie more about it. They seem to like to define things and then take advantage of the weakness in the definition.

      ^This is true. We re-frame reality according to how we define things.

      "They're far from 'potent', poor sods; and their EQ is usually 'stuck' at the age range that commonly responds with child-like insults - which you all join in with, like you're still in primary school].

      Ahem... North was referring to what Aspie said. She even quoted him:

      "They seem to like to define things and then take advantage of the weakness in the definition."

      At least take the time to *understand* the context of that which you would condescendingly deride. It would better showcase your "intellectual superiority". A failure to do so has tripped you up, *several times*. ;)

      "Why waste your time attempting to insult someone who merely wishes to put forth a different perspective regarding what one posts, in a teasing way?"

      Why get so defensive, and so easily offended by the same tactics and antics you admittedly partake of yourself [in a teasing way]?

      This has always been the dynamic an sw. If you dislike it, the better question might be why *you* post here.

      But I think you rather like to challenge people, XK. Would you say that's true?

      Delete
    8. @ A at 8.59pm:

      "But I think you rather like to challenge people, XK. Would you say that's true?"

      Of course that's true. There's no 'rather' about it. LOL

      "Why get so defensive,"

      Sigh. I am not 'defensive'. Good luck with that. LOL

      Mild annoyance at inaccuracy at best. Simplistic thinking is often not 'offensive'; it's just unfortunate. When people assume they understand another's motive, mistakenly, it's often useful for them to be informed otherwise.

      "We re-frame reality according to how we define things"

      Everybody does this. The paraphrasing was to suggest that fact to the poster.

      "It would better showcase your "intellectual superiority". A failure to do so has tripped you up, *several times*. ;)"

      Look, intellectual superiority is just a cross that one has to bear. LOL. Being human and 'tripping up' is quite normal, though, and no big deal.

      "At least take the time to *understand* the context of that which you would condescendingly deride.
      [snip]
      Ahem... North was referring to what Aspie said."

      Reality check: people cursorily scroll through long-winded blog 'conversations', quickly scan, and respond to silly points if they have a bit of time. End.

      Condescending derision is more your specialty, by the readable evidence. 8-)

      "If you dislike it, the better question might be why *you* post here."

      It is not at all obscure why.

      One could ask you the same question. I understand that he is your regular 'fun', however.

      "This has always been the dynamic an sw."

      It's eight years since this blog started. Dynamics change. Or they should, if the blog *is* still intended to progress the issues M E wishes to raise.

      Many of M E's posts have been challenging, intentionally, so it would suggest the original intent remains.

      If someone posts something in a way not to one's liking: either ignore it, or attempt not to get emotional about it. That's a good dynamic to strive for, would you not agree? Then ideas get exchanged, primarily. Not point scores.

      XK

      Delete
  12. I thought this was funny and more true than not.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFnDBQOMYjw

    ReplyDelete
  13. Guitar Solo:

    1985

    It ends for the most part at 9:20.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aspie-

      AWESOME GUITAR SOLO!!!

      Thank you.:)

      Socioempath-

      Did you listen to it???

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    2. aspie-

      OMG!!!

      That guitar solo just gets BETTER AND BETTER!!!

      I think that is THE BEST GUITAR SOLO I'VE EVER HEARD!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    3. Of course I did, Vegas ;-)

      Delete
    4. Socioempath-

      I thought so.:)

      I got a wink.:)

      *****BLUSHING*****

      ~Vegas

      Delete
  14. Replies
    1. aspie-

      Thank you for the song.:)

      Here's one for you!!!

      SwedishHouseMafia

      Hope you like it.:)

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    2. Hi Vegas. Thanks for the link. Nice song. Thanks also for the kind words. Have a great week!

      Delete
    3. Hey aspie-

      You are more than welcome for the link, and the kind words.:)

      I'm glad you liked the song, and I hope you have a great week, too!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
  15. NM-

    If you are out there-

    Did you ever get a chance to watch the movie "True Romance"???

    ~Vegas

    ReplyDelete
  16. A-

    You know what I think would be fun to do???

    Get baptized in "The Sea of Galilee", and then go for a swim in "The Dead Sea".:)

    ~Vegas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just so long as it's not in the filthy Jordan. I'd just as soon jump in the Ganges. :P

      You may find it interesting that the Dead Sea is located in close proximity to the cities of the Plain, which included Sodom and Gomorrah.

      You know what the Bible recounts concerning Lot's wife. A swim in the Dead Sea might be morbidly fascinating if you fancy the idea of floating in the salty remains of a scorched multitude. I'm in. xD

      Delete
    2. Hey A-

      I agree!!! No filthy Jordan.:)

      I think it's cool, that the Dead Sea is so close to where Sodom and Gomorrah were.:) It makes it seem kind of "naughty".:)

      HA!!! LOL!!!

      I do know the story, about Lot's wife.:)

      It would be morbidly fascinating, wouldn't it???

      I do fancy the idea of floating in the salty remains of a scorched multitude.:) It sounds AWESOME!!!

      It would be cool to be so buoyant, and the minerals are supposed to be quite therapeutic.:)

      I imagine it to be like a "Spa Day", but EVEN BETTER!!!

      I'm glad "you're in"!!!

      ~Vegas

      Delete
    3. A-

      PS-I wonder if all of the wonderful minerals in the Dead Sea, are from the "scorched multitude"???

      ~Vegas

      Delete
  17. Regarding M.E.'s Tweet:

    "Quick poll, how many ppl, spiritual or non, believe each baby is born with an identity/potential uniquely there's?"

    I believe each baby is born with an identity/potential that is uniquely theirs.:)

    ~Vegas

    ReplyDelete
  18. My husband and I have been married for about 7 yrs now. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone. He started coming home late from work, he hardly care about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he did a spell for me. Three days later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my family are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity . If you need a spell caster that can cast a spell that truly works, I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you. This is his E-mail: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com .

    ReplyDelete
  19. My husband and I have been married for about 7 yrs now. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone. He started coming home late from work, he hardly care about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he did a spell for me. Three days later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my family are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity . If you need a spell caster that can cast a spell that truly works, I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you. This is his E-mail: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi, I am a USA citizen, am here to testify how i got my Ex back with the help of this God-sent called Dr Unity for the great things he has done in my life.. First of all i want to thank mareen for the post she made on how Dr Unity helped her in bringing back her lover. At first when i saw the posting i was so happy and in the other hand so scared,That this might not be real, Then i decided to give it a try in which i contacted Dr Unity and told him how my lover left me for another lady for the past 3years and i have been lonely and depressed without him,So i asked him if he has helped anyone called mareen and he said yes, that was the lady he helped in bringing back her lover. I said good and i told him that if he can help me in bringing back my own lover,He laughed and said once i have contacted him that my problem will be solved.He said that my lover will be back to me within 48hours, Truly when the 48hours was completed i got a text from someone saying am sorry, then i decided to call the number i saw it was my lover Steve voice.i was so happy he was begging me and crying on phone, That he is ready to do anything that will make me happy in life,So i told him to come over which he did,As he was coming he came with a brand new Car as gift. i am so happy today with the help of Dr Unity. He has proven to me that he is not going to leave me for another lady again and stay with me forever, Am so happy today and am also thanking mareen for posting this early.Dr Unity you are truly a man of your word. He can also any kind of sickness and he can solve any kind of problems in this world. Friends i believe Dr Unity is a man to trust and believe on. You don't need to cry anymore Dr Unity has been sent to clean our tears you can contact him on his Email: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com or cell phone +2348072370762.

    ReplyDelete
  21. When you're tired, you want to relax after a stressful working hours, you need to have time to take care of the kids active.
    Please visit our website and play exciting flash games.
    Thanks you for sharing!
    Friv 4

    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.