Das verbrogene Böse

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Data: And what percentage of mothers have to do it, that arise enough psychopaths and destroy the world? 5 or 10 or 15%? It does not take as many as you might think.

Aiming: Thank you! Psychopaths may have invented some of the religious teachings to oppress us. But God and its effect in us they did not invent. Every believer can feel God in himself.

And what does this have to do with the guidelines?

I may also recommend reading "Just like his Father." This book goes into the nurture side of the argument and what the most recent research says in regards to trying to overcome the biological barriers from the genes strongly associated with psychopathy. There was a decent amount in that book that I found nowhere else.

It goes over how a true psychopath lacks development in a few areas... impulse control, Ethics, and attachment/empathy. It's kind of frightening to see exactly how much would need to be done to hope for a child with the genetic predisposition to not turn into a psychopath. Worse still... even with these measures taken with a genetic predisposition they can still turn into one through drug use or drinking frequently.

It's a good read and an interesting read but the author doesn't hold degrees.

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ok, I'll try to get an official version.

There is a good book about the making of psychopaths. It is mothers who treat their children wrong. Author Estela Welldon.

The original English version is:

Mother, Madonna, W-h-ore: The Idealization of Motherhood and denigrations
_http://books.google.ch/books/about/Mother_Madonna_Whore.html?id=mSYaY9_WvEEC&redir_esc=y

The German version is:
Perversion der Frau
_http://web.psychosozial-verlag.de/psychosozial/details.php?catp=&p_id=164

I think that these processes are very important in childhood.

Not a very reliable source, it seems. See:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estela_V._Welldon
and her honorary "alma mater" which happens to be a trade school.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Brookes_University

She's a psychoanalyst which means she is a Freudian and of all people on the planet, Freud was a psychopath.

I see a curious habit in you, Laura (and a few others), of making the Ad Hominum Fallacy. In the strictest sense the truth would be the truth regardless of who said it so it's important to separate the source from the information and to take all information as being separate from the other information presented.

Is there a reason for such strict adherence to this fallacy?

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
_http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

 

[Beau]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

I'm not sure I would interpret this the same way but I appreciate the link. All I see here is that her husband betrayed her. That seems to make me trust her as a source more as she clearly felt the sting of betrayal from a possible psychopath. Also Dr. Hare supports her... and that is a highly reputable source. It may actually serve to make her a better source to learn from.

Again there is this ad hominem fallacy though... The question is if the information in the book is valid and not if the person is valid isn't it?

 

[anart]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

I'm not sure I would interpret this the same way but I appreciate the link. All I see here is that her husband betrayed her. That seems to make me trust her as a source more as she clearly felt the sting of betrayal from a possible psychopath. Also Dr. Hare supports her... and that is a highly reputable source. It may actually serve to make her a better source to learn from.

Again there is this ad hominem fallacy though... The question is if the information in the book is valid and not if the person is valid isn't it?

No, Ben, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. We've dealt with this woman one on one and she is a seriously, seriously disturbed individual. If you read the facts of the criminal case you would realize that she is the one who faked her husband's credentials in order to allow him to predate on her patients - she's in it up to her neck. She's also used her son as an avenue for revenue generation and accused him of pathology that she herself displays. Those who have worked with her one on one (Hare has not in any real capacity) have refused to work with her again and cut all ties with her. Honestly, Ben, one would think that you would tire of being so stubborn about assuming you're right when you haven't read all the facts. Really, since the day you arrived here, you've done nothing but that and enough is enough.

 

[1984]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Worse still... even with these measures taken with a genetic predisposition they can still turn into one through drug use or drinking frequently.

Can you provide data re: your sentence above?

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

I'm not sure I would interpret this the same way but I appreciate the link. All I see here is that her husband betrayed her. That seems to make me trust her as a source more as she clearly felt the sting of betrayal from a possible psychopath. Also Dr. Hare supports her... and that is a highly reputable source. It may actually serve to make her a better source to learn from.

Again there is this ad hominem fallacy though... The question is if the information in the book is valid and not if the person is valid isn't it?

No, Ben, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. We've dealt with this woman one on one and she is a seriously, seriously disturbed individual. If you read the facts of the criminal case you would realize that she is the one who faked her husband's credentials in order to allow him to predate on her patients - she's in it up to her neck. She's also used her son as an avenue for revenue generation and accused him of pathology that she herself displays. Those who have worked with her one on one (Hare has not in any real capacity) have refused to work with her again and cut all ties with her. Honestly, Ben, one would think that you would tire of being so stubborn about assuming you're right when you haven't read all the facts. Really, since the day you arrived here, you've done nothing but that and enough is enough.

Yes but this post itself would yield to the ad-hominem fallacy wouldn't it? I don't see anything refuting the information... only refuting the source which is exactly what the ad-hominem fallacy is.

I'm not trying to be suborn but I fear the point is being lost. The fact is that the source is irrelevant... isn't it?

 

[EmeraldHope]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I see a curious habit in you, Laura (and a few others), of making the Ad Hominum Fallacy. In the strictest sense the truth would be the truth regardless of who said it so it's important to separate the source from the information and to take all information as being separate from the other information presented.Is there a reason for such strict adherence to this fallacy?

This is not a case where an argument is being made against the person and avoiding the argument. This is a case where the argument is incorrect a priori, and deductive reasoning was used based on many streams of data. If you read Political Ponerology, you will learn that many clues in the way one writes can reveal types of pathology. You will also learn that normal people use selection and substitution to correct the ponerized content, so any identified pathology is relevant to the line of force of any theory , practice, or philosophy especially ones that become mass implemented or distributed .


In addition you may want to read: The Psychoanalytic Movement by Ernest Gellner.


Fallacies are excellent starting points, by one must learn to think with a hammer and distill data even further to its core to find the true line of force. Black and white thinking is a no- no. :) There is so much here to learn Ben, but you honestly have to trust that perhaps people are telling you something for a reason and do some more research and try to learn. One cannot learn how to think with the way that they already think.

 

[truth seeker]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I see a curious habit in you, Laura (and a few others), of making the Ad Hominum Fallacy. In the strictest sense the truth would be the truth regardless of who said it so it's important to separate the source from the information and to take all information as being separate from the other information presented.

Is there a reason for such strict adherence to this fallacy?

I see a curious habit in you, ben. You seem intent on exerting control over this forum in general and newbies in particular by doing what 'it' likes and through your refusal to take advice which has been patiently given to you over and over again. When questioned, you apologize and attempt to impression manage by appearing humble. Just so you're aware, the strength of an apology lies not in the words but in the deeds. In other words, what one does in order to rectify any error. You, however, apologize and continue to act in the same manner over and over again.

If you have such a problem with the materials on this forum and how it's run, it should really be quite simple - find another - one that allows you to do what you please without having to take responsibility for anything. If you are truly genuine in your desire to participate here, I suggest you read or reread the forum guidelines. As was said, enough already.

 

[nova creatura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Data: And what percentage of mothers have to do it, that arise enough psychopaths and destroy the world? 5 or 10 or 15%? It does not take as many as you might think.

Aiming: Thank you! Psychopaths may have invented some of the religious teachings to oppress us. But God and its effect in us they did not invent. Every believer can feel God in himself.

And what does this have to do with the guidelines?

O, I have quoted me ...

 

[nova creatura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ben: what do you think about these three things?

 

[Joe]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
_http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

I'm not sure I would interpret this the same way but I appreciate the link. All I see here is that her husband betrayed her. That seems to make me trust her as a source more as she clearly felt the sting of betrayal from a possible psychopath. Also Dr. Hare supports her... and that is a highly reputable source. It may actually serve to make her a better source to learn from.

Again there is this ad hominem fallacy though... The question is if the information in the book is valid and not if the person is valid isn't it?

Jesus Ben, this is getting kind of frustrating, ya know? There is no "ad hominem fallacy", what there is is lots of experience and research. And it is always a good idea to assess the source ALONG with the information. Do you really think that information can be totally divorced from the person spreading the information?? Basic research requires that a researcher take ALL information into consideration, INCLUDING the source. Ya know, you obviously don't know a lot about certain topics, yet, bizarrely, it is on these topics that you seem to come across as particularly self-righteous and, dare I say, sanctimonious. Now, should I just be looking at what you say rather than making that observation? Or would it be possible that a person with a tendency to self-righteousness might end up thinking he knows more about something than he actually does? And would that information about the source be important in weeding through what such a person would say?

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Worse still... even with these measures taken with a genetic predisposition they can still turn into one through drug use or drinking frequently.

Can you provide data re: your sentence above?

_http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/7729/FinalCapstone.pdf?sequence=2

-_http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/1999/08000/Concurrent_and_Predictive_Validity_of_Antisocial.4.aspx
_http://www.documentacion.edex.es/docs/1101PICbio.pdf#page=61

I would also check out.
Vaillant, G.E. Natural history of male alcoholism. V: Is alcoholism the cart or the horse to sociopathy? Br J Addict 78:317-326,
1983.

There isn't enough conclusive data... but what you tend to see is that the same genetic predispositions are valid for both substance abuse and psychopathy... and you see very high levels of comorbidity...

In "just like his father" it goes into this a bit. Basicly... you can form attachment at this young age but if you don't yield off impulsivity then they can fall into substance abuse and then lose this attachment. Unfortunately a friend is borrowing this book. What is suggested is that, with this genetic predisposition, even the best environment would still produce a psychopath if they later fall into substance use.

 

[Gimpy]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

I was wrong... this is an MD that wrote this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Like-Father-Liane-Leedom/dp/0977801306

Liane Leedom is a highly questionable source. Basically, she is a fraud. Read here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25688.0.html - and I would recommend doing a forum search on her to read the many other threads where she is mentioned.

I'm not sure I would interpret this the same way but I appreciate the link. All I see here is that her husband betrayed her. That seems to make me trust her as a source more as she clearly felt the sting of betrayal from a possible psychopath. Also Dr. Hare supports her... and that is a highly reputable source. It may actually serve to make her a better source to learn from.

Again there is this ad hominem fallacy though... The question is if the information in the book is valid and not if the person is valid isn't it?

No, Ben, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. We've dealt with this woman one on one and she is a seriously, seriously disturbed individual. If you read the facts of the criminal case you would realize that she is the one who faked her husband's credentials in order to allow him to predate on her patients - she's in it up to her neck. She's also used her son as an avenue for revenue generation and accused him of pathology that she herself displays. Those who have worked with her one on one (Hare has not in any real capacity) have refused to work with her again and cut all ties with her. Honestly, Ben, one would think that you would tire of being so stubborn about assuming you're right when you haven't read all the facts. Really, since the day you arrived here, you've done nothing but that and enough is enough.

Yes but this post itself would yield to the ad-hominem fallacy wouldn't it? I don't see anything refuting the information... only refuting the source which is exactly what the ad-hominem fallacy is.

I'm not trying to be suborn but I fear the point is being lost. The fact is that the source is irrelevant... isn't it?

Ben, you have reached the limit of my personal patience. That could be as basic as a language barrier, or a cultural barrier, at this point its not a barrier that demonstrates to me that its worth more energy.

Its clear to me that you are not here to learn. So why are you here?