If a child approaches me and asks me, "If there is a hole for every gopher, how do I know your hole isn't a gopher's?" I would respond, "Your question, dear child, is based on faulty logic. Just because every gopher has a hole, it does not follow that all holes belong to gophers." When you call Ark's response 'rude', you are falling into the psychopath's trap of paramoralism.Ekimus said:wow did you even read my response to the answers i was given before you posted yours, and telling a person they have a logical error is rude and ignorant, like my second post said i was curious to see what the answer was, of course i could answer the question my self, i did pass grade 2 ya know. myabe it's your logic that thats fetaly flawed, you looked at the question and saw only that. I expect a whole lot more from you. Think if i thought that the scott team were a dissinformation program that i would have listened to anything on this page. aslo don't think i get my news from one place and one place alone......
sad really, and rude,
never judge a person on a single question. the smartest man could ask the most obvious of questions, but that does not make him logicaly flawed
Some more quotations from Ponerology:
Who was the 'professor' in your life, Ekimus? Or are you the professor?Lobaczewski said:You can just imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world-view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the 'professor's' chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right off of them. They gave the impression of possessing some secret knowledge; we were only their former colleagues, still believing what those professors of old had taught us. We had to be careful of what we said to them.
The atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic. Let us call this the first criterion of ponerogenesis.
Recall here the power of the paranoid characteropath lies in the fact that they easily enslave less critical minds, e.g. people with other kinds of psychological deficiencies, or who have been victims of individuals with character disorders, and, in particular, a large segment of young people.