Reaction of (self-proclaimed) psychopath to PP video

[anart]

How are you so self-convinced of your objectivity? Seriously, the idea that anyone else must be wrong is almost, dare I say, psychopathic?

Maybe. That is a subject open to speculation.

Hitler is almost universally condemned. I try to look beyond the common viewpoint of him. The Nazis are a powerful illustration of the ability of fascism applied to a goal.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

He included parts of an authoritative source that may have been unnecessary.

I appreciate the state. If you want anarchy or radical 'progressivism' go off and start your own country.

Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, my dear.

If one defines a German victory in WWII as control over western and central Europe, than it would have been simple. Germany took over from Poland to France. All they had to do was consolidate their holdings over the occupied territories. The battle of Britain would have been won for Germany if the focus was on military targets, not civilian ones. Germany needed to destroy airfields and industry, not houses. I am relatively certain that if Germany locked in a solid foothold over western Europe, that they would have won WWII. Instead, Germany over-extended itself, and was unprepared for a multiple front war as they did. D-Day worked because there weren't enough Germans patrolling the coast.

Your proof?

That thought has crossed my mind and been accepted in part. A closed non-linear universe makes a little more sense to me.

Apologies, but as the evening has gone on, you are making even less objective sense. This is a tad disappointing, I must admit. You clearly have no in-depth understanding of psychopathology, nor of objectivity, history, sociology, psychology, nor even of Ted Bundy. It seems more and more likely that you are either rather young and, as they used to say, talking through your hat - they say much more crass things these days - or that you are 'pulling our chain' for entertainment purposes.

Please, for the purposes of this forum, and for your general edification, do some reading and some serious research and return only after you can discuss such topics intelligently.

This forum is not for noise, and thus far you have supplied nothing -absolutely nothing - but noise: opinion, conjecture, faulty reasoning and rather bizarre conclusions based on anything other than observable fact. Take some time to learn and then feel free to return.

 

[Mark]

How are you so self-convinced of your objectivity? Seriously, the idea that anyone else must be wrong is almost, dare I say, psychopathic?

Typical tactic to try and cause doubt. Not that forum participants don't question themselves - that is a given - but to try as you do here to inflict doubt is a typical self-defense mechanism. People can and do - as you demonstrate - work endlessly to defend their cozy sleep state, or naturally inherent makeup, depending on the individual.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong and admitting it, or lacking knowledge and admitting it. Most of us here do that when the need arises. At the same time, when we see something we often know what it is pretty quick due to it's 'flavor'.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

There you go again.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

There you go again.

In your perspective Bundy and McElroy could have been perfect killers.

Where they 'went wrong' was thinking they could actually harm another with no consequences. They have no conscience, everything is mechanically derived, like some kinds of animals (some of whom even appear to look like humans).

He included parts of an authoritative source that may have been unnecessary.

Maybe in your perspective. But see, this forum isn't all about you. There are actually others here...

I appreciate the state. If you want anarchy or radical 'progressivism' go off and start your own country.

This is, as far as I can tell, an open universe, so if that's true then there's no need to start a new country. I could be wrong though.

Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, my dear.

Objectivity is its inverse. And doing this work here is a science, which means being open to changing one's perspective based on available data.

 

[Zadius Sky]

My apologies, I am not familiar with Fulcanelli. Physics is a particularly poor subject of mine, I intend to take a course in it within the near future.

Physics?? Fulcanelli is considered to be an alchemist. Physics is a small part of his works, osit.

If you don't know who Fulcanelli was/is, here's the info:
http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fulcanelli

fwiw

 

[Approaching Infinity]

As a counterpoint to your quote, "(Psychopathy) is still so severely maladaptive that it requires 'normals' to survive," I am arguing that normals also require normals to survive. No sane psychopath will deplete the herd. The insane ones generally wind up in the penal system.

This right here is your problem. There is NO SUCH THING as a sane psychopath. Another one of your innate flaws. Your own conviction in your superiority and your abilities (which in fact do not exist) are what lead to your own destruction. And you don't even have the capability to see this and do anything about it.

Psychopaths are not creative because they do not have the ability, not because they choose not to use their creative skills. Do some research.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Hitler is almost universally condemned. I try to look beyond the common viewpoint of him. The Nazis are a powerful illustration of the ability of fascism applied to a goal.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

Exactly. In your mind the only thing this child-molester, rapist and woman-beater did wrong was get caught! I'm sure you could have done such a better job, huh?

 

[Beau]

I have yet to meet a moron in these forums.

As the old saying goes, if you look around the poker table and don't see the sucker, you are IT!

 

[webwizard09]

How are you so self-convinced of your objectivity? Seriously, the idea that anyone else must be wrong is almost, dare I say, psychopathic?

Maybe. That is a subject open to speculation.

Hitler is almost universally condemned. I try to look beyond the common viewpoint of him. The Nazis are a powerful illustration of the ability of fascism applied to a goal.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

He included parts of an authoritative source that may have been unnecessary.

I appreciate the state. If you want anarchy or radical 'progressivism' go off and start your own country.

Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, my dear.

If one defines a German victory in WWII as control over western and central Europe, than it would have been simple. Germany took over from Poland to France. All they had to do was consolidate their holdings over the occupied territories. The battle of Britain would have been won for Germany if the focus was on military targets, not civilian ones. Germany needed to destroy airfields and industry, not houses. I am relatively certain that if Germany locked in a solid foothold over western Europe, that they would have won WWII. Instead, Germany over-extended itself, and was unprepared for a multiple front war as they did. D-Day worked because there weren't enough Germans patrolling the coast.

Your proof?

That thought has crossed my mind and been accepted in part. A closed non-linear universe makes a little more sense to me.

Apologies, but as the evening has gone on, you are making even less objective sense. This is a tad disappointing, I must admit. You clearly have no in-depth understanding of psychopathology, nor of objectivity, history, sociology, psychology, nor even of Ted Bundy. It seems more and more likely that you are either rather young and, as they used to say, talking through your hat - they say much more crass things these days - or that you are 'pulling our chain' for entertainment purposes.

Please, for the purposes of this forum, and for your general edification, do some reading and some serious research and return only after you can discuss such topics intelligently.

This forum is not for noise, and thus far you have supplied nothing -absolutely nothing - but noise: opinion, conjecture, faulty reasoning and rather bizarre conclusions based on anything other than observable fact. Take some time to learn and then feel free to return.

Your continued insults to the word objectivity are quite disturbing. If my statements don't line up with what you have defined to be true, than look at things from a different perspective. However, one must note that your posts have been incredibly tainted with personal bias.

I could ask the same of you, as you have completely ignored different viewpoints. I ask that you broaden your horizons, even if you feel it approaches insanity.

From page 6 onwards, excepting for the excerpt from The Mask of Sanity, who else has provided more than opinion, conjecture, faulty reasoning and rather bizarre conclusions based on anything other than observable fact? I did not start the faulty reasoning game, I believe you did with your analogy.

 

[webwizard09]

How are you so self-convinced of your objectivity? Seriously, the idea that anyone else must be wrong is almost, dare I say, psychopathic?

Typical tactic to try and cause doubt. Not that forum participants don't question themselves - that is a given - but to try as you do here to inflict doubt is a typical self-defense mechanism. People can and do - as you demonstrate - work endlessly to defend their cozy sleep state, or naturally inherent makeup, depending on the individual.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong and admitting it, or lacking knowledge and admitting it. Most of us here do that when the need arises. At the same time, when we see something we often know what it is pretty quick due to it's 'flavor'.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

There you go again.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

There you go again.

In your perspective Bundy and McElroy could have been perfect killers.

Where they 'went wrong' was thinking they could actually harm another with no consequences. They have no conscience, everything is mechanically derived, like some kinds of animals (some of whom even appear to look like humans).

He included parts of an authoritative source that may have been unnecessary.

Maybe in your perspective. But see, this forum isn't all about you. There are actually others here...

I appreciate the state. If you want anarchy or radical 'progressivism' go off and start your own country.

This is, as far as I can tell, an open universe, so if that's true then there's no need to start a new country. I could be wrong though.

Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, my dear.

Objectivity is its inverse. And doing this work here is a science, which means being open to changing one's perspective based on available data.

That was not an attempt to cause doubt so much as I was hoping for an answer.

I recognize that I am wrong when it is clear that I am. Describe the sort of 'flavors' that would indicate something was off.

My argument was that it is possible to be a perfect killer when one realizes the consequences and negates them.

I am very open to changing my perspective; however, there must be more data.

 

[webwizard09]

As a counterpoint to your quote, "(Psychopathy) is still so severely maladaptive that it requires 'normals' to survive," I am arguing that normals also require normals to survive. No sane psychopath will deplete the herd. The insane ones generally wind up in the penal system.

This right here is your problem. There is NO SUCH THING as a sane psychopath. Another one of your innate flaws. Your own conviction in your superiority and your abilities (which in fact do not exist) are what lead to your own destruction. And you don't even have the capability to see this and do anything about it.

Psychopaths are not creative because they do not have the ability, not because they choose not to use their creative skills. Do some research.

Sanity is subjective. I am assuming that this forum defines sanity as being capable of rational thought. Inherently, it must be judged using someone's standards.

What research are you using?

 

[webwizard09]

Hitler is almost universally condemned. I try to look beyond the common viewpoint of him. The Nazis are a powerful illustration of the ability of fascism applied to a goal.

Bundy had opportunities to learn from. He could have studied the past. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I am not defending McElroy; I am merely observing where he went wrong.

Exactly. In your mind the only thing this child-molester, rapist and woman-beater did wrong was get caught! I'm sure you could have done such a better job, huh?

I had assumed that it was universally understood that molestation and rape among others were generally considered wrong. I wouldn't do a 'job'.

 

[webwizard09]

I have yet to meet a moron in these forums.

As the old saying goes, if you look around the poker table and don't see the sucker, you are IT!

Perchance the fool I am quoting should not have revealed himself as such by speaking?

 

[Beau]

Webwizard should have heeded his own advice. Since he consistently displayed his inability to both understand the most basic human logic and follow the forum rules, I have banned him. Ya'll can still reply if you like, for the sake of readers, but it's become clear he will not grasp anything that is said unless it flows from his holy mouth.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Sanity is subjective.
I am assuming that this forum defines sanity as being capable of rational thought. Inherently, it must be judged using someone's standards.

Well how about this definition of sanity - the ability to perceive objective reality. So then, rational would be defined by how close the thought is to objectivity. Because to someone who is insane, their own subjective logic and thinking is perfectly rational, but this is the "subjective" type of rationality. In our default state we're all insane, and fully under the illusion of being completely rational. So this necessitates us to first discover the objective meaning of this word, and then try to see where we are compared to objective reality.

That latter part is not to use someone else's standards. It's simply an accumulation of data and the effort of a collinear group to collect and analyze this data together, and correct one another's biases in the process. When you say "standards" here you are talking about opinion, perspective, personal world view. This is not what we care about here, this is not what we look for because this is not how objectivity is obtained. Did you ever read the opinions thread?

When you say sanity is subjective, it just looks to me like you are exhibiting the same pattern that has been pointed out earlier, an inability to acknowledge existence of facts, that everything is just a matter of perspective and different points of view, none more objective than any other.

For example when you say it is arrogant to call someone arrogant - why is that? What if they ARE arrogant? Is it arrogant to point out the truth?

If my statements don't line up with what you have defined to be true, than look at things from a different perspective.

A few problems with this.

First, Anart did not define anything as true. She did a lot of research and collaboration with others to determine what is most likely true based on data and a and a critical analysis of this data. No making up of our own truths here.

Second, if your statements do not line up with Anart's understanding, then the *answer* is not for Anart to simply switch her perspective like a TV channel to resolve this issue. Again, you are looking at things as just a collection of arbitrary perspectives, none of which are inherently more objective. But that's simply not true. There is such thing as objectivity, and there is such thing as subjectivity, and there is such thing as "the insane think everyone else is insane".

The problem with this discussion, if you are a psychopath, is that you will be inherently unable to understand the points being made. And this may sound like a "cop out" to just end the discussion, but again, if you are a real psychopath, it's simply the way it is, there is nothing anybody could say to explain to you your own blindness because it's like explaining physical sensations to someone who has always been numb and never felt anything. Then they can say "Oh wow I am glad I don't, I never get hurt!". Pain warns you when there is a problem, and you address the problem, and you can save yourself in ways you may not immediately understand. This is why STS destroys itself in the end. What is rational about this? What is rational about a being that serves SELF to do that which destroys the self? Nothing you may say, and yet this is precisely what happens over and over and over.

So think about the universe as a giant body. Everyone is a body part. Empathy is what allows us to feel and know and care when someone else, which is another part of the universal body, hurts. Addressing this pain is important for EVERYONE. Having no ability to feel the pain of this body is going to destroy you just like being numb and not being able to feel the pain of your physical body will destroy you and everything around you. You will destroy the body, and the brain will die, and you won't even know what hit you. RA even described something similar:

QUESTIONER: Then for the last 2,300 years you have been working to create as large a harvest as possible at the end of the total 75,000 year cycle. Can you state with respect to the Law of One why you do this?
RA: I am Ra. I speak for the social memory complex termed Ra. We came among you to aid you. Our efforts in service were perverted. Our desire then is to eliminate as far as possible the distortions caused by those misreading our information and guidance . The general cause of service such as the Confederation offers is that of the primal distortion of the Law of One, which is service. The One Being of the creation is like unto a body, if you will accept this third-density analogy. Would we ignore a pain in the leg? A bruise upon the skin? A cut which is festering. No. There is no ignoring a call. We, the entities of sorrow, chose as our service the attempt to heal the sorrow which we are calling analogous to the pains of a physical body complex/distortion.

But honestly, I think we're just going to go in circles. You're going to continue saying "If I am wrong, I will admit it, if you can just show me that I'm wrong", and we'll show you, and you'll just look at what we showed and say "Yeah uh, this is just subjective nonsense, look at my perspective instead" and we'll tell you that you're unable to understand what we're showing you, and you'll again say "No, if you would just explain to me what you mean, and I understand it, then I will admit being wrong if I really am".

Do you see the problem? You have no capability to perceive or understand this, if you are psychopath, and so it's rather pointless to run around in circles here, osit.

 

[Al Today]

My argument .....

Seems that this is what we have here, an petty argument. Twisting of words and attempts to ruffle feathers, all the while NOTHING gets accomplished. Some people just like a challenge, yes? Perhaps even when there is no point but to win the challenge. Reminds me of children on the playground. There is always some child who 'WANTS' to dominate, to be in control, to be in the 'right', sorta like 'big man on campus'. Petty Tyrants do have their place don't they? Thanks for the learning experience.

 

[Laura]

From page 6 onwards, excepting for the excerpt from The Mask of Sanity, who else has provided more than opinion, conjecture, faulty reasoning and rather bizarre conclusions based on anything other than observable fact? I did not start the faulty reasoning game, I believe you did with your analogy.

That's because you had neither the intelligence nor the courtesy to use the search function of the forum and read the many discussions on the subject at hand and spare the other members repeating themselves over and over again. For a nanosecond I even thought about posting the links to all the threads and posts where you could have gathered data, but it really didn't seem to be worth my time. You obviously have a lot more of that on your hands than I do.