The Sociopath

Dangerously sociopathic and hopefully merely an intentional exaggeration rather than a genuine belief.

Within the frenzy, frey, confusion, deceit, and desperation that the game of social behavior imbues, many overt extreme behaviors manifest from inherent, natural, instinctive impulses and desires.

The innate desire to be impregnated can, through subtle associations, become a desire to be raped.

The inherent desire to be loved can, through subtle associations, become a desire to be sacrificed.

The desire to conquer for sake of sexual encounter can, through subtle associations, become a passion to kill.

And the desire to justify and thus release a passion can, through subtle associations, become a rationale to satiate cognitive reason.

Such is the pathology of the sociopath and criminal mind, as well as almost all psychological disorders (ignoring medical and physiological causes for the underlying mental and emotional errors).

And unfortunately also, through subtle confusions in reasoning, some people can get the end effect confused with the originating impetus, cause conflated with effect, introduction confused with finale.

In short, you are taking a rare aberrant extreme consequence and presuming it to be the origin of a passion, thus deducing an extremely dangerous, alluring, and criminal fallacy.

Hi james, Mannequin here…

Does murder exist outside of the human mind?

Is nature not extremely dangerous, alluring, and criminal by default?

Nature can be extremely dangerous and alluring, but never criminal. “Criminal” directly implies illegal, requiring social laws. “Murder” means illegal and/or unethical/unnecessary killing.

The sociopath disregards social agreements and laws, quite often rationalizing a self-righteous cause. Society is quite often not at all ethical in the forming or enforcing of laws and thus can easily inspire sociopathic behavior due to frustrations, oppressions, and/or confusions (especially for those born into a system that they never agreed to or properly understood). There are actually times when the sociopath really is ethically justified, but rarely, and certainly not as often as he would likely profess.

The sociopath is generally filled to the brim with rationalizations for accepting his unexamined passions or fetishes. Most sociopaths are not particularly dangerous, but each adds to the impetus to pile on more and more oppressive laws, which often lead to social meltdown as marshal law is chosen as the righteous means to uphold the “good of society” via extremist force (aka “Nazism”, “Stalinism”).

So if there is no law established, how do you determine unnecessary killing?

Technically, one must have a clear understanding of ethics, creature interaction, and logic before he can know whether he is being ethical. But what it mostly boils down to is sharing both the risks and the benefits of restricted social behavior. And that means that no one is killed unless others are in very high risk of the same.

When they try to explain the killing as being ethical and reasonable.

If your insisting on a statement being true, your not speaking to the idea “being” true, but truth as a justification within language and logic. Your stating a awareness of alternatives, that your acts needed or had to be. Merely proping it up by claiming “nature” is meaningless, as it is a largely meaningless escapist term used by lazy philosophers. What does nature actually mean in terms of cognition and intentions, in terms of computations algorithms of the actor agent.

Note a soldier who kills in war doesn’t hide the killings he has done. He might feel uncomfortable about aspects of it, but speaks openly when asked. He doesn’t have the impulse to lie, and the confusion is evident. How many sociopaths sit in such a position that they knew it was necessary to kill, but didn’t have full control over the situation, allowing contemplation of regret and alternatives to creep in over time? A human dimension is lacking in sociopaths. They act, and are skilled liars in clutching onto shallow, old fashioned conventions in logic we overturned in the 20th century.

No cop nor soldier, nor man or woman defending their families, cone up with such arguments. That’s for hot headed people defending their rights to self defence, in actual defence, it is different. You do what you must, what you can, timing and conditions are never ideal, you question why, second guess yourself, question the motives of others. You think about the person who died. You sometimes see someone who looks like them working or talking, and get mixed feelings. Reminds you of the bad, but you also wonder what it would be like if they never encountered you, just carried on living, became normal, alive, had kids, grandkids. That 20 generations later if your descendants would marry one another.

None psychopaths can have this dialogue with themselves and society. They have the privledge and byrdon of a conscious bearing down on them, and society is able to adapt to such views. Not the sake with psychopaths. I’m not a big fan of diehard nationalists, unconditional war hawks, or people asserting their rights to the brink of extinction. Likewise I’m opposed to the necessity of overriding any oppisitional argument from entering in regards to lethal force, or the unimpeachable right to fuck or kill.

I can only offer one extreme scenario where it is right to rape a woman. It is if your the last breeding male, with the last breeding female on earth, and she decides she doesn’t want to put out due to some bizarre feminist notions- by all means, rape is a virtue in such a situation, it isn’t her decision to snuff out the human race, as the freedom of will doesn’t overstrip the right of a species survival.

Once the population starts getting larger, the virtues start rearranging, they are depisitional, always have been based on the constitution of society and the deposition of terrain. In many points you have dualistic choices, in many situations, people don’t as it is do or die.

Smart societies adjust themselves over time to avoid the latter, and debate the path of the former. Psychopaths decide all for themselves, and they try to override the judgement of these choices to the group as evident and certain. There is nothing certain about freedom of choice, when there isn’t much choice, or reasonable awareness the individual lacked the skills or awareness to navigate out of a situation safely, we tend to judge lightly, if not declare their innocence.

If someone threatened to attack you with a short steak knife, and you shot him, we would judge you far more leniently than say, they did it to a martial arts expert who has instructed people over years how to take down knife assailants. It would be hard to believe such a man killed out ofsekf defence, and his insistance he was right to do so would land on deft ears. He clearly did it for other reasons.

In the world as it stands right now, nobody “needs” to be raped, and claims to nature are inherently false, as it is too broad and wobbly of a term. Your assertingba cultural anthropology within “nature” regarding the history of man, with a lot of mythology your subscribing to others may not. Jokers idea of Nature isn’t the sane as de Sade’s, de Sade didn’t hold to the same idea in his life, what nature was to one philosopher in antiquity to another changed, as it did within Christianity from thinker to thinker. There is certainly no scientific consensus. We can’t do science tests on “nature” anymore than we can the Taoist concept of “heavens”.

It is a nasty bullshitter argument of the Nietzscheans, we shouldn’t be surprised by so many psychopaths are attracted to the philosophy, you can assert mist anything cloaked in it’s absurd perspectivism.

Turd you are one of the biggest psychopaths as well as one of the more prominent philosophers, also you are obsessed with philosophy itself, so I guess your theory about psychopaths being attracted to philosophy holds up.

James is actually full of beans, Fact is I read online that sociopaths tend to be law abiding citizens.
I mean, most people would feel dirty being a lawyer, news reporter, or politician, but to sociopaths its like bread and butter. Stop and think about it using your so-called minds.