Logical implications of words are more interesting than the words themselves. Here's how things work, Cupid.
Follow closely. I never claimed complete information. You decided to claim it for me. Then you used your contrived claim to justify an attack against my argument on the grounds that it lacks complete information. So you put up the strawman up and you started whipping him. In short, you were arguing against your staged claim that you pinned on me without my consent, knowing that neither I nor anyone else has complete information but which would allow you to make a meal of it.

And that necessary implies that you require complete information ... for if anyone argues with you with less than complete information - as we all invariably do (being outsiders and what not) - then you'll find just cause in whipping that strawman. It's your modus operandi, Chico. Prevarication, in one word.



You refuted nothing. You're just reasserting your bankrupt understanding of evil. For if you had understood, you would know that the essence of evil must exist before it can express itself in the environment (sociopathy). Sociopathy is not an essence but a behavior. Indeed, a sociopath is identified by their behavior, not by their essence.




As an empath, I draw attention to your nonempathic behavior. People who play games with other people's time are best categorized as nonempaths. You do a lot of gameplaying, and I'm not just talking about teh episode with Heebert. Not quite sociopaths, so I can't really call you that ... but you're definitely worthy of the capstone in any power pyramid (great or small). As I argued with my 4-category model, nonempaths run pyramids (e.g. hire hitmen) ... sociopaths do the dirty work (e.g. seek employment as hitmen). They both represent a lack of conscience, differing only in their degree of the essence of evil.

I'd tell you not to let the power get to your head, Chico, but we've already seen in this burp of a forum your propensity to abuse power. Typical powercrazed nonempath. Get used to your classification.



Listen up, resident nonempath, you've belabored the point that technology can identify sociopaths more precisely today than in days gone by. You even made mischief earlier on by suggesting that sociopathy had not been studied for millennia (as per my claim). Words have logical consequences. Stand by your words.


Pax

No, no, no. You implied that my argument was that complete information was required. I did not argue that complete information was required. I only said that you do not have complete information. Sufficient information that is accurate and truthful is required, and that's what I was arguing. Here's what you said.


You interpreted "complete information" as all information that could possibly be had. I interpreted "complete information" as sufficient information that is both accurate and truthful, with "sufficient" implying that one can arrive at accurate and truthful conclusions based on that amount of information. In other words, the amount and quality of the information is "complete" in that you have the minimum necessary information to make the proper conclusions that are also accurate and truthful.

Your convoluted suspicions of what I was intending are simply more indicators of your sociopathic mindset.


Complete nonsense! Does anger exist before it can express itself? Or happiness? These are the outputs of brains with specific psychological makeups. It's the same for good and evil, as they are subjective, meaning a product of the subject. They don't exist without the subject.


You're a game-playing sociopath. Your level of empathy may be higher than many sociopaths, but it's not enough to compensate for your other pronounced sociopathic traits.

No. When you push your opponent's arguments into the extreme in order to defeat them, then that necessarily implies that you endorse the extreme. The extreme in this case is that complete information is required, for that is the claim you made on my behalf without my consent.

As a further illustration of this cheap tactic, I refer you to Marcus Antony and his theatre over Caesar's corpse, when he referred to the assassins as honorable men. The sarcasm is dripping. Antony in making the speech pushes the assassins towards an extreme, e.g. honor, knowing that they cannot live up to it after what they had done to Caesar. Similarly, you pushed my argument into the extreme of complete information knowing that I wouldn't be able to live up to it. At which point you can declare victory.

When you made the claim that I had assumed to have complete information (which I never did) ... you lost the rational argument and gained the emotional mob. Just like Antony.



No rational person ever interprets complete information as all information that could possibly be had. You've now brought two canards into the discussion, one, the canard of complete information; and two, the canard of an intelligent person claiming to be in possession of complete information.



Please don't abandon your poor English comprehension skills at my doorstep. I need space there in the morning for milk bottles.



The potential for anger exists in all of us. The environment triggers this potential on occasion. Ditto for happiness.
Ditto for evil. Objectivity is a matter of having the potential. Subjectivity is a matter of degree of expression.
OTOH, if we lacked the potential for A, then nothing can trigger us to express A. You have a woeful understanding of potential and expression.



If I'm a sociopath, then 99.9999999% of humanity are also sociopaths, differing only in degree of empathy, from very little to next to nothing. If you're a sociopath , Chico, or in the quad-class scenario, a nonempath, then we can probably peg the percentage of humanity that are also sociopaths at somewhere around 50%.


Pax

But of course. I need to defeat you, and I have to go to extremes to do it. Why do I bother to talk with a fool...


I know. I'm not dealing with a rational person.


No speekee engleesh.


No comprende.


But of course. You are simply too ridiculous, Zook. I'm done trying to talk to you.

The problem with you, Chico, is that messenger attack is your first resort. Even here, when I remarked defeat them ... you quickly went to the messenger-oriented interpretation of defeating the opponent and ignored the message-oriented interpretation of defeating the opponent's arguments.



You don't talk, Chico ... you badger discussion until the important meanings are displaced by some measure of drama. Then you play the drama queen, as you are doing now. Get some professional help before the penguins get ya and waddle you off to an igloo and fit you for a crown.

Pax

Alex Jones brought up an interesting scenario. That Snowden actually works for the telecom companies fighting the NSA for intelligence control. I tend to agree, as there has not been any incriminating evidence on 911, War on drugs, UFO's, Agenda 21 and so on and so on and so on....

Whatever the case, the NSA and the telecom companies are both extensions of the military corporate octopus.

Either way, Snowden is not with the people ... but against them (and in cahoots with the milicorp octopus) ... as has been demonstrated earlier via Snowden's connections to Wikileaks (and sundry bankster agents associated with Wikileaks).

FWIW, many telecom companies appear to have some connection with Tel Aviv. So there's another popcorn on the trail to pick up and chew.


Pax

A list of open source Israeli Telecom Companies involved in corporate, no less Military, is very revealing.

I just don't see anyway of getting out from the boot of power. No matter what organization forms, it will be used against the people.

We are most assuredly still at the negotiating table, less building any structure to it.

Most definitely planning stage...

Why is everyone fixating on the individual that delivered the info and not the info!!!

ES is becoming more fishy for myself. Why would you ever go on mainstream media? Any real course would be exposed on real media.

This cloak and dagger stuff is so deep due to the length of hiding by psychopaths within our system. While following the bread crumbs of "who done it" is a truth, it can be used as a half truth to lead you to the cannibalistic witch living deep in the forest in a house constructed of cake and confectionery.

Identifying sociopathy must be priori in truth seeking, general or specific.