Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Definition of sociopathy ... 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Definition of sociopathy ...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy

beginExcerpt
so·ci·o·path
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Compare psychopath.

Origin:
1940–45; socio- + -path

Related forms
so·ci·o·path·ic, adjective
so·ci·op·a·thy [soh-see-op-uh-thee, soh-shee-] Show IPA , noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
Cite This Source
|
Link To sociopathy
Collins
World English Dictionary
sociopath (ˈsəʊsɪəˌpæθ)

— n
psychiatry another name for psychopath

socio'pathic

— adj

sociopathy

— n


Word Origin & History

sociopath
1930, coined by psychologist G.E. Partridge from socio- on model of psychopath.
end



There you go, sociopathy was coined in 1930, during a time when the great modern psychometrics movement with all kinds of claims about stuff radiating from the human brain ... were in full fancy and fuller flight.

A member of the Partridge family, no less, shaped the term on the anvil of social engineering, no doubt commissioned by the commercial apothecarian class of the day (and precursor to Big Pharma) ... to secure big profits for the elite-owned corporations of the day ... profits from an explosion of medical conditions, diseases, deviant behaviors, afflictions, and virtually anything that would justify a need for treatment. Problem. Reaction. Solution. Hegel's dialectic.

The study of evil, which had been adventured for millennia by anyone and everyone, from wise men to young brides and old wives ... and too, by the greatest minds to drag quills across parchments ... now needed to be fed into the cash cow, there ruminated, and then milked to fill the giant newly manufactured money cisterns.

What Bernays did for the advertising industry, G.E. Partridge would do for the advancement of the related psychometric disciplines of hard psychiatry and soft psychology. Indeed, seeing the world reduced to a BIg Pharma marketplace in the fledgings of the 21st century, I can't help but think that we might t have been better off if Danny Bonaduce had chimed in with his knowledgebase rather than General Electricshocks, himself.

In any event, what was once an umbrella known as evil ... has become a triage center of sorts for treating infected individuals and various degrees of infection.

Sociopathy ... millennia-old evil captured in a bottle and labeled for quick sale.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10327
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
Well, we certainly can say that you are consistent and true to form, Zook!

Your post is a wonderful illustration of your tendency to "twist and shout" -- meaning you twist the facts into propaganda for your own purposes and then grandstand that propaganda.

You wish to dismiss the idea of sociopathy, and the idea that human evil could derive from deviant human psychology (which is practically a no-brainer).

Why would you want to do this? The answer is obvious. You expose yourself once again.

You are a walking "theater of the absurd", Zook. I am watching this in awe. It's that "awesome" aspect to sociopathy that I mentioned in another post that you took such exception to. We should be disgusted by sociopathy, you protested. Well, don't worry, we are. Absurdity can be both awesome and disgusting.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
Address the definition that was provided, Chico.

Refute my analysis of the coinage and the reasons behind it.

Or you can continue with your twist and shout ... and redirect everything to the messenger again.

Sociopathy is a mask of evil. You have yet to address my argument of dualities, which makes mincemeat of your posturing around sociopathy. Address the good-evil duality ... or withdraw. Your third choice is to jump into the self-inflicted quagmire of ad hominem.

The secretive fiat-financed organization of sociopaths is what's pushing for FSD ... not the free-range habits of sociopaths.

Those who can't grasp this obvious reality ... should stick to crayons and coloring books. IMO, of course.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10327
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
Refute my analysis of the coinage and the reasons behind it.

Zook, you are as bad as Andy, posing loaded questions and insisting on an answer.

The origins of the word "sociopathy" and your speculations about any conspiracy behind it are completely irrelevant. And absurd!

UncleZook wrote:
You have yet to address my argument of dualities, which makes mincemeat of your posturing around sociopathy. Address the good-evil duality ... or withdraw.

And there it is again, redirecting the argument to a distracting side street. Your binary-minded oversimplification of a good-evil duality is the wrong question! I address evil quite often, but not in a binary-minded fashion, because that is a mistake. It's not an either-or proposition, though you always make it into one. The root problem is sociopathy, not the battle between good and evil. Sociopathy is the basic reason that there is evil, and empathy is the basic reason that there is good.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
Refute my analysis of the coinage and the reasons behind it.

Zook, you are as bad as Andy, posing loaded questions and insisting on an answer.

The origins of the word "sociopathy" and your speculations about any conspiracy behind it are completely irrelevant. And absurd!


I'm nothing at all like Andy. Another example of your piss poor discernment, perhaps ... but more likely, character assassination in lieu of a counterargument.

As for etymology, it helps us understand the social engineering carried by language. The psychiatric discipline
is rife with pseudoscientific pscyhometrics. Indeed, before the founding of the discipline, so-called nutcases were largely deemed to be eccentric or suffering from some kind of transient or permanent mental condition ... and were taken care of within the family home. Then the brain mappers and lobotimizers came and did their stuff. Then the brain biochemists came with their less invasive chemical surgeries. Now, the gene mappers want to complete the scientific dictatorship by identifying brain dysfunction potentiality.

Evil, meanwhile, has remained essentially the same ... in a dynamic oscillatory equilibrium with good for millennia come and gone and will be in dynamic oscillatory equilibrium for millennia to come and go. The enlightenments have done diddly and squat to corral evil and remove it from the dynamic oscillatory equilibrium. That's because evil exists in the known Universe as part of a duality. Like the waves on a drum, there are peaks of evil and valleys of evil, as there are peaks of good and valleys of good. All we can do given this latent duality is to make an attempt at prolonging the peaks of good and limiting the duration of the peaks of evil. Aligned with that task is the goal of defeating organization, defeating secrecy, defeating fiat money. Attempting to defeat sociopathy once and for all using gene mapping and scientific dictatorship - as you imagine it can be done - is the fool's task of defeating a core duality.

Again, evil does not need to be further understood ... it is already well understood.

That said, its current visit needs to be challenged and challenged forcefully so that its next visit won't be for a long long time. Evil ... for all intents and purposes ... is that putative mother-in-law that comes for supper, stays for a week, then a month, then with intentions to dominate the household until retirement. At some point, the son-in-law or daughter-in-law must make arrangements to evict the unwanted guest ... for the daughter (or son) lack the capacity to do so after a lifetime of Stockholming.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
You have yet to address my argument of dualities, which makes mincemeat of your posturing around sociopathy. Address the good-evil duality ... or withdraw.

And there it is again, redirecting the argument to a distracting side street. Your binary-minded oversimplification of a good-evil duality is the wrong question! I address evil quite often, but not in a binary-minded fashion, because that is a mistake. It's not an either-or proposition, though you always make it into one. The root problem is sociopathy, not the battle between good and evil. Sociopathy is the basic reason that there is evil, and empathy is the basic reason that there is good.


The root problem is the ascension of sociopaths, not the sociopaths themselves.

Ascension speaks to the rungs on the ladder: unjust organization, unjust secrecy, unjust tokens of exchange,etc.

Sociopaths can't be removed. The ladder can be removed.

Furthermore, evil derives sociopathy, not the other way around. Likewise, good derives empathy. If one is fundamentally evil, one is triggered by the environment to become sociopathic. If one is fundamentally good, one is triggered to become empathic. Sociopathy and empathy are outcomes triggered by the environment. The actual innate genetic potential exists as either good or evil.

Psychometricians and their kissing cousin cussworthy babblers have managed to lose the essence of the problem by pushing us all into a labyrinth of fancy new labels over a time immemorial duality.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:58 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10327
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
The enlightenments have done diddly and squat to corral evil and remove it from the dynamic oscillatory equilibrium. That's because evil exists in the known Universe as part of a duality.

No, that's wrong. The enlightenment is only just now happening, and you are actively trying to sabotage it, no doubt because of your personal investment in sociopathy. Recognizing that human evil comes from sociopaths, and that sociopaths can now be scientifically identified -- that is the new enlightenment, one that has never occurred in human history. The good-evil duality is the old, flawed explanation for something humans couldn't understand in the past, but which is now coming to light.

UncleZook wrote:
Attempting to defeat sociopathy once and for all using gene mapping and scientific dictatorship - as you imagine it can be done - is the fool's task of defeating a core duality.

This is your typically deceptive "straw man" argument, Zook. No one is calling for "defeating" sociopathy by gene mapping and scientific dictatorship. Of course that won't work! Sociopaths need to be identified and managed, and there's no need for genetic mapping or dictatorship or defeat.

UncleZook wrote:
The root problem is the ascension of sociopaths, not the sociopaths themselves. Ascension speaks to the rungs on the ladder: unjust organization, unjust secrecy, unjust tokens of exchange,etc. Sociopaths can't be removed. The ladder can be removed. The root problem is the ascension of sociopaths, not the sociopaths themselves.

Wrong again. Remove the ladder, but not the sociopaths, and the sociopaths will just trick the rest of us into building a new ladder. How can you be so impossibly dense? Sociopaths encourage hierarchy. No doubt you will argue that hierarchy creates sociopaths. :face:

UncleZook wrote:
Furthermore, evil derives sociopathy, not the other way around. Likewise, good derives empathy.

My gosh, Zook! Do you even listen to yourself? Back-ass backward you are. Debating with you is like debating with a madman.
:face:

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
The enlightenments have done diddly and squat to corral evil and remove it from the dynamic oscillatory equilibrium. That's because evil exists in the known Universe as part of a duality.

No, that's wrong. The enlightenment is only just now happening, and you are actively trying to sabotage it, no doubt because of your personal investment in sociopathy. Recognizing that human evil comes from sociopaths, and that sociopaths can now be scientifically identified -- that is the new enlightenment, one that has never occurred in human history. The good-evil duality is the old, flawed explanation for something humans couldn't understand in the past, but which is now coming to light.


If you can't receive opposing arguments without calling the opponent a sociopath ... then you have serious issues that need immediate attention. We already know that you support many of the psychological operations and agents of the bankster empire. All we need to do is look at the list and be charmed by a who's who of system operators (of a corrupted system). So you better start working on your integrity first before you start calling others, sociopath, else people might question your sanity as well. I mean, it's virtual insanity to suggest that someone else is invested in sociopathy when it is you, yourself, who has infected almost every debate with your wild goose pursuit of sociopathy.

You can't even consider the message without attacking the messenger, can you? If I was less charitable I would empty the whole book of cusswords in your direction ... but I think that is your aim. To get under the skin of those who are being problematic for your empire.

That said, good and evil existed long before Dr. Partridge. If you want to play lapdog to some system labcoat, that's your business. But don't waste the mindspace of others while your barking for your bone. Reality check, sociopaths cannot be scientifically identified with any accuracy as of 2014. The system may want you to think so, but since when did the system ever publish honest details about anything? It takes piss poor discernment to take anything the establishment science puts out without a heavy dose of salt.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Attempting to defeat sociopathy once and for all using gene mapping and scientific dictatorship - as you imagine it can be done - is the fool's task of defeating a core duality.

This is your typically deceptive "straw man" argument, Zook. No one is calling for "defeating" sociopathy by gene mapping and scientific dictatorship. Of course that won't work! Sociopaths need to be identified and managed, and there's no need for genetic mapping or dictatorship or defeat.


You are quite the mendacious one, Chico. I made the argument that we have everything we need to know to identify sociopaths now, even a 100 years ago ... e.g. by their behavior. I also said that breaking the organization, the secrecy, and the fiat money is paramount and that will only happen once critical mass of awareness (including identification of the perps, e.g. sociopaths and nonempaths) is reached.

You, OTOH, pretend that they still need to be identified when they're already being identified by their actions ... and we can only guess that you use this pretense in order to go after potential sociopaths, not just those identified by their behavior. Of course, your standard of identification requires futuristic brave new world science. And if we pursue the logical implications of your argument versus mine, we'll find you wanting eugenics and me opposing eugenics.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
The root problem is the ascension of sociopaths, not the sociopaths themselves. Ascension speaks to the rungs on the ladder: unjust organization, unjust secrecy, unjust tokens of exchange,etc. Sociopaths can't be removed. The ladder can be removed. The root problem is the ascension of sociopaths, not the sociopaths themselves.

Wrong again. Remove the ladder, but not the sociopaths, and the sociopaths will just trick the rest of us into building a new ladder. How can you be so impossibly dense? Sociopaths encourage hierarchy. No doubt you will argue that hierarchy creates sociopaths. :face:


No. You're being obtuse. It's time to remove the ladder and put checks and balances so as to delay the next inevitable return of the ladder (as per the sine wave). Cycles. The Universe operates in cycles, returning vectors, and balance. The jejeune, the pollyannish, and the deliberately obtuse see things through coloring books. On the flip side, evil geniuses, mad geniuses, scoiopaths, nonempaths, etc. ... see things through the warped lens of absolute power. Neither side understands the nature of the cycle or the essence of balance.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Furthermore, evil derives sociopathy, not the other way around. Likewise, good derives empathy.

My gosh, Zook! Do you even listen to yourself? Back-ass backward you are. Debating with you is like debating with a madman.
:face:


My universe is backwards in your perspective. It must be, after all, I know I am a true empath ... yet you see me as a sociopath. I cannot help but wonder whether the robins fly upside down in your perspective?


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:24 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10327
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
If you can't receive opposing arguments without calling the opponent a sociopath ... then you have serious issues that need immediate attention.

Not necessarily. This is another one of your very poor assumptions. I call you a sociopath because it is the truth. It's not because you are an "opponent". It's not because we disagree. It's because of the way you behave. And it is important to know that you are a sociopath, because so much of your behavior is determined by your psychology. Your psychology determines your world view, your motivations, your reactions, your reasoning, and of course your general behavior. I see this in every one of your posts. Naturally, I point it out, and because it is directly related to your psychology, you hear the word "sociopath" from me quite often. It's not at all a matter of name-calling. It's simply truthful observation.

UncleZook wrote:
If I was less charitable I would empty the whole book of cusswords in your direction ... but I think that is your aim. To get under the skin of those who are being problematic for your empire.

I have no such aim, nor do I have an empire. You are once again demonstrating the way a sociopath thinks! You can't even see it, but it is plain as day to me. You project sociopathic motivations onto me, because that is the way you think. That is the world you know, a world of "tit for tat" and hierarchy. It really is awesome to watch you in action. It was the same with Andy -- once I realized he was a sociopath, his behavior would confirm his psychology with almost every post! It was simply awesome.

UncleZook wrote:
Reality check, sociopaths cannot be scientifically identified with any accuracy as of 2014.

This is just plain wrong. It's not reality at all. I've seen brain monitoring experiments that detected sociopaths with high accuracy. Like free energy, the results of these experiments are suppressed by the ruling sociopaths, for obvious reasons.

UncleZook wrote:
I made the argument that we have everything we need to know to identify sociopaths now, even a 100 years ago ... e.g. by their behavior.

That's way too unreliable, because sociopaths can and do modify their natural behavior. They are chameleons much of the time, making every effort to imitate the behavior of normal people so that they blend in completely unnoticed. This is one of the defining characteristics of sociopaths, and for you to suggest that we can quickly identify them by their behavior is absurd. Take you, for example. Your behavior has been consistent over the many years that I have observed and interacted with you, and yet look how long it took me to realize that you were a sociopath. And I study sociopaths! Less knowledgeable people don't stand a chance at recognizing a sociopath by his behavior.

UncleZook wrote:
And if we pursue the logical implications of your argument versus mine, we'll find you wanting eugenics and me opposing eugenics.

Straw man argument again. I am opposed to eugenics. Nor am I calling for gene manipulation to prevent sociopathy.

I'm noticing that sociopaths often rely on straw man arguments. Fascinating.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
If you can't receive opposing arguments without calling the opponent a sociopath ... then you have serious issues that need immediate attention.

Not necessarily. This is another one of your very poor assumptions. I call you a sociopath because it is the truth. It's not because you are an "opponent". It's not because we disagree. It's because of the way you behave. And it is important to know that you are a sociopath, because so much of your behavior is determined by your psychology. Your psychology determines your world view, your motivations, your reactions, your reasoning, and of course your general behavior. I see this in every one of your posts. Naturally, I point it out, and because it is directly related to your psychology, you hear the word "sociopath" from me quite often. It's not at all a matter of name-calling. It's simply truthful observation.


Truth in Chico's World is like War in Orwell's 1984.

What you are, Chico, is a mendacious, messenger-attacking, mechanistic, gaming nonempath. And you're posts can be reasonably viewed as abetting the bankster empire ... from stonewalling on warranted conclusions; to 50/50 mixing to create confusion for the already confused masses; to calling those that upset your game, sociopaths; to diverting arguments from points of focus; to redirecting focus from the global corruptions to speculation whether Serena Williams' tits are real; counterargument by ad hominem; etc.

Nonempaths are curiously indifferent to the abuse of others ... whereas sociopaths get off on abusing others. You seem like the indifferent sort to me, so I wouldn't call you a sociopath, at least not in the 4-category model of psychology.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
If I was less charitable I would empty the whole book of cusswords in your direction ... but I think that is your aim. To get under the skin of those who are being problematic for your empire.

I have no such aim, nor do I have an empire. You are once again demonstrating the way a sociopath thinks! You can't even see it, but it is plain as day to me. You project sociopathic motivations onto me, because that is the way you think. That is the world you know, a world of "tit for tat" and hierarchy. It really is awesome to watch you in action. It was the same with Andy -- once I realized he was a sociopath, his behavior would confirm his psychology with almost every post! It was simply awesome.


Your posts indicate that you do have an agenda, and an affiliation with the banskter empire. Your empire, not mine. As for comparing me to Andy, wasn't it Goebells that stated that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes fact (or something to that effect?). There is nothing awesome about sociopathy or nonempathy. One can only be in awe of things that one admires, not things that one detests. It is quite telling that you are in awe of sociopaths and sociopathy.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Reality check, sociopaths cannot be scientifically identified with any accuracy as of 2014.

This is just plain wrong. It's not reality at all. I've seen brain monitoring experiments that detected sociopaths with high accuracy. Like free energy, the results of these experiments are suppressed by the ruling sociopaths, for obvious reasons.


You've seen brain mapping. But the claim of high accuracy is without evidence. Sociopaths are defined by their behaviors. Behaviors are often subject to environmental factors. What you promote as brain mapping is actually
guesswork promoted far above the science behind it. But if you have proof to the contrary, please provide it. Let us judge your level of discernment once again.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I made the argument that we have everything we need to know to identify sociopaths now, even a 100 years ago ... e.g. by their behavior.

That's way too unreliable, because sociopaths can and do modify their natural behavior. They are chameleons much of the time, making every effort to imitate the behavior of normal people so that they blend in completely unnoticed. This is one of the defining characteristics of sociopaths, and for you to suggest that we can quickly identify them by their behavior is absurd.


What is in fact absurd is your implied claim that sociopaths can be identified without their behavior.

Quote:
Take you, for example. Your behavior has been consistent over the many years that I have observed and interacted with you, and yet look how long it took me to realize that you were a sociopath. And I study sociopaths! Less knowledgeable people don't stand a chance at recognizing a sociopath by his behavior.


You've been reading too many Dummies Guides (including the ones put out on Narcisissm, Sociopathy, Ego, etc.) ...to be of any real use except in dummies circles that form so that dummies can compare notes amongst themselves. You correctly diagnosed Andy by his Stasi-style sociopathic behaviour ... but your diagnosis of me is 180 degrees out of whack. You might as well throw a dart and see what you hit.

And you call yourself an expert? Perhaps in Orwell's 1984 you would qualify.


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
And if we pursue the logical implications of your argument versus mine, we'll find you wanting eugenics and me opposing eugenics.

Straw man argument again. I am opposed to eugenics. Nor am I calling for gene manipulation to prevent sociopathy.

I'm noticing that sociopaths often rely on straw man arguments. Fascinating.


Not really, you invoke brain mapping when it suits you ... and you reject gene mapping when it doesn't. In any event, sociopaths can and should only be identified by their behavior. Identifying them by other parameters is not only a step in the direction of scientific tyranny, but it is as accurate as identifying geniuses before they actual produce something worthy of genius.

You're an opportunistic chameleon, Chico. You probably have a store credit card at Color Your World.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10327
Reply with quote
Post Re: Definition of sociopathy ...
UncleZook wrote:
Your posts indicate that you do have an agenda, and an affiliation with the banskter empire.

:lol:

It can't be a monetary affiliation, as I did my taxes today, and my annual income is far below poverty level. It can't be a philosophical affiliation, as I'm willing to forgo a normal income to avoid supporting the bankster empire with my income taxes. It can't be an affiliation based on admiration, since banksters are sociopaths, and my critiques of sociopaths are well known. It can't be a moral affiliation, since my criticism of sociopaths is based on moral and ethical values, like the Golden Rule. And it certainly isn't an affiliation based on common purpose, as I've railed against the insanity of this sociopath-directed world for the last eight years.

So how, pray tell, am I affiliated with the bankster empire?

UncleZook wrote:
One can only be in awe of things that one admires, not things that one detests.

Nonsense, as usual. I am in awe of your deceptive and manipulative "reasoning" ability, which I guarantee you I am detesting more and more.

UncleZook wrote:
What is in fact absurd is your implied claim that sociopaths can be identified without their behavior.

How utterly absurd for you to make such a claim. The behavior of sociopaths is a direct result of their psychology, which in turn is a direct result of their brain function (1 2 3 4).

UncleZook wrote:
In any event, sociopaths can and should only be identified by their behavior.

Unfortunately, that's all that is available to the average person, which is why it is critical for everyone to learn as much as they can about the distinctive behavior of sociopaths and psychopaths. Fortunately, although it took years, your behavior was sufficient to diagnose your case.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:25 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.