Psychopathy
FYI:
From
Wiki:
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. It is defined in different ways, but can involve a lack of empathy or remorse, false emotions, selfishness, grandiosity or deceptiveness; it can also involve impulsiveness, irritability, aggression, or inability to perceive danger and protect one's self.
Sigh. Now what'd I do?
Seriously Spexx, what are you trying to tell us?
Just tryin to edjumakate my friends.:)
Sounds like a catch-all for anyone that annoys you.
If you're serious, read Without Conscience by Robert Hare.
I assume Spexx is taunting Henry Quirk but that definition easily covers a lot of politicians and followers of all parties. Disregarding the rights of others is crucial to any true believer.
I agree with Griff on both points.
I've begun, refined and discarded numerous posts originally intended to respond to henry quirk's posts. I believe there's no point to it. He is extremely consistent, he sounds coherent, and he's apparently immune to the influence of the thoughts and ideas of others. Some of the things I began to write were challenges to his examples, some were rebuttals to his opinions, etc. I don't think he's open to persuasion, so I just keep to myself mostly in those kinds of conversations.
Let me be clear, I believe most of what he says is wrong, especially about the role of government, about the nature of society. I believe his position is inconsistent and contradictory. I also don't like the ideas he touts. I can tolerate a lot of dislike and discord. I don't need to be right all the time. I hope I'm not the smartest person I know. I like to be right when I can, of course. But I need to learn and that means finding out stuff I don't know already. But when I get new info of this kind, I compare it to other stuff I *do* already know, and if it's compatible, I'll add it to the sum of my knowledge. But if it's not, I consider it wrong. This is why I have turned my back on most of his political and sociological discussions.
Is he a psychopath? I don't know. Is he hard headed? Yeah, I think so. Are the ideas he holds forth anti-social. Yep. Sorry, henry quirk. It looks like we're not going to be very good neighbors.
No, there's no point in responding when you know you can't win, is there? I never expect that to change here.
You don't really know anything about him, do you? Any of you? Anyone? Buehler?
Now excuse me while I go start a thread about what a know it all __________ is, or what a pansy ___________ is, or what a snot __________ is, or what a liar ____________ is, or how goddam boring ___________ is, or what a phony attention whore __________ is.
I hope you all jump on board right away, or boy won't I look stupid?
oh, cool... that's like a Mad Lib!
but you tipped your hand! now people will cheat!
Another thing, he hasn't said anything disrespectful to any of you. Yet you still act like butt-hurt babies because you know you will never, ever, win a battle of wits with him.
Grow up.
oh, cool... that's like a Mad Lib!
but you tipped your hand! now people will cheat!
;)
None of them was you. You are none of those things.:D
Another thing, he hasn't said anything disrespectful to any of you. Yet you still act like butt-hurt babies because you know you will never, ever, win a battle of wits with him.
Grow up.
I am grown up.
I have said nothing disrespectful of him (or you for that matter) either. My point is that I disagree with his opinion, he's made it clear that he's unwilling to accept the other ideas in several discussions, so I believe we're done talking.
That's not butt hurt. That's saving my conversations for people who want to share ideas. Sharing's a give and take. He's all give, and no take.
:lol:
Another way of saying he dismissed your 'ideas' for whatever it was you were discussing, by offering his opinion on it and not budging when you offered what I'm sure was the most well thought out and persuasive argument ever.
You just can't take it. Yeah, it's butt hurt. Someone didn't bow down before the mighty BigV, and we can't have that. Someone might be more cleverer or smarter than the mighty BigV, and we can't have that.
So transparent.
Having said that, this thread is in poor form.
WHATTHEFUCKDOESTHATMEAN, IDK.
BFF!
Sincerely,
Some 8th Grader
What that heck is THAT about???
I highly doubt that V is the only one with that opinion of HQ.
I find his posting style odd. For example, he refuses to use the quote function. OK no biggie.
He has some opinions that are certainly unique and when pressed, they really don't hold water (see what I did thar?)
But all in all he's fine. I read what he writes. Agreement or movement from his engrained opinion?
Nope, not gonna happen. His mind is made up. There is no disputing that.
That says nothing about whether he's a nice guy or not.
I find your posting style odd.
You now turn every post into a pome.
It's really annoying.
And you turn others' posts into pomes too.
That's even more annoying.
Learn to write a paragraph. ;)
Let's see, a thread was started that was for the sole purpose of calling a dwellar that some don't particularly care for the posting style of a psychopath? And you ask...what the heck is that about? It's about it's a bunch of bullshit, is what that's about.
Nothing personal to you, of course. I just really don't get where this is coming from. For instance, I've seen you and, say, Lamp talk (argue) about something...and no one's opinion changes ONE IOTA. However no one starts a thread implying that one of you is a psychopath.
And who are you to speak of others' opinions of anyone? What do you know? I only see a few clamoring for space in this thread. Is there a secret club where the really good people talk about the really bad people? Can I get a decoder ring and a t-shirt?
ah, see... that's why I don't participate in political debate. because NO ONE changes their opinion based on what other people tell them. You're not going to win a subjective argument. There are no right or wrong answers. to me, politics is just large scale bickering.
and that brings out the nasty side of people like nothing else I've seen.
This is true, but this is not what this thread is about.
Let's see, a thread was started that was for the sole purpose of calling a dwellar that some don't particularly care for the posting style of a psychopath?
It was? Really? I totally missed that. As you know, I'm more honest with my insults. That kind of shit, just isn't my style.
For instance, I've seen you and, say, Lamp talk (argue) about something...and no one's opinion changes ONE IOTA.
You haven't been paying attention then. How do you know what influence my conversations with him have had on either of us?
And who are you to speak of others' opinions of anyone? What do you know? I only see a few clamoring for space in this thread. Is there a secret club where the really good people talk about the really bad people?
Right back at you. I believe you did the same thing to V that you are accusing me of doing. How is that different?
Who is clamoring? I was just voicing my opinion - kinda what we do here - regarding the previous exchange.
Apparently you know a lot more - Care to share?
Any clubs that exist here would not invite me. Of that I am sure. Perhaps you'd like to ask your group.
oh, I assumed that this thread spilled out of some political disagreement between spex and hq. ....admittedly, gathered solely from the context of this thread.
was wrong?
You know that sound that cartoon characters make when an anvil falls on their head and they have to shake their head around so it pops back out?
I'm making that sound right now.
edit: @ jim, sure it stemmed from something like that. I wasn't sure if the implication was what I thought it was until griff pointed out he thought so too. Of course, Spexx could still confirm or deny this.
This is not what this thread is about.
Please explain what this thread is about then.
Oh ffs. I don't even know what you're talking about half the time, you know? Stuff a sock in it, Vinnie.
Who's not paying attention? You, sir. You. Please read for comprehension this time. (I'm channeling you, you see.)
"I believe his position is inconsistent and contradictory."
Specific examples, please.
#
"so I believe we're done talking"
Fine by me...no one is compelled to participate in any thread...interesting, then, how you just HAD to pipe in, about me, in this one.
You want my babies: admit it... ;)
##
"He has some opinions that are certainly unique and when pressed, they really don't hold water"
Again: specific examples, please.
No, there's no point in responding when you know you can't [SIZE="7"]win[/SIZE], is there? I never expect that to change here.
--snip
Another thing, he hasn't said anything disrespectful to any of you. Yet you still act like butt-hurt babies because you know you will [SIZE="7"]never, ever, win[/SIZE] a battle of wits with him.
Grow up.
ah, see... that's why I don't participate in political debate. because NO ONE changes their opinion based on what other people tell them. You're not [SIZE="7"]going to win[/SIZE] a subjective argument. There are no right or wrong answers. to me, politics is just large scale bickering.
and that brings out the nasty side of people like nothing else I've seen.
Perhaps it is because you see political conversations this way, something to be won or lost, and I do not, that we also don't agree on how they have been conducted.
Then what the fuck is your problem with henry?
Hypocritical, you are.
And remember: an unexamined life is not worth living. I propose you examine why you have these feelings towards him, for no apparent reason, and why you felt compelled to post how bad you are as neighbors. Why did you feel compelled to tell yet one more person how they don't stack up? You pretend to be open to everything and willing to learn and grow...yet you had to be snottish towards someone...for what reason? I still can't figure that out, but it's hardly the open and honest discourse ability you profess to possess.
It was pointless. That's why this whole thing is so funny. The protesting too much, the backpedaling, the giant letters...such folly for dwellars! I laughed! I cried! I saved 5 bucks!
You know that sound that cartoon characters make when an anvil falls on their head and they have to shake their head around so it pops back out?
I'm making that sound right now.
Yes, I know it quite well. Happens many times upon reading your posts.
edit: @ jim, sure it stemmed from something like that. I wasn't sure if the implication was what I thought it was until griff pointed out he thought so too. Of course, Spexx could still confirm or deny this.
So, because you and griff made the same assumption (Spexx calling HQ a psychopath) you went off on V. Got it - yeh, uh no.
Oh ffs. I don't even know what you're talking about half the time, you know? Stuff a sock in it, Vinnie.
Who's not paying attention? You, sir. You. Please read for comprehension this time. (I'm channeling you, you see.)
Again with the incomprehensible BS and attempted insults. OK. You are currently not worth my time. Have at it.
Perhaps it is because you see political conversations this way, something to be won or lost, and I do not, that we also don't agree on how they have been conducted.
like an election or something, you mean?
[YOUTUBE]6TlNOwwQQJk[/YOUTUBE]
I'm incomprehensible? I'M INCOMPREHENSIBLE? OMG that is classic Classic.
Went off on V? Yeah, a bit. Because he stuck his two cents in amidst his usual proclamations of how fair and wise he is. You know, if more people could be swayed by his views the world would be a better place.
like an election or something, you mean?
An election is to be won or lost, yes. But we're not having elections here in the cellar. We're having conversations, at least in the political area. There are other things here too, even contests. But there aren't contests in the politics area. I'll speak for myself. I am not competing in the politics area. Others might be, fine. I do sometimes try to persuade, and I am sometimes persuaded. Certainly what I read here influences my opinion. But that is very different from "winning" and "losing".
Do you agree?
Let's see, a thread was started that was for the sole purpose of calling a dwellar that some don't particularly care for the posting style of a psychopath? And you ask...what the heck is that about? It's about it's a bunch of bullshit, is what that's about.
I started the thread. I made no reference to anyone in my post.
You missed a comma in there between the two classic(s)
Please take one, or a few of mine. I've got plenty to spare.
Hey, infinite monkey. Are you saying you agree with Griff's statement that he thinks Spexxvet is taunting henry quirk?
Did you see that I agreed with Griff?
I started the thread. I made no reference to anyone in my post.
No you didn't. But what was your implication, Spexx? Be honest. You tell me that certain
anyone wasn't your intention, and I'll walk away and not say another word. The whole thing could be circumstantial: the recent conversation between you and henry where you called him selfish, the timing of said thread and this thread, the lack of explanation when I asked what you meant.
But go ahead, clear it up. I'll shut up and walk away.
You edited you post and STILL missed the damn comma (,)
You edited you post and STILL missed the damn comma (,)
You didn't edit you post, I see.
Er, if everyone’s finished: CM and BV I want specific examples of my inconsistencies and lack of foundation.
If neither of you can or will offer such examples, then I'll take that as an admission of jackassery.
Sorry guys, you opened the door, I'm just steppin' through.
Call me a psychopath: pffftt! what do I care?
Call me inconsistent: them's fightin' words!
So: put up or shut up.
And classic Classic was exactly what I meant to say. That is a classic move by Classic. I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you. Hence, no comma, oh genius of the written word. :lol:
Pick a thread, virtually any thread where you have interacted.
I'll maintain my opinion based upon your interactions and posting over the last two years. The latest of which was the sewer issue.
I have no interest in going any further with this. That was never my intention.
I think you are a unique, quirky & interesting guy/person. I'm staying with that.
Flame away.
I dunno, ya think they're gonna write a lil about examples of your inconsistencies?
And classic Classic was exactly what I meant to say. That is a classic move by Classic. I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you. Hence, no comma, oh genius of the written word. :lol:
:blush: gotcha.
"Pick a thread"
No, YOU pick it...you make the claim...it's on YOU to support it.
#
"my opinion"
Unsupported, un-cited: worthless.
#
"the sewer issue"
Obviously, you need to read again.
An election is to be won or lost, yes. But we're not having elections here in the cellar. We're having conversations, at least in the political area. There are other things here too, even contests. But there aren't contests in the politics area. I'll speak for myself. I am not competing in the politics area. Others might be, fine. I do sometimes try to persuade, and I am sometimes persuaded. Certainly what I read here influences my opinion. But that is very different from "winning" and "losing".
Do you agree?
yes
This thread.
I fully expect you will not see the inconsistency in yourself Sir Quirk.
or
here
here and
here.
yes
[SIZE="4"]I WIN!!!![/SIZE]
:fistpump:
Really? Cite entire threads and expect us, the readers, to find the inconsistency which you doubt Sir Quirk will see? What is this, where's fucking waldo?
Huh what?
Hey henry, see in this thread here, where you posted, and in this other thread, where you posted? See that? That. That's what I mean. Ayup. :lol:
No you didn't. But what was your implication, Spexx? Be honest. You tell me that certain anyone wasn't your intention, and I'll walk away and not say another word. The whole thing could be circumstantial: the recent conversation between you and henry where you called him selfish, the timing of said thread and this thread, the lack of explanation when I asked what you meant.
But go ahead, clear it up. I'll shut up and walk away.
My posts are works of art. As such, they should be interpreted by the reader. ;););) That's humor - I do not believe it at all.
I was not taunting anyone. Henry's extreme antisocial viewpoints made me do some research, and I came upon that definition. So I posted it. That is all.
OMG the health thread. It's 198 pages long. :lol2:
Too freaking funny.
"I fully expect you will not see the inconsistency in yourself"
Probably not.
However, plunking down threads is not offering specific examples.
Again: you make the claim, I wanna see the examples.
Making me wade through lengthy threads is making me do YOUR work for you.
And: I'm still waiting on you, BV.
Let me help a little, CM.
You point to this thread...
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26832 ...as an example of my inconsistency.
What did I post in that thread that's inconsistent or foundationless?
"I fully expect you will not see the inconsistency in yourself" Probably not.However, plunking down threads is not offering specific examples. Again: you make the claim, I wanna see the examples. Making me wade through lengthy threads is making me do YOUR work for you. And: I'm still waiting on you, BV.
As I specifically stated I based my decision off of YEARS of reading your posts.
I also said that you would disagree. Shock, you do.
Lastly, I said it wasn't worth my time to prove the point.
Posting links to the last four threads you were involved in was an intentional joke.
I simply do not care enough about this conversation, you nor IM.
You want an opinion - post a poll. Blessed be.
"...it wasn't worth my time to prove the point"
You state the opinion (which you are entitled to hold) but then don't support it (when you bring that opinion into the public sphere) making the opinion: worthless.
Again: one down, one to go.
Your turn, BV.
Par for the course.
"It's not so much that I can't do it see, it's that I don't care enough to...Yeah, that's the ticket. I just don't care enough to. It's not that I don't have a leg to stand on, see?"
You can't make this crap up. :lol:
[SIZE="4"]I WIN!!!![/SIZE]
:fistpump:
not so fast, there........it wasn't worth my time to prove the point You state the opinion but then don't support it
I chose not to. That in no way invalidates shit.
Care to try again, hq?
You keep missing the part where I repeatedly state that
I don't care enough about YOU
to weed through all the threads and pick out your BULLSHIT over the last couple years.
Again, if you want opinions - post a poll.
@IM
Does being a bitch come easy for you or do you have to work on it?
If it takes work, you've perfected the art and made it seem flawless. Good Job.
Want some cites? I'll be more than happy to go through 6 years and over 20,000 posts to find a few examples for you. :eyebrow:
I have to work at it, but anything worth doing is worth doing well. :D
OK, please to have cites of inconsistency.
not so fast, there.....
oh... crap.
[ATTACH]37658[/ATTACH]
CM,
As I say, 'one down, one to go'.
Well, BV?
"Dammit, yes! That is right, I did it! I have number five! Are you kidding me?! That's right!"
"Who do you think you are -
I am?!"
[SIZE="6"]I WIN!![/SIZE] ;)
Really? Cite entire threads and expect us, the readers, to find the inconsistency which you doubt Sir Quirk will see? What is this, where's fucking waldo?
Huh what?
Hey henry, see in this thread here, where you posted, and in this other thread, where you posted? See that? That. That's what I mean. Ayup. :lol:
I'm not on anyone's side but here are
two citations:
CM,
As I say, 'one down, one to go'.
Well, BV?
mornin!
henry quirk. I am not going to make an exhaustive report with cites and quotes. (written earlier, turned out to be completely wrong.. oh well.) I will say that from what I've read from you, you consistently express your separateness from everybody else. You've talked about how you don't want governors, and lots of other descriptive nouns bossing you around. Not a damn thing wrong with that. But you are a part of society, despite your protestations to the contrary. For one, you're a member of our society here at the cellar. You abide by our shared rules here. I believe you live in America, though I don't know where, and I don't really know where I got that idea anyhow. But I'm using that as my working understanding. Even if you live in a different country, you would still be a member of society, despite your protestations.
This is the kind of inconsistency I find in your position.
Because I am familiar with our society here, I can assess your statements in context. I know a fair bit how our system of taxation works. I know how our system of government works. Some of the distance between our points of view is subjective. I accept that. You've said that you want services, you don't want directives. Well, one man's service is another man's directive.
We talked about plumbing recently. For you, having clean water from your tap could be considered a service delivered by "proxies?". Or government, hm? But to another person, one that lives upstream from you, your "clean water" may represent a directive restricting his ability to dispose of his sewage (or manure or toxic waste or whatever) in a convenient way. Same objective fact: delivery of clean water. Different interpretations, for you, a service, for that other guy, a directive. This is the kind of contradiction I find in your positions.
I don't agree with much of what you said. Not like these examples, but I have a different opinion about the role of government, or the value of a progressive system of taxation, or the value of taxation at all for that matter. These kinds of differences are fine. You express your opinion pretty well, and I don't share it. Nothing wrong with that, indeed, I sincerely appreciate your contributions here, and that absolutely includes your positions however different from mine.
I'm sorry I took so long to respond to you. In the meantime, I'd managed to collect a few examples of posts, conversation excerpts. I don't know what kind of order they're in, let's just roll the film, shall we?
Here's one where we disagree on the terms; or you're being inconsistent. It has to do with society and groups.
There is something approaching seven billion individuals on the Earth and not a 'WE' or 'US' anywhere to be found (except in the heads of folks who 'want' to be part of something bigger).
I'm not interested in being a component of 'WE', so, I don't need to be led.
I understand lots of folks 'do' want (or need) to be led...great and fine...*just leave me out of it.
This one's me speaking, replying to you.
hq, you and I have a number of points on which we disagree, and they seem to revolve (mostly) around vocabulary. This is one of those times. In a recent post regarding Paterno's firing, you described your thoughts about child sexual abuse. And then you added the caveat that it was not a moral distinction.
???????
I disagree. Just as in this post above, your thoughts about it might be your own, but those thoughts *are* your expression of your morals. The feelings you expressed about child sexual abuse are widely shared among practically everyone in our society. That they exist "inside the head of individual you" doesn't make them less moral.
In this post you talk about your preference for government to go away, I'm paraphrasing. You were called out as an anarchist for that position and you did admit to being anarchistic later. That was big of you, really, and my "problem" with this post is mostly one of subjective preference. I think we need government, you have a much different position.
You make the same point here,
government should not exist. Practically a logical impossibility, a paradox.
"What is the proper role of government?"
In my view: to not exist.
--snip (there's more)
Here, you say that there's no such thing as give, only take, in the context of government. A moment later you say there is give/contribute, implying the context of a non-government transaction. I also disagree on this point. I think you're failing to or improperly dismissing the "contribution" of the government. While this fits with your whole zero-government vibe, that's not possible. Being here, assuming you're here, is an implicit acceptance of much of what the government provides.
This is the kind of double standard I find reduces the credibility of your position.
Good government is poor government. I paraphrase, but that's your point
here. The more dysfunctional the better. No, the more dysfunctional the more dysfunctional. That's a contradiction. You may dislike government, but poor government doesn't make good government despite your schadenfreude.
"As a team it would be disfunctional"
Good.
Gum up the works...slow that train down (even more).
Effective, efficient, government is a chain (leash) around a citizen's neck.
If the 'governors' insist on being 'full-time' then let them war with one another most of the time and leave you and me and him and her 'alone'.
I hope this answers your question. You have been patient with my delayed post, thank you for your patience.
"you are a part of society, despite your protestations to the contrary. For one, you're a member of our society here at the cellar"
Living by choice or by circumstance in a house infested with roaches doesn't make one a roach... ;)
This is not an inconsistency or lack of foundation on my part, but rather a matter of two differing interpretations of 'society' and what means to be a member of society.
#
"You've said that you want services"
No. I said, if we're gonna play the nation game, then I want this nation to follow the blueprint and provide proxyhood, not governance.
Personally: I'd rather the whole mess just cease to be.
#
"For you, having clean water from your tap could be considered a service delivered by "proxies?"."
No, having water service is all about my paying for it...economic transaction, clean and simple.
#
"...for you, a service, for that other guy, a directive..."
Since I always and only speak for myself, my positions (regarding 'me', the 'world', and what I do in the world) is consistent...if the other feels 'directed' or hobbled by me then he should what he can to stop me. As I've written in this forum the essential reality is might versus might, the competition of individual values...there is no inherent morality to the world.
This is not an inconsistency or lack of foundation on my part, but rather a failure of understanding on your part.
#
Regarding morality: if I hold a position another views as moral while I consider it merely pragmatic or personal, should I go with my interpretation or the other's?
#
Regarding the role of government: to not exist, to be replaced with proxyhood (or nothing at all).
#
Regarding government's nature as taker: government (not democracy, not republic, not monarchy, not communitarianism, etc.) produces nothing…only individual human beings create or produce.
You say, "Being here, assuming you're here, is an implicit acceptance of much of what the government provides."
I assume you mean the net, yes? The government did nada...the individual -- working with other individuals, or alone, but always for his or her own reasons -- generates the net. Government, as entity and mechanism, did squat. Was structure and agreement and financing requiring to generate the net and to maintain it? Yes, of course. Structure provided by individuals, agreement among individuals, financing of individuals. Government, as entity and mechanism, did squat.
You, of course, see what I'm doing, yes?
I’m placing government in its proper place along with 'society', and 'justice and 'equity' and so on as sometimes useful fiction. And yet, despite the obvious fictional nature of government, so many clamor up the steps expecting the ghost to do something for them.
#
Regarding effective government: the best 'governance is that which is poor, slow, and self-divided. You claim I self-contradict, but, again it's just a matter of differing interpretations. You differ from in me in how you see governance, so of course, for you, effective and efficient governance is 'good'. I'm opposed to governance and see any roadblock to governors’ effectiveness and efficiency as 'good'. Different, competing, viewpoints and values, not inconsistency on my part.
#
"I hope this answers your question"
Yes, thanks...I hope you see that what you perceived as inconsistencies, in fact are just differences of interpretation mixed in, perhaps, with a touch of misinterpretation on your part.