April 17, 2006

• Someone else has mirrored his MySpace page, and here is 18 years ago by meredithea
• Bah. Here's the second link above.
• I can't believe his blog is still up, frankly. You think the FBI would have pulled it by now.
• Nothing about this is unusual, as far as psycho killers go, albeit the large volume of writings he left online. The thing that struck me as truly bizarre and weird was the way the police chief described the crime: "This appears to have been part of a plan to kidnap a person, rape them, torture them, kill them, cut off their head, drain the body of blood, rape the corpse, eat the corpse, then dispose of the organs and bones." Why don't you list which manufacturer of meat tenderiser the motherfucker uses as well, you ass? Just fucking say "this appears to be part of a plan to enact cannibalism fantasies." Ranks up there with the morbidly voyeuristic way Giuliani described people falling off the WTC on live television on 9/11/01 morning. Completely inappropriate detail. The murder itself, as far as psycho killings go, is mundane, I'm sad to say. People are saying "wow, he seems so normal." Christ, almost every psycho killer appears normal. People have this idea these guys are frothingly deranged monsters staggering around clutching knives & muttering about blood. Actually, all of the worst serial murderers on record have had an innocuous appearance. This guy was an everyman. The frightening thing is, that's absolutely true of these kinds of psychos. They are common. The commentary on MeFi is truly amusing for the lack of insight into these kinds of killings, speculation on whether the guy had a psychotic break. Nope, he knew what he was doing, planned it, opportunistically took advantage when he thought he could get away with it. I think some people are frightened by the slim divide between them & people who do these things. This guy, however, was as thick as shit, so lucky for society, he has been caught after a single victim. Sad & horrific.
• No this man was not an 'everyman'. He always stood out. He never seemed normal, was always 'different'. These guys are not common Chyren, they are rare. The only people frightened of a slim divide are those at its edge.
• Nobody believed he could have done it. Therefore he was clearly not perceived as different. He did not stand out, if it had been a big city he wouldn't have been caught, most likely, from what I read he acted nervous when they stopped his car. Somebody who is dull & depressed != different. He blogged the stuff lots of people blog. He read Douglas Adams & liked TMBG. He was not physically different. He was not initially suspected. He *was* psycho, which is different, but not something you can detect visually. He was not an obvious loon. The percentage of sociopaths & psychopaths in society is contested, but no researcher says they're rare. A statistically small percentage of those people act out violent fantasies. Most experts say that the number of serial or other psychotic murderers in society is unknown, so perhaps the term common is misleading. They are not, however, rare. Experts estimate there are between 10-500 active serial killers operating at any given time in the US. That's not much in terms of the population, but I don't call that rare.
• Actually, all of the worst serial murderers on record have had an innocuous appearance. I'd say Richard Ramirez refutes blows that out of the water;
• - "refutes".
• Nobody believed he could have done it. Therefore he was clearly not perceived as different. Chyren you are wrong, or, perhaps, being jocular.
• Ramirez & Henry Lee Lucas, to name but two scary looking killers. I rewrote that sentence several times, with Ramirez & Lucas in mind, mj, but I decided that in fact, compared to the really bad killers, Ramirez is not indicative of the average compared to say, Gacy, Dahmer, Nilsen & many others. He had I think 16 victims, which is 1 less than Dahmer, so good point, but weird looking killers are not common. Nearly all serial killers are normal looking & remain unsuspected for a long time. On preview: random, I am having trouble seeing any sense in what you're saying. This guy was not pegged as being a murderer by anyone until he gave himself away, read the articles. Point out one single thing about the guy that marks him as being particularly notable. There are millions of morbid bastards out there with blogs who are depressed. He *appeared* no different.
• Wow - is it just me or does Richard Ramirez look like what would happen if Cher's plastic surgeon operated on the love child of Michael Jackson and Zsa Zsa Gabor? That being said - I feel for the family of the girl. They could very well tear themselves apart over recriminations and guilt at having trusted him enough to let her visit constantly without supervision.
• wtf are you on about, randomaction? You aren't making anysense.
• Mr. Knickerboker, what have I said that has left you confused?
• Every word. Every way Chy has described the guy has been balls on accurate, and every response you've made seems like you're accidently posting in the wrong thread. It's either that, or that you haven't read or heard any news about this guy at all and you're speaking with bravado despite your lack of information.
• The guy was stand out weird; having worked at a restaurant for seven years he was known only for his isolation. Small point I know. However, that nobody believed he could have done it doesn't mean he was clearly not perceived as different. When you say balls on accurate how do you know, does it chime with something? It's like you understand what I'm saying, or you don't, despite my clarity. :@)
• There are millions of lonely misfits on this planet, guys who live with their parents until 40 & work stacking boxes, these people are not 'stand out weird'. WTF, where do you live, an igloo? That is not a weirdo, dued. A loser, yes. There are many more levels of outsider than that.
• I read some of the comments on his blog and was impressed by how many holier than I types were asking God to pray for retribution or showing their moral superiority by much repetition of variations of "fuck". I also wondered why the blog service provider had failed to perform its social obligation of closing his page in order to protect us from any understanding to his thought processes.
• I think randomaction is some sort of surrealist, Dada-ist, or something beyond. The dude wasn't percieved as being different, yet to randomaction this doesn't mean the dude wasn't percieved as being different. It's like you understand what I'm saying, or you don't, despite my clarity. :@) Ignoring the nonsense about you having clarity, you realize that the rest of that statement is a tautology, right? Everytime I try to pretend there's some sort of information being conveyed here, I have a tiny LSD flashback.
• Finally someone gets it. Now you see why sucking eggs should be left to gandmas. Seriously though, I just thought the guy sounded like he stood out, not as a murdering sick minded f*ck necessarily, just stood out as a strange sounding individual. The banality of his blog, his reading books and wiping his arse after a shit not withstanding. Libertarian: I agree. The social obligations of privately incorporated companies are important in a free society.
• Hey, what if "cat" really meant "dog", and "dog" really meant "cat"? Wouldn't that be weird? especially if nobody ever found out?
• Whenever Richard Cory went down town, We people on the pavement looked at him: He was a gentleman from sole to crown, Clean favored, and imperially slim. And he was always quietly arrayed, And he was always human when he talked; But still he fluttered pulses when he said "Good morning," and he glittered when he walked. And he was rich - yes, richer than a king - And admirably schooled in every grace: In fine, we thought that he was everything To make us wish that we were in his place. So on we worked, and waited for the light, And went without the meat, and cursed the bread; And Richard Cory, one calm summer night, Went home and put a bullet through his head. Edwin Arlington Robinson
• (Good morning!) I'm not sure if the people who were close to him (his family) didn't know that he was capable of murder, or if they were deeply in denial about just how ill he was. Somewhere in his blog (sorry I don't have a link) the guy discusses going off his meds and how he has these frightening fantasies of murder and cannibalism. He says that he tells his mom about them and asks her help him find a therapist, but she basically says that he's going through a bad patch and will feel better soon. Also, it seems teling that a few years back he seems to have a pretty good group of friends, then he becomes more and more isolated as it goes on. It's strange that the last batch of posts are all links to news stories. He stops journaling for some reason. Finally, people are pretty sure that the last post on his blog was put up after he killed the girl.
• It would make sense that he would stop journaling after he killed her. The fact that she was actually in his apartment and he was about to embark on one of his fantasies probably consumed his every thought all the time. Blogging something, anything, would be his way of clinging to some last vestige of "normal" maybe.
• His last post is a weak vestige of an attempt to keep up appearances as vague ideas of cops scanning the net flit thru his mind. His will has crumbled, he's in the throes of his addiction at that point; struggling with the fear & shock at what he has done, but flushed with exhilaration at the prize he has brought home for himself & reveling in his power over human life. Sometimes he feels terrified, at others ego-swelled, like a god. His emotions are a catherine wheel. Time & again he returns to the corpse, sometimes gazing & stroking its hair, sometimes acting out unspeakable atrocities upon it. He makes a half-hearted attempt to behead the stiffening, cold mannequin, but the blades he has are woefully inadequate & he hasn't the gumption for hard labour now. He's disordered & in disarray & cannot suppress his manic emotions as the tumult of ideation floods his head. At some points he's clear on what steps to take to dispose of the evidence, at others blinded by ugly animal urges. Later, this strung out behaviour draws suspicion from a small town cop at a routine car stop, leading to the search of his apartment. At this point, he realises he has no way of hiding the grisly trophy. He admits his crime, but by this time the stress & exertion have gone too far, madness takes over. As they handcuff him to lead him out of his apartment, he is disassociated. By the time he has been stood up for his mugshot, he's in psychotic fugue, looking down upon his photographer like Zeus from Olympus, god-king of the mount of madness. Killing a human being is a disturbing, traumatic experience even for the sociopath. It is a barrier between fantasy & reality at which the one who crosses realises he can never go back. The fantasist has become a hunter of people, & he either collapses in the face of this reality, or embraces it, & becomes a monster.
• Jesus fucking christ, I need a literary agent, STAT!!!!
• Or a court reporter to record your confession.
• Chy's right: this bland, feeble, deficient man failed to set off our innate monster-detectors because he, like many monsters, has no fangs nor horns nor shark-eyes, but those locked inside his skull. His challenge was to try and see that little girl as a person - not a toy, not food for his maw, but a person. He failed, and because of it a child has died horribly, in fear and horror, tortured and wracked. Our challenge, as a society and a culture, is determining what is to be done with him, now that his fangs and horns and atlantic-trench eyes have been displayed.
• Chyren, you've summed it up very nicely! That is, I'm sure, precisely what happened. I do wonder if it is his first attempt. . .
• Yeah, um ... Chy? That was a little ... too good ... I'm always struck by how acquaintences always comment that the murderer was "quiet and kept to himself". Two different people said that of Underwood in the article. Is this some sort of serial killer meme that people unconsciously invoke? Anyway I'm with Chy (though keeping an eye on him) with this one; serial killers, for the most part, are completely unremarkable people. You can point to his odd social quirks after the fact, but they're really no different from any other loser who is "quiet and keeps to himself."
• What scares us the most Is when they look like Us
• I surely hope I shan't kill tonight, in the event I do however the short but great work of 'fiction' written by Chyren will play a major part in my defence. That made me goose-bumpy.
• Chy, you're describing someone who is; He's disordered & in disarray & cannot suppress his manic emotions as the tumult of ideation floods his head. At some points he's clear on what steps to take to dispose of the evidence, at others blinded by ugly animal urges. Later, this strung out behaviour draws suspicion from a small town cop at a routine car stop, leading to the search of his apartment. At this point, he realises he has no way of hiding the grisly trophy. He admits his crime, but by this time the stress & exertion have gone too far, madness takes over. As they handcuff him to lead him out of his apartment, he is disassociated. By the time he has been stood up for his mugshot, he's in psychotic fugue, looking down upon his photographer like Zeus from Olympus, god-king of the mount of madness. as though it's a description of a psychopath. This is Robert Hare's description of a psychopath; "While most of us have strong inhibitions about physically injuring others, psychopaths typically do not. For them, violence and threats are handy tools to be used when they are angered, defied or frustrated, and they give little thought to the pain and humiliation experienced by the victims. Their violence is callous and instrumental—used to satisfy a simple need, such as sex, or to obtain something he or she wants—and the psychopath's reactions to the event are much more likely to be indifference, a sense of power, pleasure, or smug satisfaction than regret at the damage done. Certainly nothing to lose any sleep over." In describing a disordered, emotional, manic person in disarray 'taken over by madness' you work in opposition to your own view that pyschopaths don't stand out. What you're describing is someone out of control, disassociated, in a 'psychotic' fugue, which sounds like someone who is insane. Psychopaths are not insane. Psychopathy is a personality disorder, characterized by deliberation and cold focus, not some kind of sensory three-ring-circus. They are in control...and that's why they don't stand out. No catherine wheel. Whomever you described isn't a psychopath. Kevin Ray Underwood may or may not be be one; this information will come out when more is known about his behaviour.
• The moral of the story: Never use your middle name
• I really don't care that they went into detail about how the victims were planned to be killed. "Elaborate plans to fuel cannibalistic fantasies" allows other people to imagine and then interpret their imagination as fact, when time erodes the meagre "truth." I really could care less if they added in a few more disgusting things either, even if the victim turned out to be my mother. Does that make me a psychopath, that I care more about the living than the dead?
• I'd say it went a little more like this; She's crying. Again. He turns up the TV, then goes into the kitchen to make a sandwich. Shit. He's almost out of mayonnaise. Walking back into the living room, his eye is caught by a woman on the screen talking about Kyoto. I'm going to live there some day, he thinks, Kyoto's fucking cool. She makes a noise, he sighs. "God. Shut up", he says, turning the TV up again, switching to The Cartoon Network. The Simpsons is on, but he's seen this episode like, three times. He goes to his computer and resumes typing; The Missing Link found at last. Writing that made me feel gross. But it does illustrate a point about psychopathic behaviour.
• Christ on a stick, moneyjane, reading that made me feel uncomfortably tense.
• That reminded me of "Last Exit to Brooklyn," mj. Hard to say whether it's sociopathic without context.
• O, wait. You're drawing the last moments of the girl with word pictures?
• I'm trying to illustrate the lack of emotion, the control, and banality of the psychopaths among us, in contrast to Chy's description which I don't think fits what's known about psychopaths much at all. I could go on with paragraphs of theory, or do what I did, which was use Chy's own device of describing this guy's state of mind to illustrate his understanding of psychopathy. His guy is an emotional and disordered wreck. Mine just doesn't care. The commentary on MeFi is truly amusing for the lack of insight into these kinds of killings... If you set yourself up as an authority, expect to be challenged. I'm no authority either. But I have linked to Robert Hare who most definitely is.
• I don't think that Chy's point was that all psychopaths fail to stand out, just that this particular one wasn't. The assertion that psychopaths aren't insane is, well, it's fucking nuts. That's like saying policemen aren't cops.
• Wow, that Robert Hare is a sensationalist nut. One out every hundred people are pyschotic? Come on, the dude's trying to sell books by generating fear. He's like the Ann Coultier of seriel killer authors.
• Psychotic && psychopath [Sociopath/Anti-social Personality Disorder] are not equivalent.
• The assertion that psychopaths aren't insane is, well, it's fucking nuts. DEFENSE, INSANITY - A criminal defense asserting that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. U.S.C. 18 "A person is insane, and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. This is because willfull intent is an essential part of most offenses; and a person who is insane is not capable of forming such intent. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense; the person has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence." Psychopaths are fully aware of the "wrongfullness of their acts". They just don't care. The rules are for other people, not themselves. The world is there to serve their purpose rather than the other way around. Other human beings are props; furniture to be arranged in a manner pleasing to the psychopath. And they're chockful 'o' willfull intent. They plan, they stock their rape kits and load them carefully into the trunks of their cars. That's why they often have so many victims; they're really, really good at it.
• Wow, that Robert Hare is a sensationalist nut. One out every hundred people are pyschotic? Come on, the dude's trying to sell books by generating fear. He's like the Ann Coultier of seriel killer authors. Yeah. That's what he's doing...selling books. Sociopaths or psychopaths and "psychotics", are as noted, completely different disorders. Hare researches psychopaths, not psychotics, and the closest I can find to your "One out every hundred people are pyschotic?" bit is this, at the bottom of the first page in the link; "If it's true that psychopaths make up one percent of the population, as he estimates, then we need to pay attention." Not the same. Sociopathy – Also known as "psychopathy". Sociopathy is a personality syndrome often (and usually inaccurately) portrayed in the media: this portrayal has led to certain general misunderstanding about the syndrome. Sociopaths are characterised by certain personality characteristics, including personal charm, selfishness, impulsiveness, lack of guilt or anxiety, and cruelty. The sociopath usually has some history of minor misbehaviour in childhood, which often becomes "deviant" during adolescence. In adulthood a significant proportion of sociopaths become criminals. They may be distinguished from most convicted or known criminals in so far as they are usually "lone wolves", contrasting with other criminals who tend to belong to gangs which possess their own rules of conduct. The syndrome may have organic pathology: a significant number of sociopaths exhibit unusual EEG patterns. Psychotic disorders are mental disorders in which the personality is seriously disorganized and a person's contact with reality is impaired. During a psychotic episode a person is confused about reality and often experiences delusions and/or hallucinations.
• In reality, the lines between these disorders are not clear cut. These terms are imprecise. There are several classes of sociopath. Psychosis per se is not linked to sociopathy. On the subject of calm vs frenzied: it must vary. There are different types of killer. My impression of Our Hero here is that he gave himself away with nerves, which to me speaks of a disorganised type. If he was visibly nervous, then he's clearly not a calm & collected emotionless type. QED.
• I was going to make a smarta@@ comment about Randomaction and teaching your GramMa to suck eggs, but after gagging my way to the bottom of this train wreck, I'll pass. Why don't you list which manufacturer of meat tenderiser the motherfucker uses as well, you ass? Just fucking say "this appears to be part of a plan to enact cannibalism fantasies." I can't exactally understand your comments above concerning the reporting, Chy, since you then appear to have gone off to vicariously wallow in "cannibalism fantasies" yourself, dragging others with you. I vote for eeking this one, MonkeyBashi. Not one of our finer moments.
• Your reaction seems overly extreme.
• What on earth are you on about BlueHorse? You read as far as you did in this thread then ask for its eeking! I think its all rather interesting. Also sorry about any comment I made that felt like a personal attack, if I made one. My sense of humor has been noted by many times as either , or rubbish. :@(
• he gave himself away with nerves, which to me speaks of a disorganised type. If he was visibly nervous, then he's clearly not a calm & collected emotionless type. QED. He gave himself away to a cop, most likely looking for a specific profile match. I doubt it was anything dramatic; cops need to look for subtle things because most people are nervous when stopped by a cop,even when they've done nothing wrong. Also, odds are, this is the first time he's done this, and it was a good thing he was caught; a few years from now, not even a cop might clue in because these guys get better with practice. I'm interested to find out details of the stop. Also, this is something he'd written; September 10th, 2002. The day before the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. And I say...who gives a fuck? I'm sick of hearing about it! I was sick of hearing about it a week after it happened. I liked the coverage of it at first, because it was entertaining. But after a few days of it, it got boring! The same thing happened with the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma, from which I live only about 30 or 40 miles away. I didn't care about that, and I don't care about the WTC. No one I know was involved in either of them, no one I know was hurt. And as long as none of my close friends or I are hurt, I don't give a fuck how many people the terrorists kill. Bolding is mine. An offhanded black humour remark is normal; most of us do it, especially here, but this is different. Try reading the paragraph while repeating to yourself, all the way through, "It's about me, it's about me, it's about me". That's the difference. Nobody else counts but his friends, and he probably sees them as belongings rather than people.
• Also, I think, overall, that this thread serves a legitimate purpose. Psychopaths are common, and all of us will deal with them in our lives. While not all psychopaths are violent, they are all destructive, and the more we understand them, and so are able to spot them before they spot us, the better off we are. There are so many misconceptions about them that we passively put ourselves in danger simply through lack of good information.
• We don't put our selves in danger simply by interacting with psychopaths. Though I'm not sure that was a point you made. It's a hard thing to think but psychopathy is much more common than the more obvious disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Drugs can treat it, in the chemical kosh sense, but unlike organic mental illness so can therapy. The distinction between organic and learned or psychological illness is not clear cut of course. I find it interesting that therapists shy away from personality disordered clients precisely because they are challenging to treat, manipulative and seemingly emotionless or inappropriately emotional. I find that these individuals have a real emotional life, which is brought to bear to their own detriment. Given time with a little insight and some willing these people can be taught simple skills: mindfulness, breathing exercises and so forth. Sounds silly yet it works. Personally some seem to be beyond help their entire framework revolves around ideation of self, with consideration for nothing else. These are very few. Emotionally fucked people are everywhere, almost none of them kill. Most of that few who do kill, kill themselves. Psychopaths get depressed too. Having said that therapy can't treat organic illness it can still have a positive impact on quality of life issues.
• I could have written the entries on Underwood's blog, if I were a little more worn down by shit jobs, a little less hopeful for the future. The one thing I find surprising or shocking - and almost envy - is how damn honest his is about his feelings. Parsing his words for clues and evidence and signs of monsterism is a contextual sucker's game, especially since there is no such thing. Go to bash.org and imagine that the people quoted there have all been arrested for horrible crimes, and you'll be appalled. Hell, go to the 'firc, even. He could have easily snuffed himself some evening, instead he killed a little girl. The only 'Why' we'll ever know will come from his mouth, not from his diary, which shows nothing more than an isolated young man who was unhappy with his life, wanted more, but was unable to make it happen. Any monsters we find there are just shadow puppets cast by ourselves.
• Parsing his words for clues and evidence and signs of monsterism is a contextual sucker's game, especially since there is no such thing. I disagree, strongly. There are monsters; psychopaths exist. My stepdad is one, I knew two when growing up, and went out with two later on. I have no idea if this guy is one, because there isn't enough information to go on, but it sounds more likely he's a psychopath than psychotic from what info is available. If you haven't been around them I can see thinking they don't exist. However, if you have, you'll never think that way again. Ever. The only 'Why' we'll ever know will come from his mouth, not from his diary, which shows nothing more than an isolated young man who was unhappy with his life, wanted more, but was unable to make it happen. But he did make kidnap, rape, murder, and the mutilation of a child happen. That's not isolated, that's not unhappy, that's someone playing by a different set of rules entirely. Incidently, psychopaths rarely commit suicide. They aren't sad; they're doing as they want to do. This guy was bored. And that was really unfair, in his mind. So he did something about it.
• I am not disputing the existence of psychosis, nor am I going to get into a trauma pissing contest. I do object to the convenient classification of people who commit terrible actions as being monsters, though. And again, unless there's an entry on his blog titled "Why I Kidnapped, Killed, & Intended To Eat a 10 Year Old", armchair dianoses derived from reading his MySpace will be about as effective and insightful as giving him a phrenological exam.
• I do object to the convenient classification of people who commit terrible actions as being monsters, though. People commit terrible actions all the time without being monsters. People who are insane and really don't understand they're doing. People in times of desperation and war. People under extreme emotional stress can and do snap. Doesn't make them psychopaths. I don't think educating yourself about the difference between people who think like you and me and who are temporarily and contextually violent versus those whose destructive and violent acts are planned and completely justifiable in their own minds is convenient. I think it's something that can save your damn life. Somebody pointing at the sky and screaming is easy to avoid; the charming guy next to you on the bus isn't so obvious. One of the most monstrous aspects of psychopathic behaviour is how well they can appear to be anything but monstrous. It helps them get what they want from the marks who don't think they exist.
• moneyjane your comments have been really insightful and, in my opinion, spot on up until the: "psyco's don't get sad and rarely commit suicide" bit. They do get sad, and and they do commit suicide, more sad and more often then the gen population. Emotions are not lacking nor is empathy as opposed to sympathy.
• I heart mj.
• Hey random, can you give me your source for that? I'm going by Hervey Cleckley, who contends suicide is rare in psychopaths, but his research is from the 40's, so if you've got a more current source, could you pass it on? Also, lacking empathy is seen as one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy.
• Damn you MJ. I was about jump on the empathy train. I think that it might have been Hare who wrote that because psychopaths are so lacking in complex emotions that they sometimes commit excessive acts in order just to feel something. How about a riddle? Two sisters are attending a wedding. On of the sisters is getting married. The sister that isn't getting hitched wanders around the party and notices a very hansome young man that she's never met before. She manages a brief flirt with him but doesn't catch his name before the ceremony interrupts her. After the ceremony she can't find this young man and no one she asks seems to know who he was. Shortly after she murders her newly married sister. Why? Answer tomorrow.
• As I'm sure is obvious, this is a pet topic of mine. It's kind of necessary for my job. It does scare the shit out of me that many people are unaware of the information needed to try and spot these fuckers, because this is stuff you really don't want to learn the hard way...having said that though, perhaps it's inevitable. It's such a cold and terrible thing that maybe you have to experience the 'other' yourself before it becomes real to you. Alrighty...I'll shut up now. I am fun at parties, really, I swear... quinn...good call with the riddle.
• Fuck yeah. I got the answer. Is it tomorrow yet? Reminds of that episode of six feet under. mj I shall use my extensive google-fu to drag something up to support my assertion that psychs get sad and kill themselves at a higher rate than the rest of us.
• The rate of suicide in the mentally ill, in general, is about 10 times higher than in 'sane' society. Can't find anything about the rate specifically in psychopaths, & I suspect there isn't an estimate due to the difficulties in identifying such people. Most of the time you have a known psychopath, he's in prison or a hospital, so the suicide rate can't be based on anything seen 'in the wild' so to speak. Sociopaths, people with types of antisocial personality disorder, do indeed have a higher rate of suicide, but I can't find stats for that right now. Bear in mind APD is common as muck. I'd like to add something I forgot to say earlier. The generalisation that sociopaths lack empathy is misleading. It is not really true. In fact some sociopaths have very highly developed empathy which they use to manipulate others. Some relate strongly and empathise with those they can manipulate, and in the case of their children, regard them as 'extensions of themselves' so to speak. They have a sense of self-preservation that is highly developed, too. All psycopaths are sociopathic, but not all sociopaths are psychopaths. Hows that for an opaque sentence?
• In fact some sociopaths have very highly developed empathy which they use to manipulate others. Some relate strongly and empathise with those they can manipulate, and in the case of their children, regard them as 'extensions of themselves' so to speak. That is totally interesting...now do you think they really have empathy, or that they have learned to approximate it as a highly effective tool for manipulation? Would anybody, including the experts even be able to tell reliably? Maybe even they'd have to wait for the 'actions speak louder than words' bit to come home to roost... Many of them are very skilled at manfacturing appropriate emotion to allow them to slide into advantageous situations and to lower other people's guard. That's why they're such good conmen; they'll fake whatever it takes to get your trust/money/deed to the ranch/signature on your revised will. Apparently, I have backslid on the shutting up, but that's really intriguing, Chy.
• Charm is not the same as empathy. I am a very empathetic person, sometimes to the point of social paralysis, depression, etc. Thank God for meds, sunshine, my dog and booze. Charm is something that I have learned in order to get what I want [in my job it is very useful]. I can't use 'empathy' in order to manipulate some person , I'd be looking at myself taking advantage of some schmuck who was just like me. My charm or charming [verb] is kept in check by my empathy, so that I won't fuck someone [myself] over for a buck because of their weaknesses. Empathy is part of what keeps us apart from the psychopaths. Charm can be learned. What people want to hear and see can be picked up by being observant. Empathy is the thing [noun] that gives me compassion for my fellow person, dog and that guy I get chilli for at Tim Horton's after another late night shift. I don't want anything from the Tim Horton's guy. My dog loves me anyway. Charm=wanting something. Empathy=I can't help being it without despising myself. Manipulaters have a lack of empathy. I do not have to have a PHD in order to understand this. These kind of 'people' are not mentally ill, they are emotionally lacking. Why? That should be the topic of another post altogether.
• Damn you, MJ for fucking up another one of my posts. I think slow, I type slow but I can kick your cat in the ass.
• Empathy can't be faked. Sympathy can.
• Exactly. Empathy cannot be faked. Psychopaths just don't have it. Psychopaths are not mentally ill. That's why some people call them monsters. Bernardo-Monster. Guy on corner screaming at the eye in the sky-Mentally ill. Serial behavor. Not some one-off terror spree, but a life of banal monsterism. At least the ones that murder people are easier to catch and remove than the psychopaths just damage the lives and societies that they live with on a daily basis.
• Empathy can't be faked. Sympathy can. So, for the purposes of deception, would 'sympathy' be what a psychopath fakes in order to fake 'empathy'? It would make sense; someone incapable of imagining themselves in another's situation could cover that by mirroring someone, ie; 'You'll trust me if I make it appear we are in the same situation and therefore I know it's expected that I appear to feel badly for you' and that could be taken as proof of empathy by the mark. Roughly I'm thinking sympathy is the words, while empathy is their source. Saying the right thing is pretty easy to learn if you figure out it gets you what you want. Oh, and quinn types again? You *may* be able to kick my cat's ass, but I know for a fact your rough tough dog gets the vapours at the mere sight of a harmless banana, so there!
• I'm not making my self clear, sorry about that. Empathy is a theory of mind, sympathy is giving a shit. However difficult it is to accept; the only humans without empathy are autistic. Psychopaths are empathic, they just don't give a shit about the feelings of other people. They may pretend to be sympathetic, but can only do so by actually being empathic.
• Couldn't a case be made for the possibility that being aware of the act you're carrying out is a different thing from being able to "appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of your acts?" I mean, I can intentionally kill someone, knowing that society considers it to be wrong, but something inside my head that doesn't work tells me it's OK anyway...I'm not really appreciating the quality and wrongfulness there.
• The answer to the riddle 'Quinn Types Again' is that she hopes to meet the young man again at her sister's funeral. This riddle is often used to illustrate the difference between the thinking of the 'sociopath' and that of 'normal' people. Sociopathic persons have no empathy but are often exceptionally intelligent and able to 'mimic' behaviour and attitude they observe in others. Their primary desire is to gratify their wishes, desires and whims. No matter how trivial those wants may seem to others, sociopathic personalities are prepared to go to endless lengths to gratify those wants, lengths most often out of proportion to the value non-sociopathic people would place upon them. This is one reason why those who are not sociopathic are helpless and 'unknowing' when confronted with this type of personality. Sociopaths have emotions but only for themselves, coupled with an absence of what we call 'conscience'. They have no ability to relate to other persons as "real" and thus have no 'true empathy' but rather a facsimile thereof. In short, they may be expert psychologists but lack the ability to 'feel' what they observe. It is understandable that most people would not recognize a sociopathic personality. One speculates that in order to recognize the monster in others, one must have that monster within. Moneyjane has one's agreement .."Many of them are very skilled at manfacturing appropriate emotion to allow them to slide into advantageous situations and to lower other people's guard. That's why they're such good conmen; they'll fake whatever it takes to get your trust/money/deed to the ranch/signature on your revised will.." With apologies to Chyren one exemplifies; Chyren may be viewed as a person of passionate, empathic and intense intelligence who has a visual imagination ineradicably connected to his emotions. Whilst he is describing the actions of his 'anti-hero' it is with the mental/emotional "eyes" of a sensitive and emotional being, not a monster. He cannot really enter the mind of the monster since he reveals in his writings that he is anything but, however he is able to evoke the horror we might feel as a personality in fragmentation confronted with the desires of such an "internal monster" .. Colin Wilson has written much on the "sociopathic personality type" and has an interesting perspective on same.
• Into what group do successful politicians, preachers, salesmen, and suicide bombers fit? All seem "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of (their) acts."
• Many charismatic and successful people in professions that require a certain amount of risk-taking are sociopathic; top surgeons, CEOs, politicians, salesmen, stockbrokers, preachers included. Suicide bombers seem to be a different case; Unsurprisingly, many people have attempted to understand suicide bombing in terms of the abnormality of the individuals responsible. However, if only those with some kind of psychopathology could be terrorists, terrorism would not be the large problem that it is. Research shows no indication that terrorists are crazy or psychopathic or that they lack moral feelings. [2] Most terrorists are not psychologically deviant and do not operate outside the normal rules of behavior, but are instead ordinary people from unremarkable backgrounds. In fact, research indicates that terrorists tend to have considerable insight into their own actions and are aware of how others view them. [3] They believe that their violent actions, while somewhat regrettable, are justified and noble. Moreover, their emotional commitment to their cause and comrades is indicative of normal human psychology. Often their actions do not ultimately stem from hatred, but rather from love of their own group and culture that they believe is threatened and requires protection. [4] From here.
• And to address the question; "All seem "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of (their) acts." They appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of their acts; however they consider it irrelevent. What they want is more important; you could say they view humanity as the eggs that get broken and their wants as the omelette. Just as we don't 'get' them and their logic, they don't get us and ours either. I can intentionally kill someone, knowing that society considers it to be wrong, but something inside my head that doesn't work tells me it's OK anyway...I'm not really appreciating the quality and wrongfulness there. Underpants Monster, that is a very significant question; if they are as they are because of a quality they don't possess, and if the origin of that lack is based on anything physical; abnormal brain activity or some link to genetics, it may be unfair to expect them to understand wrongness as those without this condition do. And then the question is, what the hell is society supposed to do with violent psychopaths? In common with predatory pedophiles, violent psychopaths are rarely treated successfully. What really sucks is when someone is both.
• You are on the verge of rationalizing his behavior (presumptive innocence) and ignoring the death of a child whose caregivers could not have seen this coming, given common social conventions. I say we deal with violent sexual offenders of most stripes as potential serial murderers, and medicate them to the point where they are no longer functional and simply remove them from society. They cannot be rehabilitated, nor trusted. The good news is that a few of the socio/psycho types get caught on their first strike (as far as we know, in this case).
• I don't think anyone is capable of appreciating wrongfulness of their own acts, at atleast while they are performing them. If they did, they couldn't perform the act. The fact that they did perform the act, whatever it is, demonstrates their inability to recognize that act as wrong. If I fully believed jaywalking to be wrong, I couldn't do it. Every time I have jaywalked is because I couldn't see the inherent wrongness in it. This extends to every situation. It's not possible for anyone to see the wrongness of the action they are performing. Later, they may recognize it, and regret it. But not during the performance of the act. A pot smoker doesn't recognize wrongness inherent in smoking pot, although he/she may be aware that others do. A mugger doesn't recognize wrongness in mugging, although he/she may be aware that others do. A music downloader doesn't recognize wrongness inherent in downloading music, although he/she may be aware that others do. A killer doesn't recognize wrongness in killing, although he/she may be aware that others do. A phone tapper doesn't recognize wrongness inherent in tapping phones, although he/she may be aware that others do. A voter doesn't recognize wrongness inherent in voting, although he/she may be aware that others do. A non-voter doesn't recognize wrongness inherent in not voting, although he/she may be aware that others do.
• You are on the verge of rationalizing his behavior (presumptive innocence) and ignoring the death of a child whose caregivers could not have seen this coming, given common social conventions. Please. Asking a question about something, or discussing it means I'm on the verge of rationalizing his behavior (presumptive innocence) and ignoring the death of a child? Give me a fucking break. Bring your own training wheels if you have to, but I'm not bolting them onto my comments.
• I don't think anyone is capable of appreciating wrongfulness of their own acts, at atleast while they are performing them. If they did, they couldn't perform the act. The fact that they did perform the act, whatever it is, demonstrates their inability to recognize that act as wrong. I think you're (probably deliberately) confusing 'wrong' and 'illegal' here. Just as an example, it's illegal here in South Carolina for me to say any of the seven dirty words in front of a woman. If someone who happens to be female comes so close to hitting me with her car that I have to jump out of the way, is it actually wrong for me to use what my father refers to as "Australian adjectives" when expressing my anger verbally? There are good laws (like the ones against murder and rape and child abuse), and then there are bloody stupid laws (like the ones against swearing, against consenting adults having harmless fun with one another, against consenting adults enjoying chemical forms of recreation). In the case of something like murder, I think some murderers can and do appreciate that they are not only violating a law, but they're violating something more fundamental. They can recognize that their behavior is wrong, but they continue with the act anyway. Their goal may not be to do wrong. Their goal may be, "I need to avoid being late for work." It's not a case of situational ethics for them. It's a case of cause and effect. I suspect, though, that you were trying to make a similar point.
• Thank you Jeraboam. This riddle is actually one of many questions on a test developed to find out if the suspect being interviewed has some of the flags associated with being a psychopath. If somebody you know answers the question correctly don't get jiggy, but may be you should just go for the sex. Sorry about the long absence, but my new modem just died. I'm feeling real lack of emotion about this.

• A mugger doesn't recognize wrongness in mugging, although he/she may be aware that others do.

  i've met and seen would-be muggers who were clearly aware that what they were trying to do was wrong. they were tense, scared, and clumsy. they didn't want to be mugging people, but they really really didn't want to be jonesing. this applies equally to wrongness as to illegality. people are fully capable of recognizing the wrongfulness or illegality of an act while doing it, particularly if the act is prompted to avoid a (subjective) "greater evil".
• there is a difference between 'wrongness' and 'illegality'. If I euthanize a terminally ill relative, I may know its illegal, yet feel it is also the right thing to do. and it would be consensual, as I wouldn't euthanize someone without their consent, of course.
• people are fully capable of recognizing the wrongfulness or illegality of an act while doing it Absolutely. Falls into the "I don't like to ____, but whaddya gonna do?" They may or may not be lying about the liking it bit, but necessity trumps wrongfulness and the illegality of an act all the time. They feel they have no other choice, and should our felon also be a psychopath, will blame anything and everybody on the planet for something they chose to do.
• I think you're (probably deliberately) confusing 'wrong' and 'illegal' here. Dude, I gave examples that aren't illegal. Did you quit reading halfway through? I don't know where you're confusion is, but its probably deliberate. Legallity has nothing at all to do with it. For every example I gave there's some group that recognizes it as a wrongful act, yet the performer of that act does not share that same recognition. I'm not if I can make it more blunt and blatant, but let me try: A topless dancer does not recognizes topless dancing as a wrongful act, although others do. An evolution teacher doesn't recognizes wrongness in teaching evolution, although others do. A creationist teacher doesn't recognizes wrongness in teaching creationism, although others do. An SUV driver does not recognize wrongness in driving an SUV, although others do. necessity trumps wrongfulness and the illegality of an act all the time. Exactly, moneyjane. Necessity has trumped wrongfulness. This is one of the ways that prevents someone from recognizing wrongness in their act. They need to not recognize wrongness (or the severity of wrongness). There's other ways the ability to recognize wrongness (or severity of wrongness) is overridden, but this is a good example of one way.
• necessity trumps wrongfulness and the illegality of an act all the time. You've misinterpreted what I said. I'm a callgirl. I know it's 'wrong', in that it can be destructive of myself, my clients, and their families. It's not illegal here, but is in most parts of the world. I don't get struck with hysterical psychic blindness when I consider what I do; instead I assess the risk of damage and decide I'll do it anyways because it lets me pay off my debts and I like doing it. People who do wrong are not magically exempt from giving a shit; it goes into the equation and is part of the choices they make. Another example; a guy I knew who used to steal vans and drive to the rich parts of town to do afternoon robberies would give any jewellry that wasn't a honkin' mafioso pinkie ring - lots of gold and big diamonds - to whoever happened to be at our house, particularily if it looked old and it could be an heirloom because he didn't like throwing what could be a family's history in the garbage with the eggshells and old coffee grounds. Obviously he was aware of the significance of those items to the family he stole it from; but it certainly didn't stop him. He actually had a welder's ticket and could've been making good legit money, but he liked robbing better. Why did he take them in the first place? Because unlike tv where the burglar practically carries a loupe and carefully decides what to steal, the real guys make a beeline to the master bedroom, shake the jewelry box upside down over a pillowcase they grab from the bed, dump the drawers for cash stashes, quickly check top shelves in the closet and get the hell out. They sort out their haul later and decide what's worth fencing.
• Dammit, you've totally shattered my illusions! I guess that handsome, elegant cat burglar with the loupe, the Russian accent, the sexy Van Dyke, and the bag with $$$ writtne on the side isn't going to come sneaking into my bedroom window after all!
• Dammit, no. Although we could start agitating for higher burglar standards; with a black turtleneck and watch cap or tuxedo with cummerbund dress code in addition to your requirements.
• Moneyjane, you can cretinize me as much as suits you; I reserve the right to disagree. Thanks
• p.s. kidding. an inside joke not meant for here, oops.
• If you had actually read everything I'd posted before in this thread you would not have posted what you did. If you didn't read my comments, yet chose to make such an ignorant statement...well I guess that would be (presumptive guilt) now, wouldn't it? You can disagree with me until the cows come home, but that's not what you did; you made an incredibly ignorant statement and can fuck right off, thanks.
• "Wow, so is there any way we can make a conversation about a child-killing wanna-be cannibal any more awkward?" "No, I don't... waittaminnit!"
• "Does this clown taste funny to you?"

• People who do wrong are not magically exempt from giving a shit; it goes into the equation and is part of the choices they make.

  exactly. and we need to unionise the burglars if there're ever going to be any standards. no more pooing on people's rugs, for example, it's bad enough to take their stuff.
• People who do wrong are not magically exempt from giving a shit; huh? We are having a conversation about totally different things if you think "not recognizing wrongness" is in any way equatable with "not giving a shit". I think the many of my examples include people that give a shit. I'm a callgirl. I know it's 'wrong', in that it can be destructive of myself, my clients, and their families. Being aware of dangers in your profession isn't anywhere the same as viewing your profession as wrongful. People that view your profession as wrongful make laws against it, call the cops on you, throw bibles, etc... Saying something "can be" wrongful isn't not the same as saying it "is" wrongful. When you say that act X "can be" wrongful, then it can be divided into smaller specific subsets that are either "is wrongful" or "is not wrongful". At each performance of act X, you then asses whether that specific situation falls into "is wrongful" or "is not wrongful". When you assess it as "is wrongful" you don't do it, and when you assess it as "is not wrongful" you may perform it. You're example of the jewel theif perfectly demonstrates this. Stealing family jewels was a "can be wrongful". Destroying someone's family history was wrongful, but giving it away didn't destroy the history and was not wrongful. He took steps to avoid doing what he viewed as wrongful. You know how when someone says the phrase "I'm sorry, but [...]", it's really just another way of saying they aren't actually sorry? The phrase "I know it's wrong, but [...]" works the same way. It's just another way of saying they don't actually think that it's wrong.
• Being aware of dangers in your profession isn't anywhere the same as viewing your profession as wrongful. People that view your profession as wrongful make laws against it, call the cops on you, throw bibles, etc... So wrongful is only in the opinions of others? Excellent. I'll go somewhere where mugging old ladies is a perfectly acceptable way to pass the time, and it will magically no longer be wrongful to me. I won't have a care in the world lurking artound the Old Folk's Home on pension cheque day. Destroying someone's family history was wrongful, but giving it away didn't destroy the history and was not wrongful. How does having a part of your family history stolen from you and never seeing it again not destroy its function in your family? It has no family history separate from the family. They had no idea if their property was being sold, smashed, or in a landfill. Are you saying that a person knowing something's wrong yet doing it anyway is an impossibility, and shielding your assertation from questioning by saying that a person knowing something's wrong yet doing it anyway is basically in denial of their true feeling that the act "isn't really wrong'? Meaning anyone saying they know something's wrong and do it anyway is automatically reinforcing your position? Remember the repressed memory fiasco in the 90's? Where children who said they hadn't been sexually abused were told that their denial really meant they had been abused because they'd obviously been traumatised and so repressed their terrible memories of the alleged abuse? That kind of argument doesn't stand up. Telling someone they don't feel a certain way because your theory says they shouldn't is ridiculous. The dangerousness of my profession to myself is a completely different issue; I'm talking about its effect on other people. It's ethically questionable to myself, and can and does damage other people. But I do it anyways, because I'm willing to do wrong to get what I want. Telling me you know my motivation behind the choices I make better than I do is pretty silly.
• Awkward! Oh dear, we wouldn't want any of that. Let us instead talk about unicorns and candy. And unicorns giving candy to kittens. Nice kittens though, not any of those awkward ones. *adjusts crinolines, resumes knitting, totally doesn't think about Hitler*
• KITTY DEFUSES ALL
• Good Lord! That was a KITTY IN A SINK! The WMD of kitten wars! *gives up, kicks gun towards crataegus*
• I see your measly kitty in sink and raise you kitty with giant ears and fluffy white toes!
• So wrongful is only in the opinions of others? Um, I said nothing like that at all. I have a big hate-on for moral relativists, and would never try to make the point you are ascribing to me. I can't tell if you are intentionally building strawmen that you know aren't real, or if you really can't understand. If Chy came in here and called himself a Bush supporter, I'd give him some examples of what Bush supporters do, in an attempt to show him how different he is from them. Apparently, his appropriate response would be to say "Oh, so Bush supporting is only in the opinions of others?" and I would be left just as dumbfounded as I am now. It's ethically questionable to myself, and can and does damage other people. But I do it anyways, because I'm willing to do wrong to get what I want. This is one of those "I know it's wrong, but [...]" statements. Here's as simple as I can make it: If you decide an act is wrong, you've decided the act should not be done. That's what it means for it to be wrong. If you perform an act, you've decided the act should be done. Every act you perform is prefaced the decision that the act should be done. If complete and total nonsense to pretend these to states can exist simultaneously. It's either should not be, or should be. You can't have both.
• I see the pathetic big-ear white-toe cat, and raise you a cuter SLEEPING kitten with the obligatory ball of yarn.
• By the way, the kitten pic above is a deep link into a site I do not own, which means I am robbing bandwidth. I know this is wrong, but I did it anyway. Which means it's NOT wrong!! Hooray!
• Being aware of dangers in your profession isn't anywhere the same as viewing your profession as wrongful. People that view your profession as wrongful make laws against it, call the cops on you, throw bibles, etc... So wrongful is only in the opinions of others? Um, I said nothing like that at all. Um, I kinda think ya did. Ok. You say that If you decide an act is wrong, you've decided the act should not be done. That's what it means for it to be wrong. Here's what the dictionary says; Hitler! Sorry, ahem; wrong (rông, rŏng) pronunciation adj. 1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. 2. 1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. 2. Unfair; unjust. 3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn. 4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing. 5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out of order. 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention. 8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out. adv. 1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously. 2. In a wrong course or direction. 3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie. 4. In an unfavorable way. See synonyms at amiss. My (adj) wrong is #2, subsection #1, and #7. Adverbiostically, my wrong is #3. Nowhere does it say that doing whatever the fuck it is anyways transgresses the Known Laws of the Universe results in explosions, flames and/or a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down the pants. Not even locusts. Among laymen such an action is known as "getting away with it". You just go to hell when you die where God will kick your sinner ass so hard He'll have to scrape it of His God shoe like dogshit. I see agreeing to disagree in my near future.
• Ralph..ralph...ralph. I see your crummy cuter SLEEPING kitten with the obligatory ball of yarn, and raise you fatally adorable kitten with a stripey fuzzy gut valiantly fighting Giant Hand!
• Nowhere does it say that doing whatever the fuck it is anyways transgresses the Known Laws of the Universe results in explosions, flames and/or a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down the pants. Not even locusts. Among laymen such an action is known as "getting away with it". You just go to hell when you die where God will kick your sinner ass so hard He'll have to scrape it of His God shoe like dogshit. What the hell are you talking about?
• Oh, more strawmen. I get it now.
• God is a strawman. Someone should tell Him. And you've adroitly avoided the whole definition of wrong thing. Anyways, we are not EVAR going to agree on this, so shall we agree to disagree?
• Sorry to interrupt your thread with that awkward crack, moneyjane. For some reason, I had this wacky idea that telling people that they were ignorant and can fuck right off wasn't really what this place was about, and thought I'd say something a little humorous to diffuse the tension. We now return you to Deathly Fucking Serious, on MoneyJaneFilter.
• There is a sociopath in my life, my nephew. That's made it difficult to read this thread, so, if I come to the same conclusions as everyone else, sorry. His symptoms may be increased by drug addiction, though. He has no concept that anyone else exists outside of his mind, and his mind is so sideways that his take on what anyone else is like is off to a frightening degree. We're all just puppets, so far as he's concerned. And, as far as he's concerned, he's the ruler, and is owed support and agreement. He's assaulted several people in the family, including his grandmother, wife (now ex-) and children, and, yes, me. He feels no remorse for any of that, or for threatening his father and his second family, or for stealing from his grandmother, or... It's all someone else's fault. If he has any charm, it doesn't last long, since he has to be right, and an expert in everything. He keeps losing jobs because he's convinced that he doesn't have to follow direction. The last outrage was when an ex-buddy of his brought us a women's fitness magizine, with pictures, which my nephew had marked up, where he fantacized about fucking his 3 daughters, in explicit terms. We gave it to his ex-wife, and she's banned him from seeing his children, but we're terrified that he'll find out that we did that. As far as he's concerned, he's always right. I could go on for miles, but I just wanted to give you an incite into the mind of a sort of person whom, I hope, you'll never know.
• you've adroitly avoided the whole definition of wrong thing. No, I just gave up on you, after those huge strawmen. You make up shit that so drastically far off from what I'm saying that it's too generous to call it strawmen building; its just flat out lying. What's the point when you're just going to make up nonsense? If you are really that confused on whether or not you should do wrong or immoral things, keep following your definitions back. Look up immoral, or unacceptable (those the definition you said you're using), if you really can't figure it out from there, look up the next definition. Eventually, if you have any intellectual honesty or reading comprehension skills, you'll discover that wrong/immoral/unacceptable acts are one that you should not do. But of course, you're just going come back here and make up some more nonsense about outer space or some other bullshit, and pretend I said it.
• Man, I always typo when I criticize someone's reading comprehension. Fuck.
• Wow, that Robert Hare is a sensationalist nut. One out every hundred people are pyschotic? Come on, the dude's trying to sell books by generating fear. He's like the Ann Coultier of seriel killer authors. My reading comprehension skills? Oops. I don't care how peeved it makes you that I don't agree with you. I've already said that we aren't ever going to agree on this and asked that we agree to disagree. If you can't let it go, that's your problem. Layne Lady Layne...I see your point; I don't know why I got so serious about someone telling me I was on the verge of rationalizing a child-rapist and murderer's behavior (presumptive innocence) and ignoring the death of a child. I mean jeez! I really gotta lighten up. Are we done?
• Thank you path, for telling us about your nephew. Your story said in a few paragraphs everything this thread has taken over 100 comments to do.
• Mr. K. I think moneyjane was speaking from her personal experience. Where did the "making up shit" come from? If you disagree with her lifestyle, well, that's your problem, but she certainly always been honest, and I'm sure she was fully equipped with excellent reading comprehension skills by the fourth grade. Maybe it's your skills which are in question. Unless, it's your skill as a troll, at which you might be an expert.
• I'm done now.
• Where did the "making up shit" come from? All that stupid shit about explosions and dancing and whatever else she felt like making up. If you disagree with her lifestyle, well, that's your problem WTF are you talking about? I don't, nor have I ever said that, or implied it. Matter of fact, that only person in this thread who said anything close to disapproval of moneyjane's lifestyle was moneyjane herself. She's the one who described her lifestyle as wrong, I disagreed. I'm the troll in that exchange? Obviously I need to be more like moneyjane, and start telling people fuck off like she does. She's not troll telling people to fuck off, and flat out making up shit— I'm a troll for not disapproving of her. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I've already said that we aren't ever going to agree on this and asked that we agree to disagree. If you can't let it go, that's your problem. I did drop it. But you couldn't let it go, deciding my dropping it means that I'm evading you questions. That must be hard to rememeber, since I already quoted it back to you once.
• mr. k., i've had a serious problem understanding your position, but i think i get it now (please correct me if i haven't): you're taking an absolutist view on the term "wrong", such that "wrong" defines to a person behavior in which they cannot engage. once a person engages in such behavior, it ceases to be wrong and becomes non-wrong; i.e. they've made a decision that it is not wrong. a few posts up, you scorn moral relativism. by your reckoning, if a person is faced with a necessary choice between two evils and chooses the lesser, it ceases to be "wrong" (does it cease to be an evil?) at least for the time being and becomes the right thing to do (at the time?). does this evade moral relativism by removing comparison of two wrongs? if so, does it not open the door to another form of relativism that is purely contextual?
• Oooooooooooh! Him gots a fat wittle spotty rummy-tum-tummy! Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
• you're taking an absolutist view on the term "wrong", such that "wrong" defines to a person behavior in which they cannot engage. That's pretty close roryk. I'd use the term "should not" over "cannot", because "cannot" implies something else (I'm at a loss to articulate exactly what that something else is at the moment). a few posts up, you scorn moral relativism. by your reckoning, if a person is faced with a necessary choice between two evils and chooses the lesser, it ceases to be "wrong" No no no... The wrongness of it doesn't change. Just the individual's perception of it. It doesn't cease to be wrong, its just not seen as wrong. This is a very important distinction— because otherwise, yeah, that's moral relativism. The act is still just as wrong as it always was. The wrongness of it just isn't recognized.
• I seriously gotta stop eating people. The way you people carry on I'd have some serious gas problems. Zing!
• Psycho Study.