<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sociopaths like serial killers have different brain activity too. They didn't chose to be killers. They were born like that. Right. bs) [/b][/quote] Actually that's correct, personality disorders such as antisocial (sociopath) are inherent not learned.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sociopaths like serial killers have different brain activity too. They didn't chose to be killers. They were born like that. Right. bs) [/b][/quote] Actually that's correct, personality disorders such as antisocial (sociopath) are inherent not learned. [/b][/quote] Forgive Panchy. He is knowN in the industry as a FUCKING IDIOT. ________ Volcano vaporizer review
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sociopaths like serial killers have different brain activity too. They didn't chose to be killers. They were born like that. Right. bs) [/b][/quote] Actually that's correct, personality disorders such as antisocial (sociopath) are inherent not learned. [/b][/quote] Punk, I'm a sociologist by trade, not a psychologist...but can't sociopathic or even psychopathic behaviour be learned as opposed to being inherent? I'm sure that there might be a natural inclination in that area, but years of abuse must certainly contribute to that type of behaviour. Most violent criminals experienced child abuse at the hands of their guardians when they were in their formative years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> No, actually I was right, joebazooka. Adultery can help one get PROSECUTED if the offended party decides to sue for divorce! Here's your lesson for today: ********************************************************************************** prosecute is a transitive verb which means: Law. To initiate civil or criminal court action against. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action. One would sue for divorce in a divorce court which is a legal court, joe. Hence they would be legally prosecuted if the case were successful for the opposing party. As for persecute: per·se·cute To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. To annoy persistently; bother. ********************************************************************************* Study hard! There's a pop quiz tomorrow! [/b][/quote] Buddy, Buddy.... Buddy.... Stop! Rewind! Re-read! Use your head. The word I and Jake were using was "persecution," not "prosecution." You chimed into the conversation and started using the "prosecution" word. NOBODY was talking about that or asking for lessons in jurisprudence. Capice?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sociopaths like serial killers have different brain activity too. They didn't chose to be killers. They were born like that. Right. bs) [/b][/quote] Actually that's correct, personality disorders such as antisocial (sociopath) are inherent not learned. [/b][/quote] [/b][/quote] Panchy himself said they had different brain activity, he wasnt saying they werent born with it, hes saying thats no excuse for KILLING. They were born sociopaths, but not murderers. I think his point is, while homosexuals may be tweaked in the head, that doesnt excuse them of their actions, morally.
I think Buddy is right, I believe, to an extent, that sociopathic behaviour can be learned. Lack of empathy on the other hand, I think is a part of sociopathic behaviour that is innate.
Joey, joey, joey: You quoted my post and then said the word is persecution. You quoted my post so I thought you were arguing about my argument. You can't correct the point that I made because there was nothing wrong with it. Originally, I simply pointed out that a comparison between adultery and homosexuality is inherently wrong because it is like comparing apples and oranges. I read what you said about adultery and homosexuality, then I clarified the difference because the two concepts cannot be compared fairly. I "chimed in" because your comparison was flawed. Capisca?
Yes, Buddy is right. Sociopathic behaviour can be learned; just look at the Nazis. Environment is a powerful influence. Also, sexual behaviour that usually escapes the norm can be "learned." Especially if, in time, it becomes socially accepted. The more tolerant a society becomes regarding deviant behaviour, the more frequent that behaviour will become. This is only logical. And that's the reason many people oppose open tolerance of homosexua behaviour.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Punk, I'm a sociologist by trade, not a psychologist...but can't sociopathic or even psychopathic behaviour be learned as opposed to being inherent? I'm sure that there might be a natural inclination in that area, but years of abuse must certainly contribute to that type of behaviour. Most violent criminals experienced child abuse at the hands of their guardians when they were in their formative years.[/b][/quote] Violent behaviour can be and is learned, but the disorder itself apparently cannot. Antisocials don't necessarily kill, they can be quite charming and normal. However they have a complete disregard for human feelings and the rights of others. Empathy is an unknown feeling to them, as is guilt or fear. There are no natural inherent barriers which stop them from antisocial behaviour, so you see people with this disorder being overrepresented in prisons and crime, being conmen and ripping people off, or just ruthless businessmen. Their brain patterns are different to a "normal" person, so psychologists theorise that it's an inherent disorder like schizophrenia. Remember the guy down here who shot 35 people with an AR-15 a few years ago, Martin Bryant? He was classified antisocial. The dude chased women and little kids down and blew them away, and he was laughing about it. His upbringing was strange, but apparently not violent. He just couldn't give a fuck, and thought blasting people might be a fun way to kill time. Here's the DSM description of it; <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following: (1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. (2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure. (3) Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults. (5) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others. (6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations. (7) Lack or remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalising having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. B. The individual is at least age 18 years. C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years. D. The occurrence of antisocial behaviour is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode[/b][/quote] Psychologists have also identified 3 areas of childhood that can indicate antisocial disorder. It's not in the DSM, but it's gaining credibility as a marker for it; 1. A head injury when young. 2. Pattern of continued arson or firelighting. 3. Bedwetting till abnormally advanced age. Martin Bryant had all 3.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Yes, Buddy is right. Sociopathic behaviour can be learned; just look at the Nazis. Environment is a powerful influence. [/b][/quote] True, but the Nazi regime allowed antisocials to rise to the top like cream whereby in normal society they are shunned. Ruthlessness was rewarded.
Good discussion, lads. This is rather fun to talk about. Good to see that people can discuss this without "YOU'RE A FAG! YOUR MOTHER'S A WHORE!!! THIS FORUM NEEDS CHRISTIAN VALUES!!!! ALL HOMOS MUST DIE!!!"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Joey, joey, joey: You quoted my post and then said the word is persecution. You quoted my post so I thought you were arguing about my argument. You can't correct the point that I made because there was nothing wrong with it. Originally, I simply pointed out that a comparison between adultery and homosexuality is inherently wrong because it is like comparing apples and oranges. I read what you said about adultery and homosexuality, then I clarified the difference because the two concepts cannot be compared fairly. I "chimed in" because your comparison was flawed.[/b][/quote] No. My comparison was not flawed. You just screwed up but do not want to admit it. This is what Jake said: How is deeming it unacceptable not <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecuting </span>them? To what I replied: Deeming it unacceptable does not equate <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">"persecution."</span> But then you stepped in with: One cannot be <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">prosecuted </span>in a civil court, state court, municipal court, or federal court if they confess to being homosexual. You cannot make a truly valid comparison between homosexuality and adultery. Buddy... you made a mistake. My comparison had nothing to do with <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">legality</span>, and it was perfectly OK. It had to do with MORAL acceptance, not with prosecutions and bull shit. Society finds adultery unnacceptable, right? Right. But it does not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecute </span>adulterers. (That was the word Jake was using...) Society also finds homosexual behaviour unnacceptable. But not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecutes</span> homosexuals. This comparison is perfeclty valid. If you really are a sociologist, you should at least be smart enough to understand what I am trying to say. But I was not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral one. I hope you finally understand.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Good discussion, lads. This is rather fun to talk about. Good to see that people can discuss this without "YOU'RE A FAG! YOUR MOTHER'S A WHORE!!! THIS FORUM NEEDS CHRISTIAN VALUES!!!! ALL HOMOS MUST DIE!!!" [/b][/quote] Damn, forgot this was a "gay" thread. :angry:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Joey, joey, joey: You quoted my post and then said the word is persecution. You quoted my post so I thought you were arguing about my argument. You can't correct the point that I made because there was nothing wrong with it. Originally, I simply pointed out that a comparison between adultery and homosexuality is inherently wrong because it is like comparing apples and oranges. I read what you said about adultery and homosexuality, then I clarified the difference because the two concepts cannot be compared fairly. I "chimed in" because your comparison was flawed.[/b][/quote] No. My comparison was not flawed. You just screwed up but do not want to admit it. This is what Jake said: How is deeming it unacceptable not <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecuting </span>them? To what I replied: Deeming it unacceptable does not equate <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">"persecution."</span> But then you stepped in with: One cannot be <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">prosecuted </span>in a civil court, state court, municipal court, or federal court if they confess to being homosexual. You cannot make a truly valid comparison between homosexuality and adultery. Buddy... you made a mistake. My comparison had nothing to do with <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">legality</span>, and it was perfectly OK. It had to do with MORAL acceptance, not with prosecutions and bull shit. Society finds adultery unnacceptable, right? Right. But it does not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecute </span>adulterers. (That was the word Jake was using...) Society also finds homosexual behaviour unnacceptable. But not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecutes</span> homosexuals. This comparison is perfeclty valid. If you really are a sociologist, you should at least be smart enough to understand what I am trying to say. But I was not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral one. I hope you finally understand. [/b][/quote] In addition to you hurting my feelings, I must humbly point out that you spelled "capisca" wrong. I forgive you...in addition to forgiving you for hurting my feelings and misunderstanding my point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God created man & woman, Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural. And it is a choice a person makes either very early in their lives or late in life. It is still something that is taboo in society. I respect whoever decides to have that lifestyle the same way that I respect whoever decides to be a prostitute, but I don't accept it as a the Gay Agenda wants me to accept it like a natural God given way of life. [/b][/quote] "God" didn't CREATE anyone, let alone Adam and Eve. We're the product of evolution. Once you realize that, things become a lot clearer. Dubblechin [/b][/quote] I don't know. When I think of you and the posts you make, "clarity" is not a word that pops into my mind.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Joey, joey, joey: You quoted my post and then said the word is persecution. You quoted my post so I thought you were arguing about my argument. You can't correct the point that I made because there was nothing wrong with it. Originally, I simply pointed out that a comparison between adultery and homosexuality is inherently wrong because it is like comparing apples and oranges. I read what you said about adultery and homosexuality, then I clarified the difference because the two concepts cannot be compared fairly. I "chimed in" because your comparison was flawed.[/b][/quote] No. My comparison was not flawed. You just screwed up but do not want to admit it. This is what Jake said: How is deeming it unacceptable not <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecuting </span>them? To what I replied: Deeming it unacceptable does not equate <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">"persecution."</span> But then you stepped in with: One cannot be <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">prosecuted </span>in a civil court, state court, municipal court, or federal court if they confess to being homosexual. You cannot make a truly valid comparison between homosexuality and adultery. Buddy... you made a mistake. My comparison had nothing to do with <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">legality</span>, and it was perfectly OK. It had to do with MORAL acceptance, not with prosecutions and bull shit. Society finds adultery unnacceptable, right? Right. But it does not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecute </span>adulterers. (That was the word Jake was using...) Society also finds homosexual behaviour unnacceptable. But not necessarily <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">persecutes</span> homosexuals. This comparison is perfeclty valid. If you really are a sociologist, you should at least be smart enough to understand what I am trying to say. But I was not making a legal argument. I'm making a moral one. I hope you finally understand. [/b][/quote] In addition to you hurting my feelings, I must humbly point out that you spelled "capisce" wrong. I forgive you...in addition to forgiving you for hurting my feelings and misunderstanding my point. [/b][/quote] And now you are going to go out and kill someone for the abuse I subjected you to. I suggest you go and whack Dubblechimp.
Buddy, what's your take on serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer? I don't think the guy was abused as a child... Do you consider serial murderers as individuals suffering from a certain form of pathology?
OK. I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. This is an interesting thread. Oh, and by the way, I am against same sex marriage. Just in case you were wondering. Have a nice one guys.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Yes, Buddy is right. Sociopathic behaviour can be learned; just look at the Nazis. Environment is a powerful influence. [/b][/quote] True, but the Nazi regime allowed antisocials to rise to the top like cream whereby in normal society they are shunned. Ruthlessness was rewarded.[/b][/quote] If homosexuals 'rose to the top', homosexuality celebrated, as in parades and gay marriage, as well as gay programming, would you say it stands to reason that homosexual behaviour would also become more than simply an odd variation in the brain, as it is considered?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Buddy, what's your take on serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer? I don't think the guy was abused as a child... Do you consider serial murderers as individuals suffering from a certain form of pathology? [/b][/quote] Suffering? You pose a rather difficult question! Plain and simple, he killed all those people. It would be hard for me to use the term "suffering" because he seemed to get enjoyment/satisfaction from his crime. As far as "suffering from a certain form of pathology", I have to think about who evaluated him. I would have to look at what end they were trying to achieve. Was he responsible for the actions? Of course, physically. Was he culpable? That's harder to say. I would have to say that I just don't have enough details about the court proceedings and his mental evaluation. He SEEMED to know what he was doing, and he just didn't care. His case was so severe that it would be hard to believe that it could be treated with any kind of success. Which begs the question: what should be done with an incurable psychopath? Keep him doped up and in a small cell with no hope of contact that might result in injury to another individual?
Well, after reading up a bit on him, it is obvious that he knew or at least believed he knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway. When he was arrested for child molestation he admitted that he knew what he was doing and blamed it on his alcoholism. He told the judge what he thought the judge wanted to hear and then he started killing people much more frequently after receiving a light sentence that included "work release". He may have been genetically predisposed towards his behaviour, but he himself was a psychopath who stated he knew what he was doing when he committed crimes. He stated that himself when he was busted for child molestation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Unacceptable! :vom: [/b][/quote] As a black man, you should appreciate how it feels to be discriminated against. I don't think gays have a choice to be gay(in most cases) therefore, I can't hate on them. Not saying I'm some gay activist, but they should be allowed to live their lives. They're people too. [/b][/quote] Exactly! People who hate homosexuals have one-way minds. When you say "They're just people like you and me, they should be able to do whatever us straight folks do" They say "Fag! Godless heathen!" It's absurd. I can't imagine worrying about wether or not somebody is gay.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> How is deeming it unacceptable not persecuting them? What do you care? Unless some guy is constantly waving his dick in your face, I don't see why it should bother or affect you in any way. [/b][/quote] :: :: ::
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God created man & woman, Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural. And it is a choice a person makes either very early in their lives or late in life. It is still something that is taboo in society. I respect whoever decides to have that lifestyle the same way that I respect whoever decides to be a prostitute, but I don't accept it as a the Gay Agenda wants me to accept it like a natural God given way of life. [/b][/quote] But what if you don't believe in god?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> How is deeming it unacceptable not persecuting them? What do you care? Unless some guy is constantly waving his dick in your face, I don't see why it should bother or affect you in any way. [/b][/quote] So much for trust. Thanks for keeping 'our little secret'
