(Original post by NeuralGroove)
Haha, that childish remark is made funnier by the fact that I mentioned it was you doing the assuming.
You can't simply hope to brand everyone who does things that we consider harmful, unkind, even horrific as psychopaths. No, the slave trade was propagated because it was profitable, it paved the streets of London, Bath, Portsmouth and filled the plantations of the Americas. Perfectly healthy people are capable of convincing themselves that a course of action is right if it benefits them in the long run. Have you ever wondered why there is a limit to our empathy and our altruism? Robert Wright's highly recommendable book, "The Moral Animal", recounts the saying of an English evolutionary biologist that sums up this matter; "I wouldn't give my life to save my brother, but I would for two brothers or eight cousins" (as that is the proportion at which you could expect 100% of your genetic material to be carried on in them). We suspend our beautiful morality, our kindness, our empathy, altruism, friendships when necessity dictates and when it benefits us. Evolution wouldn't make an organism that was simply very nice.
If the opportunity arises to justify using Africans as means, not as ends, for slavery, making yourself very rich and a very attractive reproductive prospect in the process, evolution mandates that we capitalise on such opportunities. A permanently principled organism is often an ill-fated one.
I have no interest in or reason to "silence you". You sound a little like a howling paranoiac when you say that kind of thing. I encourage healthy and engaged debate on such issues, even if I vehemently oppose what you say.
"My observations are applicable to every psychopath on this planet. I know them inside and out. My observations are not false, or misleading. They are not made-up, they are derived from experience and reading.
This is utter nonsense. What possible evidence
do you have to support your claims? Do you have any of the evidence used to justify claims like this? A backlog of case reports, meta-analyses, statistical tests to determine the range of concordance to specific characteristics? No. Don't pretend that this is at all a scientific endeavour. It isn't. Diagnoses are the realm of science. You are masquerading as a guru here, making up lists of characteristics that come simply from observations of a small fraction and then presenting it as all-encompassing facts. It is
unscientific, it is
Further even to that, science is impartial. Have you ever heard of a scientist or medic condemning those afflicted with a condition they describe? No. Because they are empathetic, impartial and are able to keep their personal convictions apart from their professional findings
. Emotion is the enemy of scientific discovery. Your beliefs clearly come from whatever feelings you have about your mother. In this area, I can recognise that I can't possibly hope to completely understand your emotional state, but I'd suggest that this whole exposition, condemning so harshly a made up group of people, is nothing but a coping mechanism.
And if you can't see that a discussion about the care of the mentally ill, the use of violence in society, trust, compassion and human emotion is fundamentally a discussion on worldview and beliefs then you need the two terms clarified for you.