Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,775 
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 8th, 2008, 08:58 PM
“Ponerology”: n. division of theology dealing with evil; theological doctrine of wickedness or evil; from the Greek: poneros -> evil'.
We are not proposing a “theological” study, but rather a scientific study of what we can plainly call Evil. The problem is, our materialist scientific culture does not readily admit that evil actually exists, per se. The lack of such a science has cost humanity millions of lives and untold suffering.http://ponerology.blogspot.com/
“Ponerology”: n. division of theology dealing with evil; theological doctrine of wickedness or evil; from the Greek: poneros -> evil'.
We are not proposing a “theological” study, but rather a scientific study of what we can plainly call Evil. The problem is, our materialist scientific culture does not readily admit that evil actually exists, per se. The lack of such a science has cost humanity millions of lives and untold suffering.http://ponerology.blogspot.com/
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 8th, 2008, 10:58 PM
So DB, what caught your attention in that article first, I have to admit the person saying the people of India should have stayed with 1 meal a day and since they now want 2 the global hunger is their fault. That she was German sort of sent shivers up my spine. I thought that was a pretty good example of an evil person.
Quoting gopher
That didn't take long, in case you missed it He created everything, there is nothing that exists that He did not create. You also missed the few thousand words that say something similar to, 'if I call it evil do not do it'.
Source of evil?
Isaiah 45:7.
Isaiah 45:7.
So DB, what caught your attention in that article first, I have to admit the person saying the people of India should have stayed with 1 meal a day and since they now want 2 the global hunger is their fault. That she was German sort of sent shivers up my spine. I thought that was a pretty good example of an evil person.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,428
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
May 9th, 2008, 12:31 AM
Quoting darkbeaver
Our culture may indeed be materialistic, and frankly I'd agree that it is, to its great detriment, but scientific it most emphatically is not. It's technological, not scientific. The vast majority of people have almost no understanding of the methods or the nature of science, but they love the technology that spins off from it, while continuing to cling to superstitious nonsense that the science that created that technology falsified long ago. I also strongly doubt that anyone would deny the existence of evil when it's so clearly manifest in the daily news. Ponerology is the study of evil within the restricted context of theology, not the study of evil generally, and in that context I can't see that it has any solution. Reconciling the presumed existence of an omnipotent, benevolent deity with the evil that so obviously exists in the world seems to me to be philosophically intractable, there is no sensible explanation. Or if there is, I've never encountered it in decades of searching for it. But if you leave the deity out of the analysis, the problem of evil becomes readily explicable. In the simplest possible terms, some people are bad and sometimes nature does bad things to people. The cyclone that ripped up the Irrawaddy River delta in Myanmar recently, for instance, did great harm to tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people; how can you possibly reconcile that with most theological views of the world? That kind of thing happens all the time, and you can view them as impersonal, undirected natural events, or as some kind of deliberate behaviour by the deity. In the former case, it is simply physical, non-moral evil that requires no explanation beyond the observation that this is how the natural world has always operated. In the latter case, however, there's a very thorny philosophical problem of why does a deity allow or cause such things to happen. By far the simplest explanation is that there is no deity.
The problem is, our materialist scientific culture does not readily admit that evil actually exists, per se.
Jerk Extraordinaire
Posts: 2,950
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 9th, 2008, 07:08 AM
Before science can start telling us what is evil and what is not, science best start figuring out emotions, thought and consciousness and what makes up all that, because until science does in a satisfactory way, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some scientists start to get more religious on us then they already are and dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be doing, because they claim it's good or bad.
Good and Bad.... Evil and Angelic are all subjective to each person, each culture, each experience, through time.
Oh and MHz, calling her evil because she's from Germany and might have some short sighted perspective on something (or not) ~ Doesn't make someone evil... in fact that comment of yours was sorta racist if you ask me.
"If you travel to India these days, then a main part of the debate is about the 'second meal'," Merkel said.
"People are eating twice a day, and if a third of one billion people in India do that, it adds up to 300 million people."
^ Sounds more like just an example of how something like the above can make a difference in the overall spectrum of the debate.... I didn't see her claim they all shouldn't each more then one meal a day.
"Merkel is blaming the food crisis on the poorest people, the ones who are the victims. They are eating two meals a day instead of one. And, gosh, if those Chinese start drinking milk, then we'll really be in trouble!"
^ Blaming the poorest people on the world, because none of them know how to grow their own damn food and keep themselves going..... all they friggin do is beg other countries to send them food and resources all the time because they poor.... like Global Bums.... sorry this isn't ignorant, it's the friggin truth....
Instead of constantly trying to feed their mouths while they sit in their huts and complaining they're poor, how about people start to teach them how to do this stuff themselves? Then they can start their own crops of whatever food, make themselves a job and thus make money for themselves and also contribute to their own societies so that the rest of the world can concentrate back on their own poor.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day.... teach him how to fish you feed him for life. ~ This isn't happening right now... they're just moaning to the Christian groups on TV showing you these poor orphan children with flies on their faces and crying cuz they have no food, blah blah blah..... what's the point in sending them money and food, if when they grow up they're just going to do the same thing their parents did which made them die and leave their children orphans in the first place?
Sending the poor food each year is just a band-aid on an axe wound.... teach them and give them the resources to do these things themselves and the majority of the world's problems would be solved.
Do they live in an area where they can't get water and grow food easily? Then wtf are they doing there then?
The poor are not the victims.... they're the problem. Solve the problem by teaching them to do things for themselves.
Before science can start telling us what is evil and what is not, science best start figuring out emotions, thought and consciousness and what makes up all that, because until science does in a satisfactory way, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some scientists start to get more religious on us then they already are and dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be doing, because they claim it's good or bad.
Good and Bad.... Evil and Angelic are all subjective to each person, each culture, each experience, through time.
Oh and MHz, calling her evil because she's from Germany and might have some short sighted perspective on something (or not) ~ Doesn't make someone evil... in fact that comment of yours was sorta racist if you ask me.
"If you travel to India these days, then a main part of the debate is about the 'second meal'," Merkel said.
"People are eating twice a day, and if a third of one billion people in India do that, it adds up to 300 million people."
^ Sounds more like just an example of how something like the above can make a difference in the overall spectrum of the debate.... I didn't see her claim they all shouldn't each more then one meal a day.
"Merkel is blaming the food crisis on the poorest people, the ones who are the victims. They are eating two meals a day instead of one. And, gosh, if those Chinese start drinking milk, then we'll really be in trouble!"
^ Blaming the poorest people on the world, because none of them know how to grow their own damn food and keep themselves going..... all they friggin do is beg other countries to send them food and resources all the time because they poor.... like Global Bums.... sorry this isn't ignorant, it's the friggin truth....
Instead of constantly trying to feed their mouths while they sit in their huts and complaining they're poor, how about people start to teach them how to do this stuff themselves? Then they can start their own crops of whatever food, make themselves a job and thus make money for themselves and also contribute to their own societies so that the rest of the world can concentrate back on their own poor.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day.... teach him how to fish you feed him for life. ~ This isn't happening right now... they're just moaning to the Christian groups on TV showing you these poor orphan children with flies on their faces and crying cuz they have no food, blah blah blah..... what's the point in sending them money and food, if when they grow up they're just going to do the same thing their parents did which made them die and leave their children orphans in the first place?
Sending the poor food each year is just a band-aid on an axe wound.... teach them and give them the resources to do these things themselves and the majority of the world's problems would be solved.
Do they live in an area where they can't get water and grow food easily? Then wtf are they doing there then?
The poor are not the victims.... they're the problem. Solve the problem by teaching them to do things for themselves.
Jerk Extraordinaire
Posts: 2,950
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 9th, 2008, 07:22 AM
And looking through that link above, nothing I have seen there could be identified as "Scientific" ~ All I see was posts from people complaining about other people making controversial comments...... wtf... do these guys can start to censor what people say or do because of their own bias and slap a big "Scientific" label ontop of their comments?
Sad.
The moment we allow science to start dictating to us what is evil and what is not.... science becomes the religion I was telling everybody about for so long now..... that was the only thing that seperated science from other religions and now they're about to cross that line?
Smooth Move Ex-Lax.
And looking through that link above, nothing I have seen there could be identified as "Scientific" ~ All I see was posts from people complaining about other people making controversial comments...... wtf... do these guys can start to censor what people say or do because of their own bias and slap a big "Scientific" label ontop of their comments?
Sad.
The moment we allow science to start dictating to us what is evil and what is not.... science becomes the religion I was telling everybody about for so long now..... that was the only thing that seperated science from other religions and now they're about to cross that line?
Smooth Move Ex-Lax.
Jerk Extraordinaire
Posts: 2,950
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 9th, 2008, 07:32 AM
Ponerology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology
Ponerology is the name given by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski to an interdisciplinary study of the causes of periods of social injustice. This discipline makes use of data from psychology, psychopathology, sociology, philosophy, and history to account for such phenomena as aggressive war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and police states. The original theory and research was conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists working in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary in the years before the institution of Communism such as Kazimierz Dąbrowski and Stefan Blachowski.
Lobaczewski adopted the term from the branch of theology dealing with the study of evil, derived from the Greek word poneros."
^ This discipline makes use of data from psychology, psychopathology, sociology, philosophy, and history
So in other words it's just more interpretations of things that science still can not explain to us today in any valid way.... to some how come to some scientific conclusion?
Smoke some more of that stuff why don't you..... I thought science was supposed to base their information and conclusions on things they can test and prove? All of the above are subjective depending on what history you read from where.
.....and philosophy? Who's?
This makes about as much sense as that stupid Doomsday Clock.
Ponerology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology
Ponerology is the name given by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski to an interdisciplinary study of the causes of periods of social injustice. This discipline makes use of data from psychology, psychopathology, sociology, philosophy, and history to account for such phenomena as aggressive war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and police states. The original theory and research was conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists working in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary in the years before the institution of Communism such as Kazimierz Dąbrowski and Stefan Blachowski.
Lobaczewski adopted the term from the branch of theology dealing with the study of evil, derived from the Greek word poneros."
^ This discipline makes use of data from psychology, psychopathology, sociology, philosophy, and history
So in other words it's just more interpretations of things that science still can not explain to us today in any valid way.... to some how come to some scientific conclusion?
Smoke some more of that stuff why don't you..... I thought science was supposed to base their information and conclusions on things they can test and prove? All of the above are subjective depending on what history you read from where.
.....and philosophy? Who's?
This makes about as much sense as that stupid Doomsday Clock.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 9th, 2008, 11:01 AM
http://www.bloggernews.net/115463
"US President George Bush has joined his top diplomat in suggesting that the growing prosperity of India’s large middle class is contributing to rising food prices around the world"
Notice this is about the price of food, not the availability of it. When a country switches from food production to bio-fuel production there is less food available, period. A shorter supply means higher prices. Who pushed for this change is either a little stupid or they knew this would cause a shortage in supply which makes them just plain evil. Has bio-fuel delivered on even one of it's promises, not, that price is also rising, even faster than food prices, partly because it's production and delivery in more expensive because of higher fuel costs.
When you get the world bank involved you are not talking about 'donations', you are dealing with 'loans', money that is eventually paid back @ interest.
http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm
(2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
(3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
(2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydro-electric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
(3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
(4) Some developed countries, especially Canada, which were facing a shortage in agricultural labour, were so impressed by the results of India's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India. This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India's foreign exchange earnings.
Would you put the blame on India if their shortage was caused by natural disasters?
Quoting Praxius
I haven't read anywhere that India was asking for any hand-outs. Nor does it seem that the 'poorest' of that country are eating more. The need comes from the 'middle class', you know that growing number of people that work for a living. The 'class of people' created by outsourcing jobs to that part of the world, work requires more energy, more energy requires more food. In Canada we eat more in the winter just to combat the cold. So in your mind somebody who had no job and survived on one meal a day should still only be on that one meal even though they now have a job.
Oh and MHz, calling her evil because she's from Germany and might have some short sighted perspective on something (or not) ~ Doesn't make someone evil... in fact that comment of yours was sorta racist if you ask me.
"If you travel to India these days, then a main part of the debate is about the 'second meal'," Merkel said.
"People are eating twice a day, and if a third of one billion people in India do that, it adds up to 300 million people."
^ Sounds more like just an example of how something like the above can make a difference in the overall spectrum of the debate.... I didn't see her claim they all shouldn't each more then one meal a day.
"Merkel is blaming the food crisis on the poorest people, the ones who are the victims. They are eating two meals a day instead of one. And, gosh, if those Chinese start drinking milk, then we'll really be in trouble!"
^ Blaming the poorest people on the world, because none of them know how to grow their own damn food and keep themselves going..... all they friggin do is beg other countries to send them food and resources all the time because they poor.... like Global Bums.... sorry this isn't ignorant, it's the friggin truth....
Instead of constantly trying to feed their mouths while they sit in their huts and complaining they're poor, how about people start to teach them how to do this stuff themselves? Then they can start their own crops of whatever food, make themselves a job and thus make money for themselves and also contribute to their own societies so that the rest of the world can concentrate back on their own poor.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day.... teach him how to fish you feed him for life. ~ This isn't happening right now... they're just moaning to the Christian groups on TV showing you these poor orphan children with flies on their faces and crying cuz they have no food, blah blah blah..... what's the point in sending them money and food, if when they grow up they're just going to do the same thing their parents did which made them die and leave their children orphans in the first place?
Sending the poor food each year is just a band-aid on an axe wound.... teach them and give them the resources to do these things themselves and the majority of the world's problems would be solved.
Do they live in an area where they can't get water and grow food easily? Then wtf are they doing there then?
The poor are not the victims.... they're the problem. Solve the problem by teaching them to do things for themselves.
"If you travel to India these days, then a main part of the debate is about the 'second meal'," Merkel said.
"People are eating twice a day, and if a third of one billion people in India do that, it adds up to 300 million people."
^ Sounds more like just an example of how something like the above can make a difference in the overall spectrum of the debate.... I didn't see her claim they all shouldn't each more then one meal a day.
"Merkel is blaming the food crisis on the poorest people, the ones who are the victims. They are eating two meals a day instead of one. And, gosh, if those Chinese start drinking milk, then we'll really be in trouble!"
^ Blaming the poorest people on the world, because none of them know how to grow their own damn food and keep themselves going..... all they friggin do is beg other countries to send them food and resources all the time because they poor.... like Global Bums.... sorry this isn't ignorant, it's the friggin truth....
Instead of constantly trying to feed their mouths while they sit in their huts and complaining they're poor, how about people start to teach them how to do this stuff themselves? Then they can start their own crops of whatever food, make themselves a job and thus make money for themselves and also contribute to their own societies so that the rest of the world can concentrate back on their own poor.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day.... teach him how to fish you feed him for life. ~ This isn't happening right now... they're just moaning to the Christian groups on TV showing you these poor orphan children with flies on their faces and crying cuz they have no food, blah blah blah..... what's the point in sending them money and food, if when they grow up they're just going to do the same thing their parents did which made them die and leave their children orphans in the first place?
Sending the poor food each year is just a band-aid on an axe wound.... teach them and give them the resources to do these things themselves and the majority of the world's problems would be solved.
Do they live in an area where they can't get water and grow food easily? Then wtf are they doing there then?
The poor are not the victims.... they're the problem. Solve the problem by teaching them to do things for themselves.
http://www.bloggernews.net/115463
"US President George Bush has joined his top diplomat in suggesting that the growing prosperity of India’s large middle class is contributing to rising food prices around the world"
Notice this is about the price of food, not the availability of it. When a country switches from food production to bio-fuel production there is less food available, period. A shorter supply means higher prices. Who pushed for this change is either a little stupid or they knew this would cause a shortage in supply which makes them just plain evil. Has bio-fuel delivered on even one of it's promises, not, that price is also rising, even faster than food prices, partly because it's production and delivery in more expensive because of higher fuel costs.
When you get the world bank involved you are not talking about 'donations', you are dealing with 'loans', money that is eventually paid back @ interest.
http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
(1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.(2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
(3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
(1) Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.(2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydro-electric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
(3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
(4) Some developed countries, especially Canada, which were facing a shortage in agricultural labour, were so impressed by the results of India's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India. This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India's foreign exchange earnings.
Would you put the blame on India if their shortage was caused by natural disasters?
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,775
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 9th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Quoting Dexter Sinister
The psycopath is quantifiable using the MRI.
Our culture may indeed be materialistic, and frankly I'd agree that it is, to its great detriment, but scientific it most emphatically is not. It's technological, not scientific. The vast majority of people have almost no understanding of the methods or the nature of science, but they love the technology that spins off from it, while continuing to cling to superstitious nonsense that the science that created that technology falsified long ago. I also strongly doubt that anyone would deny the existence of evil when it's so clearly manifest in the daily news. Ponerology is the study of evil within the restricted context of theology, not the study of evil generally, and in that context I can't see that it has any solution. Reconciling the presumed existence of an omnipotent, benevolent deity with the evil that so obviously exists in the world seems to me to be philosophically intractable, there is no sensible explanation. Or if there is, I've never encountered it in decades of searching for it. But if you leave the deity out of the analysis, the problem of evil becomes readily explicable. In the simplest possible terms, some people are bad and sometimes nature does bad things to people. The cyclone that ripped up the Irrawaddy River delta in Myanmar recently, for instance, did great harm to tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people; how can you possibly reconcile that with most theological views of the world? That kind of thing happens all the time, and you can view them as impersonal, undirected natural events, or as some kind of deliberate behaviour by the deity. In the former case, it is simply physical, non-moral evil that requires no explanation beyond the observation that this is how the natural world has always operated. In the latter case, however, there's a very thorny philosophical problem of why does a deity allow or cause such things to happen. By far the simplest explanation is that there is no deity.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,775
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 9th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Merkels little speech was used as an indication of the thinking of the leadership of much of the western world. Her being German has no bearing whatever, the disease manifests itself in about 4% of humans if I remember correctly. What is important is how thoroughly inhuman individuals attain positions of power.
Quoting MHz
My attention to psycopaths was developed ten years ago when I knew one intimately.
That didn't take long, in case you missed it He created everything, there is nothing that exists that He did not create. You also missed the few thousand words that say something similar to, 'if I call it evil do not do it'.
So DB, what caught your attention in that article first, I have to admit the person saying the people of India should have stayed with 1 meal a day and since they now want 2 the global hunger is their fault. That she was German sort of sent shivers up my spine. I thought that was a pretty good example of an evil person.
So DB, what caught your attention in that article first, I have to admit the person saying the people of India should have stayed with 1 meal a day and since they now want 2 the global hunger is their fault. That she was German sort of sent shivers up my spine. I thought that was a pretty good example of an evil person.
Merkels little speech was used as an indication of the thinking of the leadership of much of the western world. Her being German has no bearing whatever, the disease manifests itself in about 4% of humans if I remember correctly. What is important is how thoroughly inhuman individuals attain positions of power.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,775
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 9th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Quoting Zan
http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_1.html
I've taken a bit of time to peruse the author's forward DB - this looks like fascinating reading - I've bookmarked it - don't know what I think of it yet - lots to take in, but the premise of a "new" scientific discipline has my interest piqued.
INTRODUCTION
“Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. Its genesis reveals many factors, pathological, especially psychopathological, in character, whose essence medicine and psychology have already studied… [A] comprehension of the essence and genesis of evil generally makes use of data from [biology, medicine, and psychology]. Philosophical reflection alone is insufficient.” (Lobaczewski, 9
Like a color blind man incapable of distinguishing red from green, a small minority of the human population cannot experience or fully comprehend the normal range of human emotions. And like those color blind who may conceal their condition by using the correct words while not understanding their meaning (e.g., the top traffic light is “red”, the bottom is “green”) - so does this minority conceal their condition by playacting an emotion's exterior signs (facial expressions, exclamations, body language). However, they do no actually experience the emotion in question. Their deception is revealed in the laboratory, where they respond to words like DEATH, CANCER, DISEASE, as if they were DAY, CREAM, or PAPER. They lack the ability to comprehend the emotional “punch” that certain words contain. They use others’ emotional reactions as cues, and they adjust their behavior to portray the correct ‘emotional’ behavior. (Hare, 129-30)
These individuals are known as psychopaths. Not only can they not feel the pain of others, they often seem to deliberately cause others pain. Lobaczewski refers to this disorder as an “essential psychopathy” to distinguish them from others with deficits in their genetic/instinctual endowment, essential psychopathy being the most severe and disturbing.
Many so-called “antisocial individuals” acquire similar characteristics in their life-time, whether caused by brain damage to certain areas of the brain, or functionally, because of close contact with and influence by such individuals. Lobaczewski terms such individuals characteropaths. The vast majority of both these groups cannot change. The acts that we call evil (especially on a macrosocial level) can be traced back to this deviant minority of human beings and the effects of their actions on their family, friends, and society.
“Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. Its genesis reveals many factors, pathological, especially psychopathological, in character, whose essence medicine and psychology have already studied… [A] comprehension of the essence and genesis of evil generally makes use of data from [biology, medicine, and psychology]. Philosophical reflection alone is insufficient.” (Lobaczewski, 9
Like a color blind man incapable of distinguishing red from green, a small minority of the human population cannot experience or fully comprehend the normal range of human emotions. And like those color blind who may conceal their condition by using the correct words while not understanding their meaning (e.g., the top traffic light is “red”, the bottom is “green”) - so does this minority conceal their condition by playacting an emotion's exterior signs (facial expressions, exclamations, body language). However, they do no actually experience the emotion in question. Their deception is revealed in the laboratory, where they respond to words like DEATH, CANCER, DISEASE, as if they were DAY, CREAM, or PAPER. They lack the ability to comprehend the emotional “punch” that certain words contain. They use others’ emotional reactions as cues, and they adjust their behavior to portray the correct ‘emotional’ behavior. (Hare, 129-30)
These individuals are known as psychopaths. Not only can they not feel the pain of others, they often seem to deliberately cause others pain. Lobaczewski refers to this disorder as an “essential psychopathy” to distinguish them from others with deficits in their genetic/instinctual endowment, essential psychopathy being the most severe and disturbing.
Many so-called “antisocial individuals” acquire similar characteristics in their life-time, whether caused by brain damage to certain areas of the brain, or functionally, because of close contact with and influence by such individuals. Lobaczewski terms such individuals characteropaths. The vast majority of both these groups cannot change. The acts that we call evil (especially on a macrosocial level) can be traced back to this deviant minority of human beings and the effects of their actions on their family, friends, and society.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 10th, 2008, 12:52 AM
One trait seems to be required. Publicly state one thing but do something different in actual deeds.
How does that 4% happen to be there in the first place? Are they born that way and then 'earn their way' or does it pass from generation to generation.
Who would be more likely to 'become inhuman', a shareholder or a consumer? The shareholder would seem to be the one with the most power in that relationship. If the consumer prefers food over fuel what should the corps be providing, even if it cuts into their own 'take-home' paycheck?
Quoting darkbeaver
The article (not the lead story)left me with impression that evil people were more than a rarity.
My attention to psycopaths was developed ten years ago when I knew one intimately.
One trait seems to be required. Publicly state one thing but do something different in actual deeds.
Quoting darkbeaver
Is that the 4% that are also the richest (that also have a big say in what will make them even richer)? Sounds like she puts a limit on how much a person should eat based on their income. Perhaps she should offer to show the world that one meal a day works quite fine for her and her whole government.
Merkels little speech was used as an indication of the thinking of the leadership of much of the western world. Her being German has no bearing whatever, the disease manifests itself in about 4% of humans if I remember correctly.
How does that 4% happen to be there in the first place? Are they born that way and then 'earn their way' or does it pass from generation to generation.
Quoting darkbeaver
Or does the position change the person? When a certain political party went to Ottawa for the first time, they came prepared to change a few things. Reject Federal pensions, not live in 'a pretty nice place'. Well the pension thing had been rejected by the time they qualified for one, and I'm sure the party takes all the benefits offered. So they might not have been 'evil' but their view of what evil was changed if they accepted what was previously rejected. For them to already be evil their 'attempts at change' was all a smoke-screen. (before they spoke out against the pensions they already knew it would be available to them just as if they never spoke one word against it).
What is important is how thoroughly inhuman individuals attain positions of power.
Who would be more likely to 'become inhuman', a shareholder or a consumer? The shareholder would seem to be the one with the most power in that relationship. If the consumer prefers food over fuel what should the corps be providing, even if it cuts into their own 'take-home' paycheck?
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,428
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
May 10th, 2008, 02:11 AM
"He created everything, there is nothing that exists that He did not create."
Including himself?
"He created everything, there is nothing that exists that He did not create."
Including himself?
