Men and their.. insatiable lust

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

psi, I have found some extremely interesting links for you on psychopathy.

One is an article about psychopath-bosses with references. There is a slide-show down right which suggests that Walt Disney and Henry Ford were psychopaths. Interesting! Obviously, none of these or the other business-people portrayed were taken into care.

I'm glad you took the time to read up and emphesise points that directly contradict your previous post....

Vangelis wrote:

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. .

I'm assuming Walt Disney and Henry Ford weren't serial killers?

Victor

psi wrote:

I'm assuming Walt Disney

He killed Bambi's mother, didn't he?

and Henry Ford weren't serial killers?

Didn't he have nazi links?

GuanYin

Victor wrote:

He killed Bambi's mother, didn't he?

They could never prove it, the murder weapon was never found

Didn't he have nazi links?

Whats your point?

So did alot of people (including the current Pope), it doesn't make them psychopaths (or even bad people).

Vangelis

psi wrote:

I'm glad you took the time to read up and emphesise points that directly contradict your previous post....

You haven't followed me. I have been stating that not all psychopaths are taken into care. Their abnormal behaviour may be recognised by people, but most of them are not forced into a mental hospital. My mom is so lucky to have a boss who is a sociopath. They don't take her in for treatment.

I'm assuming Walt Disney and Henry Ford weren't serial killers?

They were not. But they were psychopaths according to experts' opinions.

And psi, did you know that lack of guilt is typical for a psychopath? It means that those who feel guilt are more normal than those who don't. Those who don't are most likely has a general anti-social behaviour.
Is guilt abnormal? No. Rather the lack of it.

ronbyrne2005

generally everything a man does in his life revolves around getting sex now and in the future,men want money/career as women like powerful rich men,men play sports as a form of exhibition of masculinity to competing males etc. i reckon most men would "cheat" on their girlfriends/wives with a more sexually attractive woman if they knew they could get away with it. some of my friends who are in long term relationships talk about becoming bored with the sex life they have with their gf's and a lot have admitted to cheating on current /past gf's.
its just an innate biological urge but a man can be conditioned by social/cultural norms etc to be faithful to one partner but theres a biological urge that will always burn inside him and some men find it very hard to control these urges.women are more innately driven by emotinal side of relationships than by the physical side as you would expect as they have to bond with a child and we wouldnt be here today if early females didnt bond with and look after offspring as the male would be long gone in stone age times etc

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

You haven't followed me. I have been stating that not all psychopaths are taken into care. Their abnormal behaviour may be recognised by people, but most of them are not forced into a mental hospital. My mom is so lucky to have a boss who is a sociopath. They don't take her in for treatment.

Yes but your reasoning for this was that you could only spot a psychopath if they became a serial killer.

They were not. But they were psychopaths according to experts' opinions.

But you said they could only be recognised if they became serial killers.

And psi, did you know that lack of guilt is typical for a psychopath? It means that those who feel guilt are more normal than those who don't. Those who don't are most likely has a general anti-social behaviour.
Is guilt abnormal? No. Rather the lack of it.

I don't see any post anywhere where I stated anything that contradicts this.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Yes but your reasoning for this was that you could only spot a psychopath if they became a serial killer.

I did not state that psychopaths who become serial killers are more easy to detect than other psychopaths.

But you said they could only be recognised if they became serial killers.

I never said that! Psychopaths can be recognised in all walks of life, in all situations. It's all about knowing what psychopathic behaviour is like and being wary of manipulation. You don't have to be a killer to be divulged. Most people don't and are hurt for the rest of their lives. By their bosses, their spouses, their best friends, anyone.

I don't see any post anywhere where I stated anything that contradicts this.

Just in case you were in favour of getting rid of the chemical "imbalance" that causes guilt. Think of what people we would have if we "cured" everyone of their guilt, as if guilt is a sickness. That's what I wanted to say.

Also, one thing I picked up from one of your earlier posts:

psi wrote:

Vangelis wrote:

It'd be a good way of removing all unwanted/unhealthy genetic traits from the human gene pool.

Rather conflicts with the teachings of the bible does it not?

Does it? I'm just... questioning things. Familiar? Attempting to provoke debate. Then of course.. people have different opinions on what is wanted and unwanted. The definition of sickliness and abnormality has changed throughout the times.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I did not state that psychopaths who become serial killers are more easy to detect than other psychopaths.

I never said that! Psychopaths can be recognised in all walks of life, in all situations. It's all about knowing what psychopathic behaviour is like and being wary of manipulation. You don't have to be a killer to be divulged. Most people don't and are hurt for the rest of their lives. By their bosses, their spouses, their best friends, anyone.

This next quote of from a post (post #351) by you.
You specifically say that only psychopaths who become serial killers are caught.

Why are you denying now? Its in plain text.

vangelis wrote:

sychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. .

Just in case you were in favour of getting rid of the chemical "imbalance" that causes guilt. Think of what people we would have if we "cured" everyone of their guilt, as if guilt is a sickness. That's what I wanted to say.

Where did I say that chemical imbalances cause guilt?
I said that some chemical imbalances lead to excess guilt. Very different thing.

Once again, you make something up. Why doyou insist on doing this. If your argument isn't strong enough to work on facts or truth then give up. Don't go making up lies though.

Also, one thing I picked up from one of your earlier posts:

Does it? I'm just... questioning things. Familiar? Attempting to provoke debate. Then of course.. people have different opinions on what is wanted and unwanted. The definition of sickliness and abnormality has changed throughout the times.

Indeed, I never suggested eugenics though. You did, more than once.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Why are you denying now? Its in plain text.

Then I must have expressed myself wrongly because that has never been my opinion. Ignore it.

Whatever... the discussion is dead anyhow.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Then I must have expressed myself wrongly because that has never been my opinion. Ignore it.

Whatever... the discussion is dead anyhow.

What did you mean, what other meaning can that post have?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

What did you mean, what other meaning can that post have?

I must have been tired. That was never my opinion I said.
I made a mistake. Now leave it! :mad:

simu

Vangelis wrote:

We have to improve our DNA, don't we?

No tbh.

Vangelis

Why not?

simu

Vangelis wrote:

Why not?

Why? There's nothing forcing us to do it. Just because you think something is important doesn't mean it's the destiny of humans. :v:

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Why? There's nothing forcing us to do it. Just because you think something is important doesn't mean it's the destiny of humans. :v:

You could say that about many things. Space exploration, genetic manipulation of food, dust-sucker factories.

But yah yah, nighty night. This thread should go to sleep now.

simu

Vangelis wrote:

You could say that about many things. Space exploration, genetic manipulation of food, dust-sucker factories.

Yes, and it would be equally true.

But yah yah, nighty night. This thread should go to sleep now.

You'll be back. You love this sort of thing. :v:

Kaldorn

ui agree

Kaldorn

simu wrote:

Yes, and it would be equally true.



You'll be back. You love this sort of thing. :v:

wanna meet me

lazydaisy

I have a question that is more related to the originial question. If men are more lustful than women by nature, than is it less acceptable for women to stray?

simu

lazydaisy wrote:

I have a question that is more related to the originial question. If men are more lustful than women by nature, than is it less acceptable for women to stray?

Guys could try that excuse on their gfs/wives but I don't see it being very successful.

:v:

Sleepy

I can see it being the successful trigger for a guy getting a black eye but that's about it.

Besides, whilst men (in general) are considered to be more lustful, we're also (in general) considered to have a tighter reign on our emotions than women so the two points really negate each other.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I have a question that is more related to the originial question. If men are more lustful than women by nature, than is it less acceptable for women to stray?

I think it was established a couple of pages ago by Psi that they are not, so it is a bit of a mute question