What happens if psychopaths take over the world?

mufcboy1999 · 23-09-2015 12:20AM

Have you not noticed the amount of selfie obsessed narcissists in recent years ? It's too late. Take a scroll down any social media timeline and you'll see how mad people have become, and the best part is, its now considered normal behaviour, its border line mentally retarded :pac:.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-09-2015 08:24AM

the_syco wrote: »

Without poor people, cheap stuff cannot be made.

But even if we had the money, whom would we give it to? The corrupt governments who made them poor?

The bottom 50% don't make a lot of stuff.

If I had more money I could buy more expensive commodities.
If the super rich have more money then it's not going to be spent on the same sort of stuff we spend it on. There is no trickle down effect worth talking about.

Lots of people who lost jobs during the bad times had to come back in again at ground level. I don't notice prices going down for lots of things even though a lot of jobs have been yellow packed.

It's probably just a coincidence that the number of billionaires has shot up. The recession was a massive wealth transfer from poor to rich.

Eugene Norman · 23-09-2015 08:40AM

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

Have you not noticed the amount of selfie obsessed narcissists in recent years ? It's too late. Take a scroll down any social media timeline and you'll see how mad people have become, and the best part is, its now considered normal behaviour, its border line mentally retarded :pac:.

That's not necessarily pyschopathic. And it just proves selfies are easier to take than before.

The Corinthian · 23-09-2015 09:28AM

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

I've highlighted your original post to demonstrate that what you've written is entirely based upon hearsay. Not having a clue on the topic you want to raise is not a good start to a thread.

euser1984 wrote: »

What if they have already taken over the world?

There are numerous secret societies many world leaders have been part of....is it not reasonable to believe that it is in some psychopaths interest to be as powerful as they can be....just like any other man wants and seeks power....

So psychopaths are actually nine-foot tall lizard-men?

justanotherone wrote: »

the average psychopath is not a serial killer

they are the sort of person who will close down a factory without a thought about the impact on the employees their families and the klocal community

Actually quite incorrect. The difference between someone who has diminished empathy and someone emphatic is how the latter will allow that empathy far greater weight in their decision making. A 'psychopath' will consider the impact on the employees and their families and the local community, but will ultimately make a more utilitarian decision. Meanwhile someone who is highly emphatic will be unable to make unpleasant decisions, even if in the long term it will ironically cause far more suffering not to do so.

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).

Also bare in mind that lack of empathy does not mean you're a psychopath. People on the autistic spectrum, for example, have emphatic deficits. Indeed, I'm not sure the term 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is even used anymore; more common terms are anti-social personality disorder or even malignant narcissism.

I recommend you read The Wisdom of Psychopaths as it give a much better description of what psychopathy is than all this 'widely known' 'common belief' illiterate crap being bandied about in this thread and because it also looks at why ultimately we actually need some psychopaths in society, to do the things that need to be done that most of us lack the stomach to carry out.

Wibbs · 23-09-2015 09:45AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The recession was a massive wealth transfer from poor to rich.

Well, rule numero uno in buying and selling is buy when people and society is running scared and sell when everybody's happy. A crash is the perfect time to buy. If you have the money and you can find sellers. The sellers part is easy enough as in boom times people inevitably over leverage themselves so can only sit on big assets for so long, the fuse is lit. Boom/bust economics is catnip to the wealthy, they can make money on the way up and on the way down increasing their wealth as they go, while the poor get poorer, the middle class gets contracted and more leveraged.

They have to have the talent to spot when one state is changing into another and the balls to make big decisions though. That's the trick. You also need to be outside the everyday folks working jobs. They're far more restricted(unless their jobs pay them a lot).

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 09:56AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).
t.

I dont think you have to be a pyscopath to cut funding. A good leader can make logical decisions along with compassionate decisions and weigh up what is the best decision overall.

I worked with a woman who was the leader of a team who I believed to be a psychopath. I remember she gave me some valuble information on a task but told me to "keep it quiet" from the rest of the team. The whole team including her would benefit from knowing this information. But she would prefer to give me the information in return for my loyalty to her and keep the information from everyone else to have an advantage over them. Its little things like that, that get them into power but they are probably not the best leader overall.

I would be wary of glamorising the condition as a another type of species as it is a disorded way of thinking. Not that it is right or wrong way of thinking but just how peoples minds adapt and percieve the world.

jimgoose · 23-09-2015 09:58AM

Psychopathy is more common than you might think, most of them don't run around with chainsaws and hockey-masks. Much. Of course the personality traits of a typical psychopath makes it somewhat likely that they will attain positions of power and influence. That's sort of the nature of the baysht. :pac:

euser1984 · 23-09-2015 10:19AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've highlighted your original post to demonstrate that what you've written is entirely based upon hearsay. Not having a clue on the topic you want to raise is not a good start to a thread.

So psychopaths are actually nine-foot tall lizard-men?

Actually quite incorrect. The difference between someone who has diminished empathy and someone emphatic is how the latter will allow that empathy far greater weight in their decision making. A 'psychopath' will consider the impact on the employees and their families and the local community, but will ultimately make a more utilitarian decision. Meanwhile someone who is highly emphatic will be unable to make unpleasant decisions, even if in the long term it will ironically cause far more suffering not to do so.

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).

Also bare in mind that lack of empathy does not mean you're a psychopath. People on the autistic spectrum, for example, have emphatic deficits. Indeed, I'm not sure the term 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is even used anymore; more common terms are anti-social personality disorder or even malignant narcissism.

I recommend you read The Wisdom of Psychopaths as it give a much better description of what psychopathy is than all this 'widely known' 'common belief' illiterate crap being bandied about in this thread and because it also looks at why ultimately we actually need some psychopaths in society, to do the things that need to be done that most of us lack the stomach to carry out.

I'll check out the book but my understanding of the dangerous psychopath is one of self interest only of which there are some, just like there are psychopathic serial killers. I suppose it's those people I'm referring to. What would happen if these people ruled the world?

I just typed this thread up really quickly without googling the numbers (I had a rough idea) to get a conversation flowing.

The lizard men is bizarre yes but can't just be written off completely because it can't be proven. It could also be Ickes' marketing strategy to get his main message out - he is one of the most successful theorists. Do you believe some of the things he says may be valid? I don't like all this connection to the pyramids thing etc. etc. but he does make some valid points....such as how the banking system is set up so the money always goes back to the few.

I do believe there is loads going on around us that our 5 senses can't pick up. I do believe in spirits because somebody that I trust has first hand experience. In physics now, they are talking about other dimensions.

The Corinthian · 23-09-2015 10:23AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

I dont think you have to be a pyscopath to cut funding. A good leader can make logical decisions along with compassionate decisions and weigh up what is the best decision overall.

I never said you did have to be a psychopath to do so. I said it helps to have an emphatic deficit to do so and that not all those with emphatic deficits are psychopaths. The reason being that any leader who is too emphatic will have problems making any decision that will involve the suffering of others.

jimgoose wrote: »

Of course the personality traits of a typical psychopath makes it somewhat likely that they will attain positions of power and influence.

Not true. Hare's famous Psychopathy Checklist also includes other traits such as:

Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Poor behavioral controls
Proneness to boredom

None of which are traits that are likely to get someone into a position of power. Indeed, most psychopaths are in prison, often because they have acted on impulse and thus gotten caught.

allibastor · 23-09-2015 10:31AM

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

IF....

It has happened already. The people with the megabucks who talk about change and do nothing about it really. The wealth that is there is the top 0.5% of the country can clear up most of the problems that the rest of the poor class have, but doesnt.

Plus, you have people working to build more and more out there computer systems to replace the basic function of people, all for profit and advancement. doesn't see that it will end badly.

Is that not Psychopathic behavior.

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 10:42AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said you did have to be a psychopath to do so. I said it helps to have an emphatic deficit to do so and that not all those with emphatic deficits are psychopaths. The reason being that any leader who is too emphatic will have problems making any decision that will involve the suffering of others.
ht.

Ah yea i know what you are saying. It helps the person themself to deal with their own decisions however this is still not good leadership. You need someone who is going to make decisions for other people to really consider the effect of the suffering they may cause by making that decision and a psychopath is less likely to do this wisely because they are less concerned. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made and a good leader will take all on board beforehand.

Thats why it not good if they are portrayed as another species of man who are tough, hard faced and willing to make tough decisions and you paint a picture of this powerful courages person but really they are people who are making illogical decisions and may miss the overall benefit or impact of decisions they are allowed to make.

a psychopath wont make good decisions and an empath wont make good decisions. But a balanced person will make the best decision they can with the obstacles they are faced with.

The Corinthian · 23-09-2015 10:58AM

euser1984 wrote: »

I'll check out the book but my understanding of the dangerous psychopath is one of self interest only of which there are some, just like there are psychopathic serial killers. I suppose it's those people I'm referring to. What would happen if these people ruled the world?

The problem is that you don't really know what a psychopath is. This is understandable as even the psychiatric profession does not seem to know either and the definition has changed numerous times over the years.

This has led you to postulate that because some in power share some traits (in fact only one) with psychopaths, then they must also be psychopaths - which is a logical fallacy.

The lizard men is bizarre yes but can't just be written off completely because it can't be proven. It could also be Ickes' marketing strategy to get his main message out - he is one of the most successful theorists. Do you believe some of the things he says may be valid? I don't like all this connection to the pyramids thing etc. etc. but he does make some valid points....such as how the banking system is set up so the money always goes back to the few.

No, I do not believe that some of the things he says may be valid. I believe that his 'theories' are frankly delusional constructs that are easily betrayed by their completely unsupported complexity.

And there are no 'connections' with the pyramids. There may be, probably loose, correlations (a classic device in the conspiracy theorist), but you can get those anywhere (you know more people have accidents during the day - should we become nocturnal?). Correlation does not imply causation.

In short, it's bollocks.

I do believe there is loads going on around us that our 5 senses can't pick up. I do believe in spirits because somebody that I trust has first hand experience.

If you choose to believe in a great spaghetti monster in the sky, that's your business, but all it means is you're willing to believe in something on the basis of faith. Nothing more. Maybe you need to believe in something greater than you. Or in some overarching conspiracy that rules the World.

And maybe there is. But faith is not a good enough reason to believe in it.

In physics now, they are talking about other dimensions.

If you understood what dimensions actually are, you probably would not lump them in with 'spirits', TBH. It reminds me of Clarke's Third law; any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Whitewinged wrote: »

Thats why it not good if they are portrayed as another species of man who are tough, hard faced and willing to make tough decisions and you paint a picture of this powerful courages person but really they are people who are making illogical decisions and may miss the overall benefit or impact of decisions they are allowed to make.

TBH, the only people who paint them as such are those who don't have a clue what they are in the first place.

For them, apparently they are a different species; lizard-men.

a psychopath wont make good decisions and an empath wont make good decisions. But a balanced person will make the best decision they can with the obstacles they are faced with.

Depends on how you define a 'good' decision. There's quite a few competing philosophies and ideologies in that discussion.

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 11:07AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, the only people who paint them as such are those who don't have a clue what they are in the first place.

For them, apparently they are a different species; lizard-men.

Depends on how you define a 'good' decision. There's quite a few competing philosophies and ideologies in that discussion.

Yea i was comming from the angle that some people were saying we need them as though they are capable of doing things that are neccesary that others cant do just as efficiently or better.

decisions can be made and successful and it may appear to be the best decision with the best intent but the outcome and motive of the decision were not related.

The Corinthian · 23-09-2015 11:17AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Yea i was comming from the angle that some people were saying we need them as though they are capable of doing things that are neccesary that others cant do just as efficiently or better.

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

decisions can be made and successful and it may appear to be the best decision with the best intent but the outcome and motive of the decision were not related.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect information or unforeseen consequences.

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 11:27AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect information or unforeseen consequences.

Ha ok zombies, well i think their community would not thrive as well. If you think of for example (i know its only fiction) but The Governer in The Walking Dead was probably a psychopath whereas Rick is a good leader.

with psychopaths and decision making what i am saying is that it might look like they are making good decisions sometimes but they are probably making them for the wrong reasons which means somewhere down the line they are more likely to make a big mistake

euser1984 · 23-09-2015 11:41AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is that you don't really know what a psychopath is. This is understandable as even the psychiatric profession does not seem to know either and the definition has changed numerous times over the years.

This has led you to postulate that because some in power share some traits (in fact only one) with psychopaths, then they must also be psychopaths - which is a logical fallacy.

God this is getting complicated; the focus of this thread has moved to the wrong thing. Words and meanings aside, when I said psychopath, I was referring to a person that has no remorse for morally wrong decisions in ones own favor; and, who chooses to take morally wrong decisions in ones favor.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I do not believe that some of the things he says may be valid. I believe that his 'theories' are frankly delusional constructs that are easily betrayed by their completely unsupported complexity.

And there are no 'connections' with the pyramids. There may be, probably loose, correlations (a classic device in the conspiracy theorist), but you can get those anywhere (you know more people have accidents during the day - should we become nocturnal?). Correlation does not imply causation.

In short, it's bollocks.

Where do you get all your information from to build your construct of the world? Mass media?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you choose to believe in a great spaghetti monster in the sky, that's your business, but all it means is you're willing to believe in something on the basis of faith. Nothing more. Maybe you need to believe in something greater than you. Or in some overarching conspiracy that rules the World.

And maybe there is. But faith is not a good enough reason to believe in it.

I'm not inclined to believe it but I don't choose to say it's not possible, a person doesn't need to believe it anyway to get some of Icke's points; you can even take it in a metaphorical sense, whatever suits....some call him an anti-semetic. Jews are the chosen people of course over all others - that's what there taught anyway I THINK.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you understood what dimensions actually are, you probably would not lump them in with 'spirits', TBH. It reminds me of Clarke's Third law; any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Ok ok, I know what you are saying about dimensions, I've got an idea of the concept of dimensions from a physics pov. Point taken back.

I don't rule out the possibility that there may be alternative realities/dimensions (in my sense of the word) if we had the right senses to detect them. If you want to believe science alone that's fine, I often go on my gut instinct with things and it seems to work.

Mesrine65 · 23-09-2015 12:32PM

The Genesis of evil on a macrosocial scale you say...

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 12:35PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect infþormation or unforeseen consequences.

also if you are talking about the need for psychopaths in survival situations as leaders, take for example the 1972 Andes Flight disaster.

They had someone who recognised that the only way they were going to survive was by eating their dead friends and relatives. This was a logical decision made by discussing the issue with the other surviving passengers. Because he approached the situation correctly with them, they could see the logic and decided it was the best they could do. His motives were for survival of the people.

If a psychopath was in the same role then he may have decided that it was not in his best interest to tell the other passengers as their reaction may be negative. So he might go behind their backs and do it himself in secret to save himself and they will not survive. Or they will catch him doing it and look on him and the action itself as wrong and will not take part in the cannibalism because their "leader" did not make the right decision and handle it in the best way by showing them it was a logical act and best chance of survival.

DarkyHughes · 23-09-2015 01:44PM

The former most powerful man in the world thinks God speaks to him & tells him to go on crusades. That's pretty mental already.

Earthhorse · 23-09-2015 02:01PM

allibastor wrote: »

Is that not Psychopathic behavior.

Alas, no, it isn't. It's selfish, sh*tty behaviour but not necessarily psychopathic.

The problem here is psychopathic is just being used as a substitute term for undesirable behaviour. Someone commits murder; psychopath. Someone cheats on their partner; psychopath. Someone shuts down a factory; psychopath. Someone leaves out the milk; psychopath.

To reiterate what's already been said on thread. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by non psychopaths. Only one in ten CEOs of major firms are psychopaths. And you can be pretty sure the number is similar in other seats of power such as government. By no stretch does a 10% stake represent a majority.

What's far more frightening to think is that all that terrible behaviour is actually being perpetrated by people with no behavioural disorder. I suspect people don't want to face up to that which is why they hide behind the term so often.

Earthhorse · 23-09-2015 02:04PM

euser1984 wrote: »

In what sense do they mean it?

Ah, I think you know, given that you've already referenced Icke. They imagine it's all men in robes, secret handshakes, passwords. It's not. But there's no doubt the US is an oligarchy for instance. It's an open secret. Lobbying congress is part of the system. So we don't have ideally functioning democracies, in some parts of the world we don't have non ideal functioning democracies, and there are lots of vested interests with their own agendas but it's way more nuanced than a secret cabal or cabals.

The Corinthian · 23-09-2015 03:40PM

euser1984 wrote: »

God this is getting complicated; the focus of this thread has moved to the wrong thing. Words and meanings aside, when I said psychopath, I was referring to a person that has no remorse for morally wrong decisions in ones own favor; and, who chooses to take morally wrong decisions in ones favor.

Define morally wrong or right.

Where do you get all your information from to build your construct of the world? Mass media?

Books, media, Internet, journals - various sources, none of which are some individual whom I blindly 'trust'.

In the case of Ickes, it actually takes little to demolish his theories because, as with most conspiracy theories, they're largely built on loose, and dubious, correlations, in-explicit jumps in logic and other variations on the Underpants Gnome approach to reality.

I'm not inclined to believe it but I don't choose to say it's not possible, a person doesn't need to believe it anyway to get some of Icke's points; you can even take it in a metaphorical sense, whatever suits....some call him an anti-semetic. Jews are the chosen people of course over all others - that's what there taught anyway I THINK.

Doesn't make his points any less offal-like.

Ok ok, I know what you are saying about dimensions, I've got an idea of the concept of dimensions from a physics pov. Point taken back.

If you got an idea of the concept of dimensions from physics, why did you decide to mix it up with para-psychology?

I don't rule out the possibility that there may be alternative realities/dimensions (in my sense of the word) if we had the right senses to detect them. If you want to believe science alone that's fine, I often go on my gut instinct with things and it seems to work.

Actually, you do a lot more than not rule out paranormal realities as you not only actively seek for them to be true but also ascribe them form.

Sgt Hartman · 23-09-2015 04:48PM

justanotherone wrote: »

psychopaths already run the world

the average psychopath is not a serial killer

they are the sort of person who will close down a factory without a thought about the impact on the employees their families and the klocal community

which is why they are so sought after in big business

A good example was when Malcom Glazer took over a business and laid off a guy there that had been working with the company for over 30 years. When asked "Why did you he leave him go?? He was with the company for over 30 years??" Glazer replied "Yes but he's only been working for me for the past three days."

euser1984 · 23-09-2015 04:57PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Define morally wrong or right.

Books, media, Internet, journals - various sources, none of which are some individual whom I blindly 'trust'.

In the case of Ickes, it actually takes little to demolish his theories because, as with most conspiracy theories, they're largely built on loose, and dubious, correlations, in-explicit jumps in logic and other variations on the Underpants Gnome approach to reality.

Doesn't make his points any less offal-like.

If you got an idea of the concept of dimensions from physics, why did you decide to mix it up with para-psychology?

Actually, you do a lot more than not rule out paranormal realities as you not only actively seek for them to be true but also ascribe them form.

I'm not going to argue with many of your points because I don't have the energy to do so and I do not mean that in any bad way at all. You sound like an educated chap; there are few people around like you, however, I do know a lot about my realm too (in a professional sense) and to be upfront, what I am discussing here is not an area that I believe myself to know very much about. I do believe I have the intelligence, but not the motivation, to look into each statement you say objectively though. I could also add in to this thread, a psychiatric term which would drive the thread crazy; so I'm not going to. I do believe in this psychiatric identification though which is to do with concentration (as opposed to delusional ideas that a schizophrenic or a a bipolar person may have), this is going to limit me somewhat in this thread; however, I will try my best.

So then, and moving on,

can I get back to the sources of your construct of the world....when you say "internet" sources what do you mean and also what do you mean when you say "media"?

euser1984 · 23-09-2015 07:40PM

Has this thread gone stale then?

euser1984 · 23-09-2015 07:49PM

The problem seems to be that there is no single source for fully transparent reporting in the world....all the ideas anyone makes up to create their construct of the world, is based on many many influences including mass media.....thus, those that know how to control mass media control the people.

Initially this post was inspired by a thought I had after watching a noam chomsky video on youtube....he seems to be very naive when he talks about what he talks about because he doesn't take the psychopathic factor into consideration.

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 07:55PM

euser1984 wrote: »

Has this thread gone stale then?

Calm down euser. Dont go all psycho on us

Thermopool · 23-09-2015 07:59PM

So it seems that some people have a very negative perception of psychopaths, as has been pointed out already, society needs psychopaths to function properly.

Eugene Norman · 23-09-2015 08:02PM

Am I the only person who hates the trite "define morally right or wrong". It's a sidetrack. There's a generally accepted morality in the modern world. It may not be universal. It may be flawed. But it doesn't have to be explained in detail every time damned time.

As for @theCorinthian saying that it's not correct to see psychopaths as fundamentally different that's exactly what O'Hare says we can do.

Whitewinged · 23-09-2015 08:08PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Am I the only person who hates the trite "define morally right or wrong". It's a sidetrack. There's a generally accepted morality in the modern world. It may not be universal. It may be flawed. But it doesn't have to be explained in detail every time damned time.

As for @theCorinthian saying that it's not correct to see psychopaths as fundamentally different that's exactly what O'Hare says we can do.

Yes if someone starts going around starting smear campaigns and crap like that about you, you dont really have the feeling to sit there and ponder the whats morally right/wrong debate.

What happens if psychopaths take over the world?

Comments