Men and their.. insatiable lust

GuanYin · 01-12-2005 7:50pm

Vangelis wrote:

I get that point, but how can something not be evolutionary competition when evolution is all that happens? Species evolve traits to fight other species. In my opinion, that is evolutionary competition, a competition to survive. At least they say so on National Geographic.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, although you may have missed their point, either way, the understanding you took is wrong. I explained why already.

When you look at evolution. The phrase "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" can be misleading when you don't realise that these occur within a species.

I am no ridiculing your arguement, which are very good. I was suggesting that we help evolution on its course by letting people who are biologically fit die instead of nursing them, taking them to hospital, giving them medicines etc. It seems that we are detaining evolution by letting these people flourish and have off-spring. What do you think?

Well I'd need specific examples of what you mean by "biologically fit" and who we let die? What you are describing sounds suspiciously like eugenics.

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

Thats a ridiculous statement. Not all psychopaths become violent or kill. Many are identified early in life and entered into care.

So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases.

Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen? [/quote]

Again, it sounds like you are suggesting eugenics.

nesf · 02-12-2005 12:17am

Vangelis wrote:

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases. Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen?

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Take your head out of the sand if you do.

The Corinthian · 02-12-2005 2:04am

nesf wrote:

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Take your head out of the sand if you do.

Eugenics is hardly so easy to discount, TBH.

nesf · 02-12-2005 2:14am

The Corinthian wrote:

Eugenics is hardly so easy to discount, TBH.

I wasn't discounting eugenics in general. I was responding to a single point she has made. If she expands this into a discussion of eugenics in general then we have a different argument on our hands. As is, she is discussing mental illness alone. Which is a far easier thing to refute.

Kell · 02-12-2005 2:22pm

psi wrote:

The two terms have no relation to each other per se and I don't see how you think they may contradict each other. Unless, you try take them out of context and compare them, as you seem to have done.

Go to post 335. And then 336. I have not taken them out of context.

I also notice your last reply to me said *feel*. Please explain the implications of your asterix'.

K-

GuanYin · 02-12-2005 2:38pm

Kell wrote:

Go to post 335. And then 336. I have not taken them out of context.

I see them and there is no contradiction.

Perhaps if you would like to explain what you see as a contradiction rather than have me guess?

I also notice your last reply to me said *feel*. Please explain the implications of your asterix'.

K-

What post? Don't see it in my last one to you.

Care to provide a quote?

Vangelis · 02-12-2005 5:08pm

psi wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, although you may have missed their point, either way, the understanding you took is wrong. I explained why already.

I'm going to check this out about competition.

Well I'd need specific examples of what you mean by "biologically fit" and who we let die? What you are describing sounds suspiciously like eugenics.

Those who can survive in our society. The beautiful, the successful, the intelligent, those who are considered to be perfect. I'm assuming that these people have what it takes biologically to be the fittest and that their ways of living and their strong social positions are a manifest of their biological strength and their viability. Do you agree?

Thats a ridiculous statement. Not all psychopaths become violent or kill. Many are identified early in life and entered into care.

Could you instead say "That statement is incorrect". Saying that it is ridiculous makes you come across as a bit attacking/hostile/miffed. Perhaps you are now ridiculing me. I did not say that all psychopaths become violent and kill. In fact most of them don't.

I'm going to check out exactly how detectable psychopathy really is and how many are 'taken into care'. Psychopathy is not cureable so any form of 'care' does not help.

Again, it sounds like you are suggesting eugenics.

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

Vangelis · 02-12-2005 5:13pm

nesf wrote:

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Of course not! I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

Why should they have a right to live when their harmful genes can be passed on and very often are? We have to improve our DNA, don't we? Life is a constant struggle for that, so why not let this struggle lead us?

GuanYin · 02-12-2005 5:41pm

Vangelis wrote:

I'm going to check this out about competition.

Yes, you should.

Those who can survive in our society. The beautiful, the successful, the intelligent, those who are considered to be perfect. I'm assuming that these people have what it takes biologically to be the fittest and that their ways of living and their strong social positions are a manifest of their biological strength and their viability. Do you agree?

Ok, this is a completely different question to the one I asked you to clarify.

If you can't keep up with your own posts, how am I supposed to.

Could you instead say "That statement is incorrect". Saying that it is ridiculous makes you come across as a bit attacking/hostile/miffed. Perhaps you are now ridiculing me. I did not say that all psychopaths become violent and kill. In fact most of them don't.

Well you made a statement as fact based (I can only assume) on your own opinion. So I stand by my original post. And no I wasn't being "miffed" or hostile.

I'm going to check out exactly how detectable psychopathy really is and how many are 'taken into care'. Psychopathy is not cureable so any form of 'care' does not help.

Indeed, I wait with baited breath....how are you going on the previous things you were to "check"?

I am. 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?

Vangelis · 04-12-2005 1:36am

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.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

Two of the persons mentioned here are experts on psychopathy, Dr Robert Hare and Babiak. Dr Hare'ss website is:

http://www.hare.org/home

A load of more information, both news articles, commentaries and such suggests that psychopaths are everywhere. They're successful business men, husbands, wives, lovers and so on.

Check out this excellent information source:

http://www.psychopath-research.com/whatis_psycho_2.html

You need to do a lot of reading, but I have made sure only to select credible websites that have references. This last link is a good introduction and then you can move to "Home" and see loads of more tidbits. I assume that you know something about psychopaths allready, but there's bountiful of broad knowledge here.

Also, an excellent webpage:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/robert_hare/index.html

GuanYin · 04-12-2005 4:30am

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 · 04-12-2005 10:32am

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 · 04-12-2005 1:03pm

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 · 04-12-2005 7:16pm

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 · 04-12-2005 10:34pm

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 · 04-12-2005 11:10pm

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 · 04-12-2005 11:41pm

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 · 05-12-2005 12:19am

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 · 05-12-2005 1:04am

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 · 05-12-2005 1:14am

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 · 05-12-2005 1:33am

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 · 05-12-2005 4:28pm

Vangelis wrote:

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

No tbh.

Vangelis · 05-12-2005 5:06pm

Why not?

simu · 05-12-2005 11:37pm

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 · 06-12-2005 7:15pm

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 · 07-12-2005 12:27am

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 · 07-12-2005 2:03pm

ui agree

Kaldorn · 07-12-2005 2:03pm

simu wrote:

Yes, and it would be equally true.

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

wanna meet me

lazydaisy · 07-12-2005 10:14pm

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 · 07-12-2005 10:29pm

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 · 08-12-2005 1:45am

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 · 08-12-2005 11:46am

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

Men and their.. insatiable lust

Comments