From our friend the law and economics scholar in response to my request: "I wonder, could you give a quick summary of the Posner argument for not hurting people to post on the blog?":
I would be more than happy to provide a summary of Posner's arguments on why harming others is wrong. But I'd like to take a look over his text book again, so as not to misrepresent the Genius himself. Just as a taster I can tell you why rape is 'MOSTLY' wrong :). (God damn I wish it wasn't haha, that'd save a shitload of effort). In some ways I believe an explanation of why rape is "sometimes" wrong is more interesting than harm in general.
Basically, rape bypasses the market in sexual relations in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and therefore should be forbidden. Something that bypasses the market is wrong. Here's the clinch. Sometimes rape is right. I'm going to paraphrase Posner here. Sometimes rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that a woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is NO MARKET SUBSTITUTE - market transaction costs are prohibitive- and it can be argued, therefore, that for them rape is NOT A PURE COERCIVE TRANSFER and should NOT BE PUNISHED if the sum of satisfactions to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay - though not to the victim - for the right to rape) exceeds the victim's pain and distress.
The PRACTICAL OBJECTION is that rapists are hard to distinguish empirically from mere THIEVES OF SEX and that giving them free rein would induce women to invest heavily in self-protection. Posner goes on...and states "the fact that any sort of RAPE LICENSE is even thinkable within the framework of the wealth-maximisation theory that guides so much of the analysis in this book is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory". I believe Posner is probably not a sociopath. But I mean... writing about the difficulties of giving a 'license to rape' because it's hard to distinguish between genuine rapists and those who are 'thieves of sex': haha :). I recall long conversations with some girls at university on the "license to rape"...I fucked them all in the end without the license. :). To be honest I think I would have to think long and hard to give an explanation of why "rape is generally wrong" in terms that a person of average intelligence and experience would understand. It rests on the idea that the market is supreme...until that is understood it's just empty words.
My name is Ted. I am a sociopath. I am also a law student who is looked down upon by my classmates because I've been here for 5 years. Ted, that's me, looks dumb to them. But I'll show them...yeah...I'll email some random person that runs a blog to show my smarts (I can't spell intelligence) by paraphrasing something I read that made sense to me. I'm smart. I'm a sociopath. I'm Ted.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow his paraphrasing of Posner's argument. How does deriving extra pleasure from a woman who hasn't consented cancel out the market? In terms of economics, he still didn't "pay" for his service. The woman is in a deficit. I'd be willing to buy this shiny new car, but since I like it so much better stolen, I'll do that instead. The market does not cease to exist, I choose to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteUnless this is more complex than a simpleton like me could comprehend. Could someone help me out if I'm missing something?
I think what he's saying is that there's potential for a rapist to gain more than a victim loses, thereby rendering the act constructive, at first glance at least.
ReplyDeleteAnother example would be me screwing you out of $5 in such a way that it becomes $10 for me. In order for this logic to work, however, the extra $5 couldn't come from the economy. It would have to be "new" money that otherwise wouldn't have been in circulation.
His concept of right and wrong isn't individualistic in nature, which is probably why you're having trouble understanding it. One person's suffering is irrelevant if it results in a net gain for the community taken as a whole.
It's an interesting idea, but it's impractical, because there's no way of knowing what steps will be taken, and at what cost, by an individual to prevent future personal loss. In his example, letting your every-day "sex thief" get away with rape would have a negative impact on the community as a whole because women would have to waste time and money investing in personal protection. Differentiating between the "sex thief" (no value added) and the theoretical rapist (produces enough extra satisfaction to cancel out the victim's distress) would also be far too difficult.
Plus, just between us, I don't think any rapist will ever achieve lifelong satisfaction from a rape in the way that a woman will be stricken with lifelong psychological issues. The whole idea of a "rape license" is just plain idiotic. If Posner was seriously considering this and not just using it as a shocking example of his way of thinking, he's a fucking idiot.
This site is getting desperate. This article is nothing but a ridiculous attempt at shocking people and getting moralists to react. They already have a license to rape. Its been a policy of conquering nations to do so for centuries in order to breed out the dominated culture. Its still practiced in places like rwanda and sudan. Not to mention the english did it to gaelic countries combined with banning their language. Yet with historical examples already there, the author makes up ridiculous hypothetical situations to show how anti-moralist he is. To top it off he tries to boast about how he fucked some birds he was convincing that rape was right. Most people who put that out there either don't get laid much or have a low self esteam (maybe both). So tell me, do you have no self esteam, do you not get laid much, or is it both. Is this why you want to rape women?
ReplyDeletestop being such a whiney bitch ukan
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't m.e. just read Posner's work if he's that interested, instead of having this inarticulate idiot explain it for him?
ReplyDeleteOr, better yet, why doesn't m.e. explain it himself if he truly would like to educate us all on moral philosophy?
He doesn't have enough personality to generate enough interesting content for his blog. He makes a few enlightening posts now and then, but never anything witty or entertaining. He fills in the blanks with random quotes, articles, songs, and letters from readers. We generate our own content in the form of arguments and insults while M.E. gets to continue being a robot.
ReplyDeleteAnon: "We generate our own content in the form of arguments and insults while M.E. gets to continue being a robot."
ReplyDeleteI think you may have a point here. I find myself seeing the comments as more interesting than the posts themselves often.
Ishtar: "Why doesn't m.e. just read Posner's work if he's that interested, instead of having this inarticulate idiot explain it for him?"
M.E. was probably just testing to see how well The Author could explain it. I'd bet good money that M.E. read the stuff himself and compared The Author's explanation to the original content. Of course, I'm answering this all assuming I have some grasp on how M.E. thinks.
"...so as not to misrepresent the Genius himself."
Sociopaths tend to have superiority complexes due to their narcissism, don't they...? If so, wouldn't this statement make it a bit unlikely that this guy isn't a sociopath?
(Correction on the last line: "isn't" is supposed to be "is".)
ReplyDeletePeter Pan is the only one hitting the nail on the head here.
ReplyDelete"His concept of right and wrong isn't individualistic in nature, which is probably why you're having trouble understanding it. One person's suffering is irrelevant if it results in a net gain for the community taken as a whole."
This is correct. The wealth maximization theory is meant to be a form of Bentham's Utilitarianism that is actually operable. You are also correct in the rest of your post.
The "thief of sex" argument is just a variant of the "free rider", which appears often in L+E. It is possible in this case that Posner has purposefully overstated the self-protection costs of women and the ability to identify genuine rapists as a means to defend his theory overall.
Anyway, I do agree with Peter Pan that it is generally impractical. On the other hand, Posner's argument does mean that if one is genuinely a rapist - and uses L+E to produce his moral benchmarks - raping someone is not wrong.
"I'm not sure I follow his paraphrasing of Posner's argument. How does deriving extra pleasure from a woman who hasn't consented cancel out the market? In terms of economics, he still didn't "pay" for his service. The woman is in a deficit. I'd be willing to buy this shiny new car, but since I like it so much better stolen, I'll do that instead. The market does not cease to exist, I choose to ignore it."
L+E works on the basis of what one is WILLING to pay, not what one actually pays.
Author: Peter Pan was the only one who actually paid a penny for your brain fart. The rest of us see it for what it is. Right or wrong? Who cares. You're arguing morality with sociopaths. If you don't see how pointless that is, than I don't know what to tell you. The article is worthless. Its obviously not viable in society to allow the rape of women (I wonder why men are not discussed). So you arrived at this conclusion in a economical standpoint, which is more ridiculous than the original motive of rape itself? I'm not impressed. I'm not shocked. New content is needed on this blog. Maybe you should go out and seek getting raped and explain the complex feelings to us afterwards, then we can tear up your already low self esteem on the comment section.
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing the point UKanRapeUrself. According to Posner's argument it is acceptable to allow women to be raped.
ReplyDelete"So you arrived at this conclusion in a economical standpoint, which is more ridiculous than the original motive of rape itself?"
There is a market for everything. The motive is pleasure. It is the same as everything else. The economical standpoint is not ridiculous in my opinion: I believe it provides a solid explanation for human action and a good guide of what ought to be allowed. It's a good normative theory imo.
Oh I will just add, this is also true for men. It is fine for a man to be raped provided the conditions are satisfied.
ReplyDelete"The economical standpoint is not ridiculous in my opinion: I believe it provides a solid explanation for human action and a good guide of what ought to be allowed. It's a good normative theory imo."
ReplyDeleteSo what? To repeat Ukan's question, who cares? Why should I use this as a "guide"?
"So what? To repeat Ukan's question, who cares? Why should I use this as a "guide"?"
ReplyDeleteUse it as a guide if you believe it is superior to the alternatives? If not, use an alternative.
UKan, what the fuck are you on about? This blog has always presented varying views on morality, and quite a few of them originated from the blog owner himself. To the best of my knowledge, this particular view has never been discussed on this blog, which, to me at least, makes it interesting regardless of whether or not it's some kind of spooky, absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the guy hasn't tried to declare anything as right or wrong in absolute terms. He's explaining a theory of morality that he happens to admire and adhere to. So how is he arguing morality with sociopaths? He's discussing it, genius.
Daniel, that last paragraph pertains to you as well. I don't like picking on you, because you're just so darn lovable, but seriously, who the hell is he arguing with? The only people arguing are... dun dun dun... the sociopaths. So let me reverse the questions you all seem to be asking and ask you, "Why the fuck are you arguing with someone who isn't arguing?" Sounds pretty fucking retarded if you ask me.
Fin
Also Daniel, I'm very surprised that you're not interested in discussing this man's views with him. Usually, when someone respectfully presents an alternate viewpoint, especially if it's different from what the masses typically subscribe to, you're all over that shit. Why, at this point in time, do you choose to act like one of the other braindead idiots who frequent this blog? Where's that unbiased curiosity you're so famous for?
ReplyDeleteThere are no "real" alternatives other than desire. You want something, you act with intelligence, and you manage the consequences of said action. Right or wrong, whether determined by economic theory or religious tradition, is irrelevant in real life. You can use a guide if you desire that. Or you can just cut to the chase and get on with it.
ReplyDeleteThen again Author Extraordinaire, you may not actually believe this. As in, you don't actually use this as a guide to anything. Let me know if this is your version of mental masturbation, which I have zero problem with.
Ah, see, there's the DB we all know and love so much!
ReplyDelete"Second, the guy hasn't tried to declare anything as right or wrong in absolute terms. He's explaining a theory of morality that he happens to admire and adhere to. So how is he arguing morality with sociopaths? He's discussing it, genius."
ReplyDeleteTHIS. As Churchill said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Constructive criticism is appreciated. Indeed, it is welcome.
"There are no "real" alternatives other than desire. You want something, you act with intelligence, and you manage the consequences of said action. Right or wrong, whether determined by economic theory or religious tradition, is irrelevant in real life. You can use a guide if you desire that. Or you can just cut to the chase and get on with it."
I think you are misunderstanding what morality is, perhaps? I like to think of morality as being the line between "right" and "wrong". We desire things we can not have, of course. If I want a big house and the only way I can get it is to kill a young man...should I just "cut to the chase" as you put it? Or is that wrong? This theory is a gauge for that and it puts society as a whole first.
Right or wrong is the authors words. If you read is comment, genuine rapists satisfying Posners guidelines for raping someone is not 'wrong'. I found it funny that arguing something society considers extremely immoral should be argued from a standpoint of morality. Its ridiculous. Of course, Peter will stand on your soapbox if you are here for the pure purpose of shock value, and attention grabbing. Its something him and the author share deeply. The most ridiculous thing I find about your opinion, author, is that you've arrived at the same conclusion that everyone in the civilized world already has: That rape doesn't shouldn't be legal or practiced. How you arrived at that conclusion doesn't interest me. Why don't you talk about murder. That actually has arguable points on both sides. I frankly don't understand the point of the article at all. You wish rape was legal to save you the work of getting laid? That is what I got from the beginning bracketed comment. Is it really that hard for you to get laid? I thought you slept with three birds you were explaining this brain fart to. If you can pull off justifying rape to women and then not having them run from you, in fact even sleep with you, then rape would be more work than your charming demeanor surely. I'm not interested in the article I'm interested in the authors motivations for writing it.
ReplyDeleteOh come on, loverboy, you and I aren't so different. I just don't care if people think I'm an idiot.
ReplyDeleteUKanBtinkerbelle,
ReplyDeleteI have actually said that rape is sometimes perfectly acceptable. I suggest you read what I have written again. Therefore your "arrived at the same conclusion" argument is quite weak. I believe it is hard to distinguish "thieves of sex" and therefore the market is incredibly hard to regulate. But I also stated that if one believes in L+E and one is a genuine rapist...well, then, rape away.
I will send an email to M.E. explaining why murder and, indeed, harm in general is wrong.
I think you lack an ability to comprehend humour if you start saying things like: "You wish rape was legal to save you the work of getting laid". Yes I did have sex with all of them... I was considered top of my class, which is probably why. Combined with confidence, perhaps.
"If you can pull off justifying rape to women and then not having them run from you, in fact even sleep with you, then rape would be more work than your charming demeanor surely. I'm not interested in the article I'm interested in the authors motivations for writing it."
Thanks for the compliment. I've also discussed how gays are actually just the "sneaky fucker" phenotype expressed in humans and got laid.
So Arthur, judging by your last comment to Ukan, am I right to assume that you really do believe in right and wrong? This isn’t you just putzing around with hypotheticals as a way to kill time?
ReplyDelete"So Arthur, judging by your last comment to Ukan, am I right to assume that you really do believe in right and wrong? This isn’t you just putzing around with hypotheticals as a way to kill time?"
ReplyDeleteNever ending search my friend.
Is that a yes or a no Arthur?
ReplyDeleteOk then Artful Dodger, bon apetite. Enjoy yourself.
ReplyDeleteI will warn you though that you are unlikely to receive any encouragement on your moral argument thing among the commentators here, for obvious reasons. The whole putting society first idea is ridiculous to me personally, but meh, this is your game, so have fun.
"Ok then Artful Dodger, bon apetite. Enjoy yourself.
ReplyDeleteI will warn you though that you are unlikely to receive any encouragement on your moral argument thing among the commentators here, for obvious reasons. The whole putting society first idea is ridiculous to me personally, but meh, this is your game, so have fun."
I was mostly lolling at the use of 'Arthur'. Laugh as you will. I believe it is the best system. I would predict rational discussion here, but perhaps I am wrong. It's just a theory: it certainly isn't perfect! I just think it's the best. I want an epic academic confrontation.
The average commenter disappoints me.
Ok Roger Dodger. The “problem” is that you wrote this on a blog that is ostensibly written by a sociopath, which has in turn attracted a few other sociopaths, sociopathic sympathizers and on occasion, the ethically enslaved. By definition, you are not going to get much of an argument of any kind when it comes to morality here. Morality is a non-issue for people who think like this. It just doesn’t arise. When I have pursued anything I have ever really wanted in my past, right or wrong, of any kind, never entered into the equation. I mean literally, it didn't and doesn’t to this day. Tactics, yes. Strategy, yes. Managing likely outcomes, yes. Morality, whether derived from the “law and economics” school of thought or traditional religious systems, or anywhere else, not so much. It’s not even a choice. It just doesn’t come into play until I hear other people go on and on about it. So you can see why discussing the nuances of moral theory holds little interest to people for whom morality is a non-issue altogether, right?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, since you say you are searching, you could consider the intellectual foundations of your currently favored moral theory. I’m betting they are not as sturdy as they appear…
Yeah. I am pretty heartless as well, when it comes down to it.
ReplyDeleteWow DB has become a lot more curt since I left. That's exactly what I'm driving at mate. What's the point of your article? To shock me at your shotty value system. Do you practice your shotty value system? Don't you know that most of these blokes in here have no value system at all and actually live as such instead of fiddling about it in their heads. Frankly if your so pro rape why don't you go bugger somebody instead of fantasizing about it here. Rape as a commodity isn't new either you bloody pervert. Its called human trafficking. So if you really want to go bugger a 10 year old hike your arse over to thailand and stop writing academic dribbles about your latest thoughts while you were wanking yourself on the toilet.
ReplyDeleteIf you sleep with a prostitute then don't pay her, does it become rape?
ReplyDeleteI think this passage uses rape as an example of economic morality to shock us, but the author didn't really think through the explanation-- there's no way that a rapist would gain more than the woman would lose. It's just meant to be an example of calculated 'morality,' the same as those morality games where you have to choose between killing 100 people and killing a million. Not a real circumstance. Hypothetical.
Sadly that moral game of choosing who you would save from a train track was a previous article here. Author even your topic is a forgery. Please put your article back in the recycle bin. You can regurgitate it again in august. Maybe you'll get laid by then you fuckin nugget.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just wow. I’ve never commented here before but I’ve followed the comment section for about two years and I can honestly say that I knew it was only a matter of time before three of the four key commenters began to converse again and now that UKan is back, I’m curious to see if that’ll bring Daft out of hiding.
ReplyDeleteMorality is pointless, especially here on this blog.
ReplyDeleteyeah, this place is always better with UKan Persons and Birdick Persons. If they come back maybe the other freaks, Carrie Fisher with RPG kit in the 'Blues Brothers' type emotionally scarred empath victims, gay rights sociopaths, sociopaths for a fairer more loving society, sociopaths with fake rubber fangs, sociopaths for Jesus freaks, sociopath chicks with dicks, sociopathic empaths doing sociopaths pretending to be empaths, same person holding 4 way conversations with himself and not being able to come to an equitable agreement kind of crowded one man band kind of freaked out place. Yeah!
ReplyDeleteout of curiosity...i just scanned all the back dated posts' comments and this daft guy got deleted. what did he do? but yeah, i can see how anon12:05 would say he was a regular.
ReplyDeleteI waz alwayz a fan of that bird who claimed she bamboozled a sociopath boyfriend by 'purposely' having his child and letting him mooch off her, but in the end had her child taken away and ending up in the looney bin. It waz interesting to see how much she could lie to herself about what he did to her to make her the winner when in fact she lost everything including her kid. Or that bloke who would kiss any commenters ass who waz winning even though we would turn on him over and over again. The poor souls who fall victim to the commentary on this site is endless. Fortunatly there's always more. Worse comes to worse I go on lovefraud and comment as a victim talking about the horrible things I read on this site, and the victims come pouring into the comment section to argue their pointless morality to convince us how wrong we are.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteFrom an empathic woman's point of view, I find this article both interesting and shocking at the same time. If the article was meant to shock, well it served the purpose for me.
I have a few thoughts about the ideas posed in this article. The first one that occured to me has to do with the idea that women are talked about as though they are objects that exist for the sole purposes of men. There is no recognition for the fact that women are equal to men and are valuable contributing members of this society. It is amazing to me to see the denial and rationalization that goes on in the narcissistic mind that sees all others as extensions of themselves. The theory far surpasses any moral boundaries and it enters a state of what seems to me to be almost delusional.
The second thought that occured to me has to do with idea that the positive impact for the rapist is greater than the negative impact for the woman, therefore essentially canceling out the womans experience and leaving a surplus of positive experience for the rapist. This reminds me of some the theories and philosophies related to energies. Some people believe that the well being of individuals and society as a whole has to do with energy that is influenced by many factors including emotions, behaviors, actions, and life forces not within the control of individuals such as weather, events of nature etc. This article seems to be going along with that philosophy. The positive energy experience by the rapist surpasses the negative energy experienced by the woman leaving an excess of positive energy left by the rapist, therefore making it an experience that is acceptable. It is so amazing to me how anything can be manipulated to be seen in whatever way the individual would like it to be seen. It is no different than manipulating and crunching numbers to get an outcome that is desireable.
All I can say, is thank god that most of us have a conscience. I can't imagine what this world would be like if most of us did not. Thank god for religion and spirituality.
Zan
the logic supporting a rape license seems weak. if you're licensed to rape and society condones it then is it still rape or just sex on demand? in such a society, where some are licensed to rape, people would accommodate and adjust as they do to the laws in whatever society they are in. "licensed rape" then would not be rape in terms of its psychological and emotional impact to the parties involved.
ReplyDeleterape is more about dominating the other than about sex. how about a license to bully? You could say that for bullies too there is no market substitute. or am i misunderstanding Posner?
Cue the ethically enslaved, "If the article was meant to shock, well it served the purpose for me." You got what you were after Arthur. Zantac was shocked and appalled. Well done my young apprentice! Cue maniacal laughter.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for Ukan to bring over some more professional victims from Lovefraudiculous.com. I'm finding moral outrage really amusing these days.
ReplyDeleteZan said...
All I can say, is thank god that most of us have a conscience. I can't imagine what this world would be like if most of us did not. Thank god for religion and spirituality.
we need less religion and more logic, less spirituality and more consciousness.
"I'm finding moral outrage really amusing these days."
ReplyDeleteDaniel-as opposed to other days? What outrages you?
"we need less religion and more logic, less spirituality and more consciousness."
Zoe,
I see consciousness as an aspect of spirituality. I think once a person become conscious the logic follows. Any person who has a strong faith in a religion believes in the logic of it. It all works together. We may be all conscious but within our own reality that the consciousness brings which is quite apparent in this forum. This is where the problems begin. People often think that thier reality is the RIGHT reality and that is where conflict, war etc start. People would be much better off if they tried to understand the other person's reality and accept it. That in this arena is unrealistic thinking since we all know that a narcissist or sociopath is not capable of caring about another's reality if it does not suit him or her to do so. Likely many "normals" could care less also. So, what hell, lets just kill each other and get it over with!
Zan
Zantac,
ReplyDeleteMoral outrage used to annoy me. It's so obviously absurd. Now I just think it's amusing.
On the subject of LoveFraud...
ReplyDeleteI seriously hope that site has been a joke this entire time. The extreme bias is so obvious that you don't even need an entirely functioning brain to see it.
DB, I find it strange that moral outrage would ever annoy you. Was that a very short period of your life? For me, moral outrage has almost always been amusing. However, I do find moral outrage annoying if it ever steps into a personal attack against myself. That's nearly two different things, though.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI find you rather amusing....just love that "Zantac". Did the moral outrage leave you needing "Zantac"?
Come to think of it, I am an avid fan of 'Lovefraud'. I think it's great to see a woman holding a sociopathic man accountable for the damage that he created in her life. It is unfortunate that women have not had a way to hold men accountable (and men vs women) for their fraudulant, morally and illegal behavior. The internet has permitted people to become empowered by exposing others who pose a danger to them. BTW, I am also a "Dontdatehimgirl.com" girl and damn proud of it.
It would not be in the best interest of any man/sociopath/narcissist to mess with this empath. I am far from a victim. Mess with me and see what I mean.
Zan......"Zantac" for you Dan
Good job Prozac. Now you've given this article a purpose. To draw in dumb suckers like you to be astonished and horrified. This is the highlight of the authors day, outweighing even his alotted time to wank off about his licence to rape while watching abusive pornography. The hatred of women shines through the post more than he tries to let on. He loves the idea itself because women or maybe even a woman close to him rejected him to a point that he's dehumanised them in his head. However, he's to much of a coward to go do it in reality so he theorieses about it. Your post comments, by the way author, about men can be raped too is a cheap smoke screen to not expose how you really are which is splashed across the article. Did your mother tell you that you weren't good enough? Is that what lead you to seek out women that thought your dick was small? Or did you just not date at all and just wank off to rape porn while secretly wishing that your mother loved you more? Answer these questions author. This would be more interesting than your ridiculous article. My other question is that if we do enact such a law can we use you as a rape example first and you weigh out how you feel when what's left of your desperate, pitiful, manhood is taken from you? It seems like something you should personally experience to have a objective point of view.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous you say 'come to think of it', as if you just happend along on a couple of relationship vigilante sites and then just stumbled onto a sociopathic blog. In the same breath you tell me not to fuck with you because you're not a victim. You put yourself together you stupid knob. Its obvious you are a victim since you're still walking around with enough baggage from you're percieved sociopathic boyfriends treatment of you to make you frequent three sites in that relate to your relationship you got out of. Still you invite more pain. Subconsciously you love the abuse. Its the only reason why you exist. Why else throw yourself out into shark water: announcing that you've been used and abused on a sociopathic site? I bet he had you going for years. Now you think you're empowered for posting his picture on a website for other broken woman in a sad attempt to get back at him. News flash: he's going to always find another sucker like you. Did he play on your self worth? I bet he did. You needed him because he made you feel what you can't feel yourself. Worthwhile and not worthless. He used your emotional dependency to take advantage of you didn't he? Please share I would enjoy the story better than this muppets rape fantasyland.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous you say 'come to think of it', as if you just happend along on a couple of relationship vigilante sites and then just stumbled onto a sociopathic blog. In the same breath you tell me not to fuck with you because you're not a victim. You put yourself together you stupid knob. Its obvious you are a victim since you're still walking around with enough baggage from you're percieved sociopathic boyfriends treatment of you to make you frequent three sites in that relate to your relationship you got out of. Still you invite more pain. Subconsciously you love the abuse. Its the only reason why you exist. Why else throw yourself out into shark water: announcing that you've been used and abused on a sociopathic site? I bet he had you going for years. Now you think you're empowered for posting his picture on a website for other broken woman in a sad attempt to get back at him. News flash: he's going to always find another sucker like you. Did he play on your self worth? I bet he did. You needed him because he made you feel what you can't feel yourself. Worthwhile and not worthless. He used your emotional dependency to take advantage of you didn't he? Please share I would enjoy the story better than this muppets rape fantasyland.
ReplyDeleteUkan, how many different names do you plan on using?
ReplyDeleteUkan:"He used your emotional dependency to take advantage of you didn't he? Please share I would enjoy the story better than this muppets rape fantasyland."
Seriously? There was some person who kept going on and on about their sociopath boyfriend only a week or so ago. I'm beginning to find the whole "wah. my boyfriend destroyed my self esteem and i took it all like the pitiful person i am" boring. So I wonder, what in the world makes it more interesting than this "muppet"?
I'm becoming rather bored with this Law and Economics scholar myself, as well. But come on, there's got to be more we could hear in the comments than another mindrape story. They're beginning to get very dry and redundant.
I haven't heard one in a while since I stopped keeping up with this site. Please, 2, allow me to get back in the swing of things before we move on. This pervert is not what I want as a welcome back party. I prefer the company of the broken at this moment. We can move on to more intelligent things after we have a little sidetrack. You'll enjoy it, trust me.
ReplyDeleteUKan,
ReplyDelete"Good job Prozac. Now you've given this article a purpose. To draw in dumb suckers like you to be astonished and horrified.
You put yourself together you stupid knob. Its obvious you are a victim since you're still walking around with enough baggage from you're percieved sociopathic boyfriends treatment of you to make you frequent three sites in that relate to your relationship you got out of."
I am no more of "dumb sucker" or a "stupid knob" (whatever the hell that is) than you are an angry, frustrated sociopath who finds it unbearable when his dominance is stiffled. Or on the other hand are you perhaps a victim yourself that has been unable to find your own power and face your own demons. You seem to speak from both sides of the fence. Either way, I suspect that you are full of anger, hatred and loathing for whatever stands before you.
What is it, AK-57 that brings you to this site? Is it fun shooting down the ideas, thoughts and experiences of others?
"you're still walking around with enough baggage from you're percieved sociopathic boyfriends treatment of you to make you frequent three sites in that relate to your relationship you got out of. Still you invite more pain. Subconsciously you love the abuse."
I am the judge of my baggage. Whether I am walking around with it or not is irrelevant to you. What the fuck difference does it make to you whether I have baggage or not? If i am than so be it. It is what it is. I would rather have baggage than no conscience. We are the result of our experiences in life. Experiences drive us sometimes to some dark, depressing places. Sometimes we need to go there until we don't need to go there anymore. It is in those places that we can let go of the baggage that weighs us down and become a stronger, better individual, more able to fight off the abuse that drug us down so far to begin with. No, I don't invite more pain. I look to understand. It is understanding that ultimately helps to eliminate my pain through forgiveness. I am not yet at the forgivenss stage but I am pretty damn close.
Continued
So UKan, please don't psychoanalyze me. It might be a good idea for you to take a good look at yourself. I know exactly what I am doing and why. I am not looking for pain. I don't feed off it and I do not owe you any explanation with regard to how I ended up here or anywhere else. I do not feel that I am in shark water. Instead, I feel that I am wading in the baby pool with complete cowards and wussys such as yourself that feed off of anger and the perceived weaknesses of others. Please don't flatter yourself.
ReplyDelete"Now you think you're empowered for posting his picture on a website for other broken woman in a sad attempt to get back at him."
Your damn right I am empowered. I had the pig eating out of my hand and that pisses you off because you know that one day you may be forced to eat out of someone's hand too. One day you may be forced to be accountable for your actions. The sad part of it is that when that day arrives, you will be playing the part of the sad victim because you will be too much of a loser to face up to what you have done or what you are.
"Did he play on your self worth? I bet he did. You needed him because he made you feel what you can't feel yourself. Worthwhile and not worthless. He used your emotional dependency to take advantage of you didn't he?"
Yes, Freud, you hit the nail on the head. Damn your good. I guess you would know. Weak pieces of shit like yourself know all about preying on individuals that appear to be vulnerable. That's because your own self worth is in the toilet so you need to prey on others of whom you perceive to be weaker than yourself. This allows you to feel all good about yourself and perhaps it is what makes you feel anything at all. See sucker, I think it goes both ways. The only way could know how I might have felt is by having had the capability to feel nothing at all yourself, unless it is through someone else that you perceive as less worthy than you. How you must hate that. Having to rely on someone beneath you to be anything at all. I feel quite sorry for you UK. I think you should go crawl back into the hole that you came out of.
Zan
Ukan: " We can move on to more intelligent things after we have a little sidetrack. You'll enjoy it, trust me."
ReplyDeleteAh, thank you for the returned politeness. And, alright.
Zan:"The only way [?] could know how I might have felt is by having had the capability to feel nothing at all yourself, unless it is through someone else that you perceive as less worthy than you."
Going to throw a dart at the board and say that you were typing this aggressively because he was 1) correct or 2) so wrong that it offended you beyond belief.
So am I correct in saying that Ukan has artfully pushed your buttons of aggression?
Zan again:"Either way, I suspect that you are full of anger, hatred and loathing for whatever stands before you."
You say that he feels nothing at all in one instance and then you say he's "full of anger, hatred, and loathing"? My my, clarify.
Honestly, there's a good possibility he was faking aggression just to fuck with you. You know what happened, as well? You fell right for it.
Zannex your point of view on me is so vast (if I misspelled that go fuck your dictionary). Am I a victim? Am I a sociopathic mistreater of women? Am I unfeeling? Am I angry? Am I the fucking prime minister of britian? Am I even british? Am I tinkerbelle? Peter pan? 2? M.E.? Maybe we can go even deeper. What if this whole site was put together by your boyfriend and I conspired to make hundreds of articles and comments to lure you in because of you posting my picture on dontdatehimgirl.com .
ReplyDeleteOr is it that I don't know you and that I know your type. That you're typical. You've always felt that way and that's what you loved about him the most. How he made you feel so special and unique. How he seemed so genuine and when you found out it was all a lie you felt like a fool. You miss him still. Really you don't miss him you just miss how he made you feel. You might have even contemplated the fantasy that you wished you never found out how much of a fraud he was so you could've kept living the lie. His lies were more inticing than your reality, and you know it. Why do you think you stayed for so long? He knew that you wouldn't question it to the point where he got cocky and slipped up. Deep down you knew something was wrong from the beginning but didn't question it. Why? Instead of pointing the finger at the alligator for eating the fabled bird maybe you should ask yourself why the bird trusted itself on its snout to begin with. Maybe you should wonder how healed you really are and how invulnerable you are to sociopaths when you walk into a blog and in one paragraph of your comments I can figure out how you think. Women like you are as bad for sociopaths as they are for you. You make one get used to being to powerful without them earning it because you're too easy.
I see consciousness as an aspect of spirituality. I think once a person become conscious the logic follows. Any person who has a strong faith in a religion believes in the logic of it. It all works together.
ReplyDeletei meant consciousness as in pure experience where you are aware of your own awareness.
i see spiritualism as an addiction, attracting hedonists / narcissists. religion is worse though because it requires you to give up your right to think for yourself. in exchange i guess you get the comfort of knowing "the truth". i can't think of any religion that has logic to it.
use logic not feelings to support your beliefs.
OK, UK and 2said, I will admit, you are both right. I did get very angry because UK did push my bottons. The truth does hurt sometimes but the reality is, I did like the fantasy. Yes, he did make me feel very special, more special than anyone has ever made me feel. I didn't know though until the very end that he was a fraud. He was damn good at his lies. I realized when it was all over how much I had come to depend on his feigned "love" to maintain my own self worth. I didn't realize it at the time. I just knew I loved him more than I loved myself. I could feel him slipping away and tried everything to get things back to the way they were. I did not know about narcissism, sociopathology etc then so I could not understand what I had done wrong. I was the same person. We didn't really fight and yet it all seemed to go sour over night. As he kept slipping away, parts of me went with him. When it was all over I was very empty and felt such despair. I did not know it was possible to feel such sadness and despair over the loss of someone. The experience was a double edged sword everyway you look at it. I never felt such love for someone but I also never felt such hate. I never felt so whole and full but I also never felt so empty before. I have been working on building myself back up. I am not the person I was when I met him. That is the good thing about the situation because I have learned alot myself and my own weaknesses. I realize how I needed a man to feel fulfilled because I had not fully developed myself. I wanted to be loved because I did not love myself. I have not dated since I broke up with him about 2 years ago and have no desire. I am enjoying being single for the first time and have gotten to know myself fairly well over this time. I don't think I will ever again need to look to someone to feel fulfilled or loved. If I ever choose to try again, I will look for an equal partner and will not fall for flattery or a fantasy kind of relationship. It was a painful lesson but one that I gained so much from. Sometimes I take a few steps back but that has usually always meant that there will be some steps forward ahead. This site is brutal in the honesty department. UK, you really made me look at myself today, as much as I didn't want to do it.
ReplyDeleteZan
Hope this has been an interesting "sidetrack" that has been well worth the diversion. I still say that I am wading in the baby pool. For as predictable and common as you may see my "type", your type is every bit as predictable just less common given that most humans have the capability to love, trust, and bond with others. Of course we would be common to you. How could we not? We are normal. You are a small minority. If us ladies walked around thinking that everyone was like you, we would be depriving ourselves. What happened to me as I described it will never happen again because I think I could spot one of you from 10 miles away. That's all from me today. Go back to eating each other up.
ReplyDeleteZan
God damn I wish I had UKan's skills at getting under people's skin. It's truly amazing.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see that you're being honest with yourself now, Zan. Not many people have the integrity to do that.
ReplyDeleteAnd on another note: who keeps deleting their comments?
oh but you have other skills Peter :)
ReplyDeleteThat "dialogue" between Zantac and Uk was fun. I missed this place!
ReplyDelete2, annoy wasn't exactly the right word, come to think of it. It's more accurate to say that I found moral outrage aesthetically displeasing. It was like listening to someone sing off key. Because I come from a musically inclined family, listening to bad singing is personally offensive to me. The obvious blindness that makes moral outrage possible was an affront to my sense of taste almost. Now, I just laugh it off.
That was the point. Good luck to you miss. You are a lot further out of the cycle than I thought you were, but crying with the two aformentioned victim sites only perpetuates you being stuck in it. Understanding why you seek sociopaths is the key. Believe it or not you will have another sociopath in your life because you seek the strength and their ability to completely understand you. The issue is finding one who will not misuse the knowledge to hinder instead of help you. If you stop for a second and look at who your type is objectively, you will become a valuable asset. You will be the only one who understands him for who he really is and he will no longer treat you as another pawn in the chess game but a queen on the board. If you lie to yourself about him and swallow his bullshit he will percieve you as a victim and will not be able to help completely destroying you (future lover obviously don't go back to your previous boyfriend). On lovefraud they focus on finger pointing and dwelling on the 'abuser' to the point where most refuse to post his name. The other site focuses on the completely the oppossite posting his name and picture. The reality is he is STILL in control because youre dwelling on him and he doesn't care when in reality you should be learning about yourself before you can even begin to understand what manner of man he is. The minute your type runs into me I already know you. I met you, dated you, did business with you, built you, and destroyed you many times. I know you better than you can know yourself and that makes me either your best asset or the worse thing that has ever happend to you. How I deal with you will be based on how aware you are of yourself, how strong you are, and how much you know of my personality type. I wanted to give you an example, which is why I came at you the way I did.
ReplyDelete"It's more accurate to say that I found moral outrage aesthetically displeasing."
ReplyDeleteThat makes much better sense. Weird how such a simple change of semantics can mean so much.
I once had someone being very emotional about how they felt that something was "wrong". I had trouble controlling my laughter. On top of that, every time I even offered a slightly opposing point to their ideas about the subject, they just got worse. I considered pushing their buttons for the amusement of it, but it wasn't the right place or the right time. I came to the conclusion that it'd be best to be quiet and let them speak until they were finished. I'd say the occasional "I see" or "I understand". But other than that, I was very non-confrontational.
Tell me, Mr Birdick, how do you manage scenarios such as that? Assuming you're put into one, that is.
2: I let them ramble. I figure it's part of the dues I pay to play in "normal" society.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I did have fun pushing my father's buttons once. He was going on and on about the evils of women being abused this particular night. I consciously decided to see how easy it would be to push him from annoyance to rage by giving him a few simple "insights" about himself. Don't know why I did it. It just popped into my head to give it a go, so I did. Didn't take long at all before he was virtually foaming at the mouth with rage. It was my first time doing that on purpose and yes, it was very instructive.
UK,
ReplyDeleteThe way you have communicated with me has been a bit rough but has helped me a great deal to understand that there are likely certain signals that I put out that clue a sociopath in that I am the kind of person that is as you say "easy". Could you tell me what you observed about me that might have told you that?
"Understanding why you seek sociopaths is the key. Believe it or not you will have another sociopath in your life because you seek the strength and their ability to completely understand you."
How is it that a sociopath could completely understand me when they do not have empathy? What is it that you "understand"? Thanks much. I don't know what you do for a living but you aqre very good at figuring people out.
Zan
"How is it that a sociopath could completely understand me when they do not have empathy?"
ReplyDeleteI truly hate generalizing, but let's do it for a moment: Sociopaths understand you so well because they overcompensate their lack of empathy and emotional affect with the ability to analyze and understand how other people's minds work. To say that they are very observative is an understatement.
" What is it that you "understand"?"
Your mind. That's the oversimplified answer. The more elaborate one would be: (let me preface this with: I'm not necessarily a sociopath) sociopaths pretty much view other people as things to understand and, at times, manipulate. So, I suppose, sociopaths look at people very clinically and often analyze their statements deeply. There is a really interesting thing that I realized a while back that should make this a bit easier to fathom: People aren't as different as they're made out to be. I'm not entirely sure of a better way of putting this, but it's a bit like sociopaths have people categorized into "types". They pretty much apply those types based on the data (what is said) and work from there to form more unique details about the person. Not only that, but they improve the "types" over time with more and more data. The types then help them to predict how a person will react to a certain stimulus. That's mostly where the manipulation comes into play: They get very good at predicting others and use their predictions to manipulate the behavior of others. (For example: Let's say you have a boss who is rather self-centered and has a huge ego. The sociopath would either 1) find the flaws in the boss and exploit them to cause the boss to fail in some manner that most likely benefits the sociopath or 2) flatter the boss's ego for benefits from the boss.)
Sociopaths are a bit like psychologists, in all honesty.
Oh, and I hope you weren't specifically wanting only UK to answer you. If so, pardon me.
You're on a grief support site for victims of sociopathy. You're on a site to strike back at sociopaths. You're on a site run by sociopaths conversing with them.
ReplyDeleteYou're not just healing. You're not just angry. You're not just supporting fellow victims. You're obsessed, which suggests that you're still suffering from a deep emotional wound.
Your emotional outbursts make it even more apparent. You hate the idea of being seen as a victim, so you lie to yourself and everyone around you, which is coincidentally the flaw at the heart of every true victim. If the cycle continues, you will not heal, only invite further pain, because you'll always have a blind spot that a sociopath can exploit. It may not always be in the same place, so to speak, but it'll be there, and they're very, very good at finding them.
Honesty with yourself is indeed the cure, and that includes realizing that you were a victim, and that although your ex was an ass, you must ultimately take responsibility for what happens in your own life. You have to be willing to face and accept the truth, no matter how painful it might be, so you can use it to make rational decisions about your future and what kind of life you want to live. Then you'll be equipped to handle encounters with sociopaths without getting burned quite so badly, if at all.
All a sociopath has to do to enslave you is find out what you refuse to accept, and screw with your head and heart so that you see a connection between what you refuse to believe and what he wants to hide from you. Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo, I'm sure, but I assure you it's very real. Think back to how you were manipulated, and I think you'll find that at the heart of every lie you should have caught, there was a link to something about yourself, or life in general, that you couldn't allow yourself to accept.
Also, I'm empathy challenged, but not a sociopath. I can't speak for them, but the way I figure people out without empathy is, ironically enough, by putting myself in their shoes.
ReplyDeleteWhat would I have to feel to behave the way they're behaving? What core beliefs must I hold in order for circumstances to make me feel that way? After a stretch of observation, the possibilities narrow considerably, and then I can begin deliberately experimentation to narrow the options down to something usable.
Once you know what people idolize and fear, you know them better than they know themselves, and depending on how blind their convictions are, you can make them do just about anything.
Couldn't have put it better peter and 2. Also remember that some sociopaths take advantage of a gift they were given. They ahave the power to predict people because they pay more attention to motivations behind word rather than what someone says in and of itself. If you can predict someones reactions to most things you can do and say things to get the reaction you want. he knew what you wanted to hear the most and what made you feel special and unique. What hints to drop to make you think he might change and you felt unique because he made you think that only you would be the one to make that change in him. In the same way a sociopath can manipulate you to make you better which is what I wanted to show you. Not every nice guy is nice. Sometimes its the one you thought was a asshole who is really the one whos helping you. Sociopaths aren't 'bad' they are just practical. If you are useful to a sociopath you could actually be treated better than most women in relationships with empathetic people. Believe it or not I have a healthy relationship with someone who prefers me being who I am. She gets to see everyone else get manipulated, but I treat her like a queen. She says I'm a 'terrible person' but that's what she loves about me. It would be foolish to throw away someone who truely accepts and loves how awful I am. I think this is the only way we can have a realtionship.
ReplyDelete2, Peter, Ukan: Damn good answers fellas. Most impressive.
ReplyDeletePeter, you got to the heart of it when you said, "so you lie to yourself and everyone around you, which is coincidentally the flaw at the heart of every true victim... Honesty with yourself is indeed the cure..." If they only knew the power of the dark side... I mean... ruthless self honesty. Being truthful with yourself really does set you free.
Awwww, darn, UK, I was going to ask you if you were available. If things go wrong with the queen let me know. I want to be treated just as you describe. I like a practical person. That is what I am used to. My father, I learned after many years is a sociopath too. I always knew something was not right with him. After my breakup, I learned what I had surrounded by my whole life.
ReplyDelete2said, Peter Pan and UK-
I cannot thank you enough for all that you have said. This is the information that I have been looking for. This is what brought me to this site. I have just simply wanted to understand how the sociopath mind works. I was left with so many questions after my breakup. Why would a sociopath stay with a woman for a matter of years and then disappear? UK, what would you say that the "queen" does or doesn't do that keeps you in the relationship? I thought sociopaths got bored and could not stay in relationships for long. I am going to print out your responses and save them because they have enlightened me in a way that "Lovefraud" or any of the othr sites could not. Obviously I was searching for more because I landed here.
Zan
Zan: "...what would you say that the "queen" does or doesn't do that keeps you in the relationship?"
ReplyDeleteI don't exactly have a queen, but the person that I'd say is most important in my life would be a close friend of mine.
The thing that keeps me in that relationship is that I hate and like it at the same time, combined with the fact that we're not constantly talking. Now, if I had to listen to her go on and on about her life day after day, then I would probably end the relationship out of sheer annoyance.
But, instead, she tells me about her life every now and then and I get to indulge in being myself, to a certain extent. That's really what I like about it: I'm able to tell her things that I don't normally say. She enjoys some of the things I do, and given that I'm in a minority, it's hard to find people like that.
I think that sociopaths tend to not have true relationships because they're stuck pretending they are what the other person wants to see. When they can take off a bit of their facade and be themselves, it makes the relationship much more pleasurable.
Ukan:" Believe it or not I have a healthy relationship with someone who prefers me being who I am. She gets to see everyone else get manipulated, but I treat her like a queen. She says I'm a 'terrible person' but that's what she loves about me. It would be foolish to throw away someone who truely accepts and loves how awful I am. I think this is the only way we can have a realtionship."
I think you're right. For me, the more accepting someone is of my true personality, the more I enjoy talking to them. Of course, that's not the only factor for me in a relationship.
Sounds like it takes some risk on your part to reveal who you really are. The other thing that occurs to me is that I thought sociopaths did not have an authentic self. I thought that inside there is emptiness and that you need the other to help define who you are. At least that is what I have read. Do you feel that you know your authentic self pretty well?
ReplyDeleteOh, another thing, what made you feel comfortable enough with your friend to know that you would be safe in being who you are?
Zan
She gives me a perspective I can never come up with myself. She won't get in my way, but she will drop subtle hints when I start going towards the edge. She shares the laughs I get when I play with peoples heads and do terrible things. Most of all I don't need a mask. She's my partner in crime. Kind of a bonny and clyde type thing. She defers to me out of respect and not from me manipulating her. In the same light I give her a perspective nobody even has, let alone reveals. I show her the darker side of the world. I provide for her, protect her, and give that special feeling sociopaths are so good at. She's not just my girl, she's my accomplice. She would bury someone for me if I asked her.
ReplyDeleteAwww group hug everyone.
ReplyDeleteZantastic,
ReplyDeleteFor more about that “authentic self” thing you asked about, see ME's posts here and here. In the second link, pay particular attention to Sarah’s comment below. I thought it was insightful. Bottom line, identities are for the most part social constructs for average people. Most people define themselves in relation/comparison to others in their immediate peer group and society at large. For those who are anti-social at heart, self definition is more of an inside job. One of the results of this is a certain flexibility when it comes to personality as well as a relative absence of ideological commitments, compared to the norm. What appears as emptiness to others is really just a lack of the accoutrements (static beliefs, moral values, the attendant emotions, etc) that comprise the normal self.
Zan: " Sounds like it takes some risk on your part to reveal who you really are."
ReplyDeleteThis person has known me for a long time and we've both changed in different ways, so I'd say we were honest about ourselves in the beginning. That honesty carried over, even when our personalities changed. I'd say that there are no intelligent sociopaths that reveal themselves without predicting how it will turn out, in all possible ways, as well. That's a bit of another thing altogether, though.
Zan:"The other thing that occurs to me is that I thought sociopaths did not have an authentic self."
I haven't accepted any of the labels such as sociopathy, psychopathy, or ASPD. I would say there are sociopaths that have no self-concept, though. For me, however, I'm a bit similar. I don't hold onto ideals such as religion or lack thereof. I'm an atheist, for example, but this fact doesn't really affect my life that much. That applies to all my "ideals", they don't really matter to me very much. In all honesty, if you were to ask me who I am, I'd probably have trouble answering. I don't hold any of my beliefs very close to me. (Ironically, I didn't really notice that until recently.) They're there, but they are not very important to me. I guess you could call that a lack of authentic self.
Zan: "I thought that inside there is emptiness and that you need the other to help define who you are."
I think that's not a universal thing about sociopaths, but it is a common thing, maybe? For me, I don't really care who I am. The only thing that seems to be prominent to my life is that I find other people's minds interesting to understand.
Zan:"Do you feel that you know your authentic self pretty well?"
That's where things have become foggy as of lately. I've noticed that I'm not passionate what-so-ever about any of the things I used to be passionate about. Most specifically, in the department of ideas/beliefs. I think I have beliefs, but they never come up unless the circumstance provokes them. For example, if I'm hearing about something stupid, I get irritated because I think stupid people aren't really worth acknowledgement. But, I don't really think about these things unless the circumstance comes into play.
Zan:"Oh, another thing, what made you feel comfortable enough with your friend to know that you would be safe in being who you are?"
She started telling me about how her personality was changing and I noticed that those changes were in the same ballpark as mine, so I felt comfortable discussing myself with her. It was a very subtle progression of our relationship, in all honesty.
To DB: This statement right here seems to be the thing that I found most enlightening about M.E.'s posts you referred to: "His life is largely about a narcissistic satisfaction of desires, not an expression of autonomous valuated personal projects." See, I think that is how my life works. I'm not out to care about who I am, I'm more focused on keeping myself occupied and entertained. My apathy towards my personality is probably why I don't really have a huge or rigid personality. How would you say it is for you?
Thanks again guys! For sociopaths, your pretty darn interesting and cool...lol. Now what can you tell me about taking down wallpaper? I have quite the little disaster going on in my kitchen...ugggg! Hope you all have a great day filled with lots of satisfying mind fucks...lol. Oh no...I think I've entered the "zone". I'm becoming one of you!
ReplyDeleteZan
Zan seems to enjoy sucking psychopath ego
ReplyDeleteIt appears that my warm fuzzies have annoyed Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteZan
Deux:
ReplyDeleteCompared to most of the people around me, I have almost zero emotional connection/attachment to the beliefs, commitments, ideals. What makes other’s inflexible is their commitment to their beliefs, their conscience, their family, their vocation, their country, their god. I am not a loyal employee or citizen or family member. I only play one on TV. I am my own highest value and I wouldn’t sacrifice anything of real importance to me for anyone else. And everyone is expendable, at least in theory. That has been the upshot of having a flexible sense of self for me.
I am going to contradict myself though. I do have one value. I must always be as honest with myself as I can be.
M.E. was probably just testing to see how well The Author could explain it. I'd bet good money that M.E. read the stuff himself and compared The Author's explanation to the original content. Of course, I'm answering this all assuming I have some grasp on how M.E. thinks.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that you're giving M.E. too much credit. But if it's true, he certainly accomplished that goal, along with the possibility that his blog is just one giant troll.
Daniel: "What makes other’s inflexible is their commitment to their beliefs, their conscience, their family, their vocation, their country, their god."
ReplyDeleteI like how you used the French for 2.
Anyway: I found this amusing. I've always, predominately as of late, found it amusing how people feel so attached to their ideas.
When I was into the whole "debating" thing, I had a strong conviction about being right. Eventually, after countless debates, I realized people are self-centered. (I'm sure you know what my rationale is for that, or you have some idea in the ballpark. If not, I'll elaborate.) I think my detachment to my ideals began root there.
Daniel: "... I do have one value. I must always be as honest with myself as I can be."
I'd say I have things similar to that. They're more or less functioning mechanisms for my life to run smoother. For example, since I am egotistical, I push myself to reanalyze what I have thought and see if it's really accurate. I also try to take in other people's thoughts about the things I think.
Ishtar: "Personally, I think that you're giving M.E. too much credit."
That's a very good point. I guess we can't fully know unless M.E. comes out and tells us; which M.E. most likely won't. It's not a very big point, though.