No more damage

I found the logic of this old comment to be interesting, especially "Empath's aren't some poor victim who are preyed upon for no reason, they are one of the main reasons sociopaths develop into what they are.":

Firstly, the example you gave is a little extreme, considering most sociopaths don't mess someone up to the point where they are committed to a mental institution. In fact, the average sociopath does almost nothing to distinguish him or herself from the general population, in order to blend in. Unless you have a low amount of self control or deep uncontrollable desire to see others hurt in the most dramatic ways, usually the sociopath does no more damage than those overly empathic people who jump from high to lows, fighting with their spouse regularly and creating a chaotic household. The only main difference is the sociopath adds a more elegant touch, creating the same amount of drama without people often realizing something is happening 

I do agree that rape does have a high emotional impact, and perhaps that was not the best example for me to use. But most emotional pain easily heals over physical pain, when we look at the average individual. Now don't get me wrong some people take emotional pain more severe than others, but when does responsibility fall on the victim? Eventually the victim needs to overcome their emotional pain, otherwise they become what? a drain on society? someone who can't work or uses up government resources because they couldn't handle a breakup? I'm not saying their emotions should not be taken into account, but there should be a limit on how much emotion is too much emotion, and when someone is simply letting themselves be the victim. 

"The only reason, I guess, that you don't acknowledge the permanence of emotional damage is because you haven't looked back at your victims." 
Not true, I've looked back on my "victims" but I don't see them as victims, they were companions that provided me with the stimulation I required at the time, did I possibly do things that upset them? Yes, did I lie and manipulate them so they would like me more, who doesn't lol. But if you look at the overall picture they always received more positive than negative during the relationship, and if they can't handle themselves after the relationship was terminated, that is not my problem, I did my part when it was expected of me. 

Lastly, " Just because people are naturally emotionally vulnerable, why does that give you the right to violate them, emotionally or physically?"

The same reason why it's right that we sacrifice animals for food, survival. Empaths might view sociopaths as pure evil but sociopaths are just people trying to survive (for the most part, some are just fucked up like regular people). If a sociopath doesn't learn to lie and manipulate from a young age they are instead isolated from society, people call them names, tell them they are messed up, pump them full of drugs. Empath's aren't some poor victim who are preyed upon for no reason, they are one of the main reasons sociopaths develop into what they are. Things like lying and manipulation are necessary to live a somewhat normal life, it's only natural that if you start at a young age, by adulthood you are pretty good at it. Besides I'm sure you remember being a child, if you did anything weird it negatively effected your entire childhood, now imagine telling friends, parents, or teachers the thoughts of a five year old sociopath, good luck living a decent life after that. All I'm saying is from a young age (for a sociopath) it is survival of the fittest, and that's a game that he or she won't lose.

I know a lot of people will take issue with whether emotional wounds heal easier than physical. As far as generalizations go, most are wrong and this one seems particularly suspect. But I do think it brings up an interesting issue. A lot of people ask me whether labeling people sociopaths makes them act out more because now they have a justification or an excuse for their bad behavior. But I think you could say similar things about "victims". Some people seek after the victim label, or if not quite that, they make the utmost of it once they feel they have it. I've been reading Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he advocates that people find meaning and purpose in their unavoidable suffering, quoting Nietzsche for what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He also says that suffering is like a gas -- it expands to fill up whatever container it happens to be in. So even a little suffering can seem unbearable to some in the right circumstances. I understand all of that.

But I also know that the way we think of an experience puts a distinct spin on it. For instance, I have a friend who injured one of his joints in a work related accident a couple of years ago. He complains about the pain all of the time. I have another friend who similarly injured his joints several years ago engaging in athletics. He only sometimes mentions it. It could be that the injury and pain level are vastly different between these two. But I can't help wondering whether the distinction is more that one of them feels like a victim, always acted upon instead of acting, while the other considers his injury almost a badge of honor -- that he is active and athletic enough to have these sorts of injuries.

Is it possible that victims of sociopaths could redirect their thinking to consider their injuries a badge of honor? That only people who take risks in life and trust and love to the extent that they do would even sustain such an injury? See also "The Agency Moment".