If you were a psychopath...

[TimeTraveler]

Adolf Hitler was kind to dogs and children, and friends who were nice to him.

Such a personality is not devoid of empathy but rather afraid of the power of it, with a desperate need to be protected from the weak and needy for fear that the very pity of them would overhwelm, and appropriately unforgiving of those who drain the very life with their needlessly pathetic reliance upon it.

Adolf Hitler himself may not have been Psycho, I don't know why people always bring up Adolf Hitler everytime crime, or psychopaths, or anything of that sort is mentioned.

Hitler was religious. Nazism is a religion. World war 2 is not the first time there was a war of that sort, it's all throughout human history. The problem was, if you harm yourself it's irrational.

Can you say that Hitler was rational? It was humans killing humans. It was the war of man against man, just as Hobbes described. The fact that man was fully focused on killing himself does not change the fact that man was killing himself, sure Hitler was nice to some animals, and maybe he was a vegetarian, and maybe he was not a sociopath or psychopath, but certainly the people who made the decisions to kill millions of people, the people who actually were doing that, some of them had to be psychopaths.

So if you want to bring Hitler into this, maybe because you are a Nazi and agree with his religious beliefs, reveal to us how these beliefs could have been positive. Otherwise you are just attempting to throw Hitler into the conversation to make it more complicated. You have to tell us, how the Holocaust improved Germany, humanity, etc.

 

[MetaKron]

It takes a certain amount of psychopathy to function in society at all. Something has to blunt the sensitivity that some people can develop, that aversion to giving offense that gets so ridiculously out of control that one's politeness becomes offensive.

 

[TimeTraveler]

It takes a certain amount of psychopathy to function in society at all. Something has to blunt the sensitivity that some people can develop, that aversion to giving offense that gets so ridiculously out of control that one's politeness becomes offensive.

Oh I disagree. I've always been able to function.
It's easy to not care what people think, at least for some people, and it has nothing to do with being psycho or sociopath. It's simple, why give a damn what people think? They either like you or they don't and it's impossible to be liked by everyone.

Not giving a fuck about what some stranger on the streets is thinking about, is not the same as being a sociopath. Yeah, in some lifestyles being a sociopath is a plus, if you are in the business world it's a definate plus, because that ruthlessness can pay off in cash. But in other parts of your life it can harm you, it's more difficult to maintain a family, or a community, it's difficult to experience love.

The average person who is not a psychopath can become numb, they might feel less, they might not act as loving, but if situations were right, they'd still have a conscience, still have enough empathy to help a friend.

 

[Sauna]

Adolf Hitler himself may not have been Psycho, I don't know why people always bring up Adolf Hitler everytime crime, or psychopaths, or anything of that sort is mentioned.

Here then is the opportunity to repair the ignorance.

"Neurotic psychopath" was the official diagnosis as a matter of historical fact:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/background.htm

 

[Bowser]

Last things first:

Bowser,

Define morality.
I wouldn't say that the psychopath has no morality. The issue is one of empathy. Due to lack of empathy, the psychopath has constructed a moral structure which differs from the norm to varying degrees. Empathy is a vital teaching and learning tool in the human animal.

To know others as you know yourself. What you do with that knowledge defines your morality. Empathy is the ability to understand others. It does not define morality.

 

[heliocentric]

That's why there are two terms for this type of condition. Sociopathy and psychopathy.
Neither are exact categorizations, of course, but psychopathy is connected more with violence and cruelty than sociopathy.

I know the two distinct differences, i dont believe i was getting them mixed up unless i made myself unclear.

Why is psychopathic about hunting? There is more to hunting than hurting animals. In fact, most hunters do their best to not hurt the animals. To kill them quick. Quick kills taste better. Less stress hormones in the meat.
Cruelty to animals, however, is a warning sign.

My mistake, i should have specified 'hunting for sport'
hunting for survival doesnt make one a psychopath of course, hunting for the sheer pleasure and fun of stalking an animal and killing it does.
If we swap 'deer' with 'human' then the hunter would be labeled as a psychopath without hesitation.
In fact i see little difference between the thrill a serial killer derives from stalking and ultimately killing his prey than a hunter does killing his game.
Infact the very term 'game' tells us more about the true dynamics of the situation than was probaly originally intended.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Here then is the opportunity to repair the ignorance.

"Neurotic psychopath" was the official diagnosis as a matter of historical fact:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/background.htm

Ok so maybe he was. Whats your point? I never knew the man, so if your reasoning is to give me a history lesson, what exactly are you trying to prove?

 

[heliocentric]

Sauna has no opinions of his own.

 

[Bowser]

I know the two distinct differences, i dont believe i was getting them mixed up unless i made myself unclear.




My mistake, i should have specified 'hunting for sport'
hunting for survival doesnt make one a psychopath of course, hunting for the sheer pleasure and fun of stalking an animal and killing it does.
If we swap 'deer' with 'human' then the hunter would be labeled as a psychopath without hesitation.
In fact i see little difference between the thrill a serial killer derives from stalking and ultimately killing his prey than a hunter does killing his game.
Infact the very term 'game' tells us more about the true dynamics of the situation than was probaly originally intended.

Never hunted but often fished. It is the thrill of the catch. So much so that you begin throwing the fish back. I amssume that it is much the same with those who hunt larger creatures.

 

[heliocentric]

I used to fish too, always felt terrible when i killed them though so i stopped altogether. I cant imagine how bad id feel killing a deer, such a thoroughly beautiful animal too.
Prehaps some hunters do feel a pang of guilt after a kill but ignore their conscience in favour of their societal norms (their father hunts, its their local tradition, etc etc)
And then prehaps others feel not the slightest hint of remorse atall, its probably the latter that are to be equated with the classic 'psychopath'.
The problem being without knowing the true inner feelings of the hunter, all we really have to go by is their actions - as with anything else in life.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Sauna has no opinions of his own.

Exactly, Sauna is a fake person.

 

[TimeTraveler]

I used to fish too, always felt terrible when i killed them though so i stopped altogether. I cant imagine how bad id feel killing a deer, such a thoroughly beautiful animal too.
Prehaps some hunters do feel a pang of guilt after a kill but ignore their conscience in favour of their societal norms (their father hunts, its their local tradition, etc etc)
And then prehaps others feel not the slightest hint of remorse atall, its probably the latter that are to be equated with the classic 'psychopath'.
The problem being without knowing the true inner feelings of the hunter, all we really have to go by is their actions - as with anything else in life.

People who fish, it's not the same as killing a deer.

You have to understand, a lot of people kill and hunt because their religion says it's okay. God says man should dominate the earth and some take it literally.

So I understand how religious people can behave like psychopaths, I was raised catholic, and yes if you are a true believer and young enough you are as capable as a psychopath. I remember how much influence religion can have on a person, it's not that religion is bad, and it's not like people don't feel guilt later on, they do. When they are old enough to understand what they were doing, or can look at what they did from a clearer perspective, they'll pray to God for forgiveness, they'll feel wrong, and work to make up for their sins.

Now, on the other hand, there are some people who just enjoy killing stuff for the sake of killing. I'm not talking about curious kids who never killed before and kill something, I'm not talking about adults who are religiously doing it out of some ritual or sacrifice, I'm talking about people who kill for the sheer enjoyment of causing pain to and murderering something. Some people hunt for sport literally because they enjoy killing stuff. Not because it's a family tradition, or ritual, or part of a religion or culture, but because they just want to kill stuff to show people they can.

Do you see the difference?

The amount of guilt I feel is related to how aware whatever it is that I'd be killing. Fish are a lot less aware than deer, fish are not mammals. Mice, Monkeys, Dolphins, Deer, and things like this, which you KNOW are aware, and fully conscious, it should feel most wrong to kill them.

I'm not saying fishing is enjoyable, it's not, but you can catch hundreds or thousands of fish in a big net and they die naturally due to the air, it's almost painless, and you know fish are a lot less aware. I'm not saying it won't feel bad to kill 100 fish, but if you do it in the least painful way, and you do it all at once, and for food, it's at least rational. It's not like killing them just to do it.

 

[Bowser]

"The problem being without knowing the true inner feelings of the hunter, all we have to go by is their actions as with anything else in life."

It is the thrill of the hunt and catch. I have no doubt. There is an emotional reward. But also I have been told that they enjoy the meat--I might toss back a trout, but never salmon.

 

[heliocentric]

Some people hunt for sport literally because they enjoy killing stuff. Not because it's a family tradition, or ritual, or part of a religion or culture, but because they just want to kill stuff to show people they can.

Do you see the difference?

Yes i believe i outlined the difference myself in the post you just quoted by me, grrrr read my threads properly! *shakes fist
Just kidding..

 

[TimeTraveler]

Yes i believe i outlined the difference myself in the post you just quoted by me, grrrr read my threads properly! *shakes fist
Just kidding..

It must be your writing style.

 

[invert_nexus]

Sauna,

"Neurotic psychopath" was the official diagnosis as a matter of historical fact:

Yeah. And we can trust the allies to be completely objective in their psychological evaluation of der fuhrer. A psychological evaluation which was not done first hand, by the way, but based upon secondary sources.

Real scientific...


Heliocentric,

I know the two distinct differences, i dont believe i was getting them mixed up unless i made myself unclear.

You stated that you objected to the term psychopath only applying to those who harm others rather than being strictly about empathic deficiencies. This is one of the dividing lines between sociopathy and psychopathy.

My mistake, i should have specified 'hunting for sport'

As Bowser has already said, hunting for sport is not about killing the animal, but rather about the hunt. There are a lot of aspects of hunting that is quite exhilarating. In fact, many hunters are satisfied with hunting and not even catching their prey.
Yes, getting the prey is a symbol for a successful hunt, but is not the source of pleasure.

Prehaps some hunters do feel a pang of guilt after a kill but ignore their conscience in favour of their societal norms (their father hunts, its their local tradition, etc etc)
And then prehaps others feel not the slightest hint of remorse atall, its probably the latter that are to be equated with the classic 'psychopath'.

Why should you feel remorse? It's not psychopathic to not tear up when you think of that buck you killed and is now in your freezer.
Empathy has a place. It can get out of hand though. Especially when people are separated from the practical uses of empathy and swamped in an artificial world such as the one we live in.

The problem being without knowing the true inner feelings of the hunter, all we really have to go by is their actions - as with anything else in life.

I'd say the problem is in your judgment and your overactive empathy.


TimeTraveler,

Exactly, Sauna is a fake person.

Perhaps ironically, many sociopaths describe themselves as fake people. It's a consequence of living behind that mask in order to fit in. Behind the mask there is nothing. A cold void.

This is the concept of the Minus Man.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Sauna,


Why should you feel remorse? It's not psychopathic to not tear up when you think of that buck you killed and is now in your freezer.
Empathy has a place. It can get out of hand though. Especially when people are separated from the practical uses of empathy and swamped in an artificial world such as the one we live in.



I'd say the problem is in your judgment and your overactive empathy.


TimeTraveler,



Perhaps ironically, many sociopaths describe themselves as fake people. It's a consequence of living behind that mask in order to fit in. Behind the mask there is nothing. A cold void.

This is the concept of the Minus Man.

That's just it. If you kill for food, yes you might feel empathy, but you needed food. It's not the same as killing just for sport. Anyone can kill if they are hungry and their freezer is empty. Most people who don't enjoy killing set traps, the animal kills itself by walking into the trap. The people who ENJOY the hunt, and who like to chase an animal down and kill it, theres a difference. I'd feel empathy.

 

[heliocentric]

Sauna,


As Bowser has already said, hunting for sport is not about killing the animal, but rather about the hunt. There are a lot of aspects of hunting that is quite exhilarating. In fact, many hunters are satisfied with hunting and not even catching their prey.
Yes, getting the prey is a symbol for a successful hunt, but is not the source of pleasure.

I find that somewhat hard to believe, if one simply wanted to enjoy the outdoors, which is what you seem to be saying, i can think of a huge number of activities that dont involve killing. Surely the kill must exist as an essential part of the 'pursuit' otherwise it wouldnt be part of the equation atall.
If someone is interested in wildlife, then id suggest it would be much more beneficial and rewarding all round to simply watch animals in their natural habitat with binoculars,
I really struggle to see any essential differences between the thrill of killing an animal and the thrill of killing a human. I think youre putting human life up on a pedastal if you believe the primal motivations behind the killing of animals or humans are essentially different.

Why should you feel remorse? It's not psychopathic to not tear up when you think of that buck you killed and is now in your freezer.

Because youve just slaughtered a beautiful animal in its natural habitat, i mean wow, i think for most people that would elicit some sort of empathatic repsonse.
Again, the only difference between you and the serial killer is the serial killer himself judges what is and isnt fair game (everything) rather than having it dictated to him by societal norms.

Empathy has a place. It can get out of hand though. Especially when people are separated from the practical uses of empathy and swamped in an artificial world such as the one we live in.

Well we live in an age where social evolution has vastly overtaken genetic evolution, for better or worse we now question what is right or wrong on a much more fundamental level (as this forum section is testiment to) rather than simply adhering to our primal genetic predispositions.

I'd say the problem is in your judgment and your overactive empathy.

Thats a very subjective judgement to make, i could just as easily charge you with having a distinct deficit in empathy.
I think the real problem here as id see it is that this topic is getting very close to home, since you seem familiar with big game hunting.
Although it doesnt have to be a problem, the whole point of this forum section as i see it is that we can inspect and question our value systems and each others. The closer the home it gets, potentially the more there is to learn.

 

[invert_nexus]

I find that somewhat hard to believe, if one simply wanted to enjoy the outdoors, which is what you seem to be saying, i can think of a huge number of activities that dont involve killing. Surely the kill must exist as an essential part of the 'pursuit' otherwise it wouldnt be part of the equation atall.

There are skills involved in hunting. Exercising your skills, and being good at them, can be a pleasurable experience.

There is no skill in taking a nature hike.

But, regardless, the issue is the nature of the kill.
Animal cruelty is a warning sign for various personality disorders.
Hunting != Animal Cruelty.


And. Yes. A murderer can also take pleasure in the hunt, but as long as he doesn't kill his victim or harm him, then there is no true problem involved.

I know people who take pleasure in sneaking up behind people and scaring them.

So?

I really struggle to see any essential differences between the thrill of killing an animal and the thrill of killing a human. I think youre putting human life up on a pedastal if you believe the primal motivations behind the killing of animals or humans are essentially different.

Then perhaps you are lacking in human empathy for you to fail to perceive a difference in murdering a human and hunting an animal.

Again, the only difference between you and the serial killer is the serial killer himself judges what is and isnt fair game (everything) rather than having it dictated to him by societal norms.

A serial killer kills humans.

A serial killer also is not necessarily a psychopath.

Well we live in an age where social evolution has vastly overtaken genetic evolution, for better or worse we now question what is right or wrong on a much more fundamental level (as this forum section is testiment to) rather than simply adhering to our primal genetic predispositions.

Actually, I was speaking of artificial in terms of my earlier statements and quotes about custom and law. Many of our laws are ridiculously abstract and meaningless in empathic terms.

I think the real problem here as id see it is that this topic is getting very close to home, since you seem familiar with big game hunting.

Actually, I haven't hunted in years. I used to hunt rabbits when I was a child and hunted elk a time or two when I needed food. Other than that, I'm not really into it.

Although it doesnt have to be a problem, the whole point of this forum section as i see it is that we can inspect and question our value systems and each others. The closer the home it gets, potentially the more there is to learn.

Hunting, per se, isn't a problem at all. There is the possibility for people to take advantage of hunting in order to satisfy cruel desires, but this is because of something in the person, not the act of hunting itself.

There is an issue of responsibility involved here. Responsibility lies on the personal level, not the general level which you'd try to equate it with when you speak of hunting.

 

[TimeTraveler]

But, regardless, the issue is the nature of the kill.
Animal cruelty is a warning sign for various personality disorders.
Hunting != Animal Cruelty.

It depends on which animal you hunt, and how you hunt it.

Then perhaps you are lacking in human empathy for you to fail to perceive a difference in murdering a human and hunting an animal.

Humans are animals. I take it you are the religious hunter, as I said before. Religion can make it seem like one type of animal life is greater than another. It's not like that. In reality, when you hunt, it's the difference between the awareness of the animal that makes one animal different from another, not the fact that it's alive. So hunting mammals, when you know they are aware, feel pain and are afraid to die, is no different than hunting humans. How is it different? Humans are talking monkeys.


A serial killer kills humans.

A serial killer also is not necessarily a psychopath.

How can anyone be a serial killer and not be a psychopath? Even if you are religious, it's difficult to kill. If you kill for a religious ritual, as part of an animal sacrifice, it's still not going to be easy or feel good, yes you can do it, but it's going to feel really bad. Do you understand? The animal feels pain and all pain is equal. It's suffering, it's not like your suffering is worth more than say, a dog or cats, suffering is suffering.

Actually, I was speaking of artificial in terms of my earlier statements and quotes about custom and law. Many of our laws are ridiculously abstract and meaningless in empathic terms.

You have the customs, and the laws, and religion, but you lack the instinct. You are right, sometimes it's neccesary to hunt, and people do follow customs over instincts and will kill because the Bible and Tradition says it's okay. But it will feel just as bad to a person with that instinct no matter how the customs are, if you don't like killing stuff, you'll never like it.

Actually, I haven't hunted in years. I used to hunt rabbits when I was a child and hunted elk a time or two when I needed food. Other than that, I'm not really into it.

But you did not hunt for fun, you hunted for food. Your actions were rational. It's not the same as torturing an animal just to watch it suffer. People kill, everyone has killed, but it's a matter of, why. Most people do not kill for fun.

Hunting, per se, isn't a problem at all. There is the possibility for people to take advantage of hunting in order to satisfy cruel desires, but this is because of something in the person, not the act of hunting itself.

People who are observers have no way of knowing the difference between sport hunters and serial killers because the actions are so similar. Unless you can read the persons mind or you know them very well, you are not going to be able to figure out why they do what they do.

There is an issue of responsibility involved here. Responsibility lies on the personal level, not the general level which you'd try to equate it with when you speak of hunting.

It's not that simple. What he is saying is that, there are rational reasons to hunt and emotional reasons. When people follow a culture, or a religion, or customs, they do so for rational reasons, and to be rational is morally right even if we don't understand your rational or reasoning.

Now, on the other hand, killing for emotional reasons, because it feels good. That's different.
In the Bible there were stories, where God would tell someone to kill, I forget who it was, was it moses?
Anyway God told him to kill his son. Do you realize that religion has a lot of impact on people? Killing is wrong morally for most people because God or their Religion says it's wrong. Few people instinctively feel why it's wrong. Most people are afraid of going to hell, or afraid of damaging their soul.

In fact, thats the main reason people don't kill, they don't want to damage/scar their soul, because the actions they do in life, they KNOW will follow them in death. People believe in karma, they believe that reincarnation can bring them back much much worse because of their actions in this life. They KNOW that if they create too much misery here and now, that when they come back, they'll come back into the world they contributed to creating.

There are many religious reasons not to commit these acts. If there is a heaven and hell, if there is reincarnation, what you do here to others you are doing to yourself. If you kill an animal you could be killing yourself, or family members, if you destroy the earths environment you could be fucking it up for yourself when you reincarnate. You can have heaven or hell, but it depends on how you live, and you will not escape it in death.

These are some of the reasons why people know right from wrong. They are rational moreso than instinctive.