What is everybody’s problem lately? You should all put on antlers and just have a go at ramming each other in the antlers. Work out your aggression the old fashioned way.
Is this my fault because I called iambiguous a name in jest?
This is merely your word against mine. I told you that you have a lot to prove and you responded by saying that you don’t. That’s a pretty bad response. It’s bad because it won’t get us anywhere. The bigger problem is that it should be obvious that you have a lot to prove given that pretty much everyone is unconvinced by what you’re saying. Remember, if someone isn’t convinced that you’re right, then you have things to prove. Recall that the reason you’re on this forum is to convince OTHERS that you’re right. You’re not here to convince YOURSELF. And if you’re here to convince yourself, you’re at the wrong party and you should be kicked out. Immediately.
How did you go from “John is a man who thinks that life is good even though he knows there is a kitten starving to death somewhere” to “John is a sociopath”? Where is the logical connection? That’s why I insist on syllogisms. Syllogisms, when well written, make logical connections obvious. They not only help others understand your logic but also help you understand your own logic (and thus fix any mistakes contained within it.)
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that the universe punishes psychopaths and sociopaths more than empaths. Is that correct? If you’re an empath, you may suffer in the present, and perhaps also in the future, but the total amount of suffering will be less than that of a psychopath and a sociopath who may have moments of great pleasure in the present but who will live in total hell in the future.
Then why should I be bothered if I’m a psychopath? If the consequences are the same, then I don’t mind being a psychopath. Or maybe the consequences aren’t the same, it’s just the difference isn’t in the amount of suffering?
How do you mean “shoot”? You mean literally “shoot”? “Shoot” as in “shoot with a gun”?
Perhaps you should answer that question BEFORE coming to a forum to preach.
Are you a sociopath looking for justification and validation?
Personally it might be better to be a sociopath, if you can live with loneliness.
For society as a whole empaths are better, as without them you cannot work together for the greater good.
If there were only sociopaths society would breakdown.
I do not live in the USA.
I’m older than you probably.
JC is one of the US’s most respected Presidents in the world at large, but not in the US.
His domestic speeches did not travel.
Nah, I’m just someone who’s interested in Ecmandu’s rationale. Note that he accused pretty much everyone of being sociopaths. As far as he’s concerned, I am a sociopath, you’re a sociopath, Mr. R is a sociopath, everyone on this board is a sociopath. And he thinks we are all sociopaths because we don’t suffer whenever there’s some other living being in the universe suffering. If you say it’s a good day today even though there’s a kitten somewhere in the world suffering, you are a sociopath. That’s his rationale. Obviously, he’s stretching the definition from “taking pleasure in inflicting pain to others when it is irrational to do so” to “not feeling pain whenever someone else is feeling pain”. But I let it slide. I said, let him use the word the way he’s using it. But in exchange, he should explain why it’s a bad thing to carry his label. Why is it a bad thing for someone to “not feel pain when someone else is feeling pain”? Why should I be bothered if I fit his definition of the word “sociopath”?
So you too are justifying sociopathy. It’s a good thing for an individual but it’s a bad thing for a community of people.
When you go outside, do you notice a bird singing, clasp your hands over your ears, and be like… “Dude… that was thee loudest noise ever heard in all eternity”?
You still think there’s heaven that lots of people go to.
What you haven’t figured out is that everyone has their own individual heaven, like an individual thumbprint. Because of that ignorance on your part, you’re not trying to think outside all the boxes.