Psychopathy requires more psychopathy to stop psychopathy =

Psychopathy requires more psychopathy to stop psychopathy = more psychopathy!

e.g.

You need an army of psychopaths to stop other armies of such.

There are no armies to stop psychopathy in banking and business.

Boys become men by becoming more psychopathic [‘hard’].

The effort to stop psychopathy, creates more of the same in crime and punishment.
e.g. if you made hard laws ordering death on given criminal types, that effort would itself create more psychopaths.

Psychopathy however is not a plateaux reached, it is more like a scale much and varied with some daredevil [dangerous] type benefits. Should it be routed out of society so we can live in peace, and not have crazed politicians and bankers etc?

Surely we should at least not be brought up to think winning is everything regardless of what it takes to achieve that, and to fight and be tough [esp, if working class], or to be ‘educated’ to control [high end education] the sheep/masses and punish the week. What would become of the world without psychopaths!

_

Stop calling everybody who does something you don’t like a ‘psychopath’, and the issue will become a lot more clear to you.

ok i’ll rephrase it; ‘extremes require further extremes to reduce extremes ~ which causes more extremes’…

what occurs when humans go to extremes? A lot of the time its destructive or selfish, therefore the generality is majoritively true, or in other words possibly as true as anything else we care to state.

= means the same thing uses different terms. ‘psychopath’ is a label describing an approximate scale of people who have gone to or taken things to extremes. Thus the original statement is majoritively true, ~ I would never expect anything concerning the human condition to be anything greater than majoritively true. Statements like this are acceptible in those terms, or otherwise we would end up with no satisfactory descriptions of anything we humans are about. It is better to have some ideas that can at least function as tools to a greater understanding of said human condition, imho.

_

Sometimes. But sometimes extremes can be good. There’s nothing inherently bad about what you describe above, unlike with ‘psychopath’. SO yeah, sometimes it takes violence to stop violent, but some of the violence involved can be heroic instead of despicable, we don’t have to paint it all with the same brush.

So like for example, when you say you need an army of psychos to stop an army of psychos, the word ‘psycho’ does no work but to color the situation. You need an army to stop an army, that’s all. Not so bad.

Either way you define it you’re correct in that those with opposing desires must be as aggressive as necessary to win the conflict. The problem is that not all desires are equal. To state it simply, those who are base, generally wish to continue living basely often at the expense of those who don’t wish to live that way. If the people claiming not to be base are losing the conflict because of a lack of ruthlessness and aggression, then I would argue that they are actual base as well; people who have quality may not be those to enjoy ruthlessness, but they must understand the necessity of ruthlessness as one of many prerequisites to having the necessary intelligence to qualify them as having quality.

Obviously those of quality also have more advanced forms of fighting in whatever type of conflict they’re in. The base only make the gains they have by sheer overwhelming numbers. So in a sense the fight between the base and those of quality is anything but equitable. I believe most people, whoever they may be, would actual agree, after all, it’s a common notion to respect the one with the abilities to win a fight when out numbered.

Let’s say the above statement was to be considered advice, would you teach people to think in that way?

I don’t think a statement can get anymore hypothetical. So hypothetically it would be reduced, at an extremely slow pace, to the equivalent of a barren rock.

Uccisore

Perhaps, but any violence will create a reaction, people have a way of assuming they are right, and so any opposing faction will retaliate.

If we didn’t have armies to begin with then we’d need no ‘good guys’ continuing and exasperating the situation.

Stuartp523
I’d say the base/not base paradigm is a dualistic one i.e. the very thing by which conflict arises. This is mostly a causal argument.

Yup, i’d have compulsory philosophy classes at all levels of schooling. Eventually set up the system [given that I am dictator by now] such that trading deals were regulated, hence human emotions irrelevant.

b

Not always. Sometimes they don’t retaliate and sometimes the retaliation doesn’t amount to anything significant.

Presumably there was a time before we had armies- that’s a real historical period. Would you assert that life was peaceful then?

Any qualitative judgment can be considered a judgment on an already existing conflict, not that which unnessesarily creates conflict.

It’s not the first time that I’ve been told that comparing people’s qualities have no place in a casual discussion, but my base/not base dichotomy can apply to animals as well. Let’s say that all animals lower than mammals are base. Mammals who must fight non-mammals do not have to equate themselves to them in any way, in order to effectively oppose them.

Isn’t emotion the only thing keeping humanitarianism together?

Indeed not, no, I cant imagine any time in history was peaceful, prior to armies there were still warring tribes families etc.

I am just wondering if theoretically a ‘thought revolution’ may be the only way to change the human condition socially.

Hmm, interesting point! Here would be removing as many rewards for psychopathic behaviour as possible, theoretically the emotions would still be very much there, but honed and trained in a better way.

_

The new ilp member Commentary wrote much on the subject of eliminating rewards for psychopathic behavior. His ideas are considered to be entirely political incorrect, which is ironic being that he’s one of the few people who are sympathetic towards humanitarianism I’ve encountered who fearlessly addresses one of the major causal factors for violence.

Such is what comes from trying to use fire to fight fire.

It seems wiser to me to simply increase the amount of water and steel rather than attempt to starve out the fire.

The fire has to be controlled 'tis all.