It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
Originally posted by unityemissions
A lack of conscience is not difficult to measure by those who know what to look for. Conscience is the ability to use insight for building an internal ethical code of right conduct as a human being. People who lack insight don't develop a moral compass. These are the APD, but it's a spectrum. The fact that the DSM now seems to deny this spectrum is quite telling of who's in control of these organizations. We're being demoralized into thinking right is wrong, and wrong is right.
"Insight" is a vague term to use, particularly in context with "conscience". It's as vague as the term "empathy". I'm afraid that I see people behave with a lack of empathy, and in a self-serving manner, every day. I agree with the current DSM definition and diagnosis for APD. A clinician is also a person, and can be influenced by their own agenda, whether they know it or not. It's better to stick with what can actually be measured.
Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
I see that you disagree, which is fair enough. I personally have a discomfort with what I am reading as a very strong definition of "right" and "wrong", on your behalf. Those are contextual terms, to me.
Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
Originally posted by unityemissions
People are animals, but human beings are social creatures. Not all people are human being, imo. It's not merely society which curbs animalistic behavior, for those without the ability to develop a conscience will remain animalistic with intent regardless of being surrounded by societal norms/ethics.
I am not sure what you mean by not all people are human beings! I assume you are using the term "human being" as a metaphor for the positive, as opposed to the metaphor "animal" for the negative. If that is the case, I personally don't think that humans are less "evil" than animals. We are simply more intelligent, and technologically savvy, which gives us the capacity for more "good" and "evil".
Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
In this sense, I am terming "good" as behaviour which benefits the self and other humans, and "evil", as behaviour that harms the self and others, although this is also contextual, and open for debate.
Originally posted by unityemissions
You've developed a sociopathic understanding, it seems. Insight is not vague, and empathy certainly isn't. This is what I was talking about. People who attempt to justify their evil by down-playing the terms and making a wrong into a right. It definitely stems from a sick, twisted mindset.
I do agree with you that the people are apathetic on the whole. The elite's psychopathic values have become our own, to such an extent that we no longer think it possible to discern right from wrong. It's truly a sad state for humanity.
That's why I said an ethical right, rather than suggesting moral absolutes. Of course what is best should take the context into consideration.
It's really easy, actually. Human beings are beings of the homo sapien species which have evolved the ability to empathize and develop a conscience. People who are unable to do this are not human beings. Being able to develop a conscience is certainly a positive or progressive attribute of our species. As for our species being more or less evil than other species, this is pretty much subjective. I'm definitely not trying to go there.
Is it contextual? Is it not apparent what is harm and what isn't? I have a hard time understanding how someone could not understand harm from no-harm.
Originally posted by unityemissions
I'll just note that I find it incredibly hilarious that you think a reference to "the elite" is a sign of paranoia.
Paranoia is irrational fear. Being concerned with powerful and influential sects of humanity is entirely sane, and not irrational.
Cheers.
Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by OmegaLogos
Sociopathy is mostly environmental, and secondary psychopathy is probably a somewhat equal mix of genetics propensity, and environmental circumstances, but primary psychopathy is entirely genetic and 100% incapable of reform via growing a conscience.
You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...
Originally posted by passingthought
Many are puzzled by how someone can commit acts without remorse or consequence, to the self.
Here's the link to a show I watched on the Discovery channel that offers an explanation:
investigation.discovery.com...
Some theorize it's due to a prior injury to the frontal lobe of the brain. Which causes the individual to act impulsively, and the person does not have control of their rationale to dismiss actions by others which do not affect a normal person.
Many disregard this type of study, though, because they fear defense lawyers will argue it in court to have the case waived, or penalties significantly lowered.
Originally posted by StealthyKat
You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...
[edit on 15-7-2010 by StealthyKat]
Exactly. Case in point....Jeffrey Dahmer. He is one who had a predisposition to evil. His parents had some marital problems, but they were good parents and showed him love etc. They didn't let him run wild, and tried to instill morals in him. Yet, as a young child he was going into the woods to torture and kill animals. It is really interesting because if you were to meet him, you would never guess he did the gruesome crimes he did....he was articulate and very intelligent, polite, soft spoken....you would think he was harmless. Very scary. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, you have Charles Manson....he is an example of one who is a product of his environment. His mother was a prostitute who called him "no name"....she would turn tricks while he was in the room at age 5....he was exposed to the dark side since the day he was born, and neglected. So he BECAME evil.....and by forming the group who idolized him, he became everything he never was as a child....important and adored by his followers. To me, there is one "man" who defines evil.....his name was Albert Fish...he was sinister and the most evil I have ever heard of.
Originally posted by passingthought
Originally posted by StealthyKat
You are correct. Many serial killers have had head injuries as children affecting this area of the brain. This is why in the old days they would perform lobotomies on mental patients, because the frontal lobe is so important to behavior, and they were trying to alter the patient's behavior by removing it....which ultimatley turned the patient into a zombie...
[edit on 15-7-2010 by StealthyKat]
They still do this with Chemicals. What many call the Psychotropic Cocktail. These medicines can suppress the areas that they try to control to stop the behaviors that are inacceptable. But, there again as you said, the patient often becomes a zombie.
As you stated in your other post, I also believe some are predisposed to being bad/evil. Just because material is available in the media, doesn't mean one should be grossly attracted to it, but some are. You see them wearing memorabilia they purchase via the Inet: Skull and Bones, Death, Anarchy, things like that. They seem to aspire to the Dark side of life.
Originally posted by Snow.In.Summer
reply to post by NorEaster
I'd be interested to know if your wife's younger brother has been diagnosed by a mental health professional? Because the symptoms you describe can be markers of many psychological disorders ...
Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm actually in a pretty good position to make an informed opinion