Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top 5 Misconceptions About People Struggling Economically Today

page: 10
102
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jana12
 


although i do understand what you mean, the issue i have with this type of thinking is it sounds like an opportunity to make up crap about people and then have them axed on the pretext that their sociopaths. and the problem with that is, the definition of what a sociopath is changes, depending on who is doing the looking.

for example, i find advocating slavery or capital punishment of any kind, to be wrong. however, some would suggest that there are people who deserve, slavery or capital punishment of various kinds because of __________ fill in the blank. the following are reasons why i feel this is wrong:

1) some reasons given are generational. for example, generational curses, suggesting that people 40, 80 or even hundreds or thousands of years later, should pay with their lives or livelihoods because of what someone else in their ancestoral and/or gender-specific line, did. (i.e., eve sinned in the garden, therefore women should shut up in church or synagogue or mosque or politics. white man enslaved black man so now it's white man's turn to be enslaved (ignoring that black man has enslaved black man as well but ya can't enslave yourself..kinda silly ya know? how about we just toss out that whole revenge thing and get over it?).

2) money=corruption and therefore, you should be disenfranchised of what you have. although i admit that being wealthy can sometimes involve compromising your morals, what constitutes wealth is drastically different from society to society. for example, a woman with a fine dirt floor with special features such as a fresh water well, in some places in africa, would be considered rich in their community, and the envy of the other townspeople. can't very well steal a dirt floor to make up for it, but you can go in there and tear it up so now neither of you have a nice dirt floor... you get the idea i hope!). certainly wouldn't justify killing her because her dirt floor is nice and definitely not an indication that she compromised her morals to have it unless it can be proven she sold her body for dirt.

this list could get extremely long




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


WOW, been a long day.
Sorry, as I replied to you, in thinking you were the source of my second post.

My apologizes.

Being up at 3:30am is taking a toll on me today



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Jana12
 


although i do understand what you mean, the issue i have with this type of thinking is it sounds like an opportunity to make up crap about people and then have them axed on the pretext that their sociopaths. and the problem with that is, the definition of what a sociopath is changes, depending on who is doing the looking.

for example, i find advocating slavery or capital punishment of any kind, to be wrong. however, some would suggest that there are people who deserve, slavery or capital punishment of various kinds because of __________ fill in the blank. the following are reasons why i feel this is wrong:

1) some reasons given are generational. for example, generational curses, suggesting that people 40, 80 or even hundreds or thousands of years later, should pay with their lives or livelihoods because of what someone else in their ancestoral and/or gender-specific line, did. (i.e., eve sinned in the garden, therefore women should shut up in church or synagogue or mosque or politics. white man enslaved black man so now it's white man's turn to be enslaved (ignoring that black man has enslaved black man as well but ya can't enslave yourself..kinda silly ya know? how about we just toss out that whole revenge thing and get over it?).

2) money=corruption and therefore, you should be disenfranchised of what you have. although i admit that being wealthy can sometimes involve compromising your morals, what constitutes wealth is drastically different from society to society. for example, a woman with a fine dirt floor with special features such as a fresh water well, in some places in africa, would be considered rich in their community, and the envy of the other townspeople. can't very well steal a dirt floor to make up for it, but you can go in there and tear it up so now neither of you have a nice dirt floor... you get the idea i hope!). certainly wouldn't justify killing her because her dirt floor is nice and definitely not an indication that she compromised her morals to have it unless it can be proven she sold her body for dirt.

this list could get extremely long


These are all good points and put together concisely, however -- if it's a fact that a persons brain doesn't work in a normal behavior *normal being the majority* then I cannot agree that they should have positions that steer the direction of the vast majority.

I also think IQ should be a requirement. If your job is steering humanity or a country that is heavily depended upon by the rest of humanity, you should HAVE to be more capable than a village idiot. You shouldn't be able to run without meeting a certain criteria.

Otherwise what happens? You have people with brain disorders and low iq's running and ruining the lives of the many for the sake of what, exactly?

These are two points of contention I can totally get behind. Not everyone can be president. A person with an IQ in the 80's should NEVER be president. It shouldn't be allowed, for that person is KNOWN to make bad ill fated decisions.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Laokin
 


WOW, been a long day.
Sorry, as I replied to you, in thinking you were the source of my second post.

My apologizes.

Being up at 3:30am is taking a toll on me today


No worries mate... I commend you for your apology. You are a bigger man(/woman) than most.

Admirable quality.

+respect and a star.

I apologize also, for being short tempered knowing you were probably mistaken. That probably wasn't right either.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


I have no problem apologizing when I am wrong.
I am married, I have learned this.

No worries on my part.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You can't "make up" whether or not someone is a genetic sociopath.

There are known DNA markers, and the results of fMRIs are pretty conclusive.

Your statement is akin to saying people can make up whether or not someone has cancer.

True, they can make the statement, but testing will tell the truth.

The terrible thing about sociopathy, though, is that it is contagious: if you work for sociopaths you will wind up one yourself in order to survive.

The Nazi leadership was obviously sociopathic tending towards psychopathic, and they contaminated a large percentage of the non-sociopaths they ruled. It seems the US is leaning the same way.

That said, however, it isn't a foregone conclusion that a genetic sociopath will express the trait negatively. It also takes a sociopathic environment to bring it out in about half the cases. Unfortunately, our nation seems to provide just such an environment.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   


I also think IQ should be a requirement.
reply to post by Laokin
 


i think that depends. i'm not sure whether tests are available that can conclusively measure things like common sense or if there are tests capable of that since common sense is often predicated on social norms. what seems sensible to you or me or some guy in botswana, would not seem sensible to somebody in tibet or brazil. ya get the idea. i realize we have to draw the line somewhere when pondering these big questions, but it worries me that this may branch out into punishing people because they have material possessions. it seems a human foible to begrudge other people their prosperity. it also seems a human foible to become grossly prosperous at the expense of debilitating others, although a certain amount of that is necessary to maintain society. certainly not to the point of impoverishment of that society.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Actually, few people begrudge the prosperity of others until that prosperity turns into greedy over-acquisition that impacts their lives or opportunities.

What's the point of being multi-billionaire when doing so deprives millions of others of a decent standard of living?

Is there something you can't buy if you only have a billion?

It is the addictive behavior that people resent.

Wealth-building after every conceivable present and future need has been met is an addiction and should be treated as such. It is a form of obsessive/compulsive disorder that effect millions of people negatively.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


those brush strokes are too large for comfort. many in america pay out huge amounts in taxes to fund various social programs, charitable donations and many also are actively involved in charities of various kinds. i think what's happening is, someone's trying to convince people of the world, that any horror that transpires within the boundaries of this country is recompense for our "sociopathies". to me, that's bigotry on a scale akin to sociopathy itself. i would never wish death or dismemberment or disenfranchisement on others, particularly out of jealousy or a need for revenge or a desire to force my world view on others. that people have been corralled into doing that down thru history does prove sociopathy can be shared, but it doesn't suggest sociopathy is a permament or exclusive condition to only one racial group, one world view, or one nation.

don't make americans your new "jews" that are to blame for this that and the other thing. that's wrong and you know it.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Didn't say anything about Jews, only pointed out the obvious behaviors.

You're right about it not being permanent, and that it transcends skin colors. People say we're all one race, but I think the sociopaths are a separate branch of humanity that preys upon the rest. They look like us, but are fundamentally different in a way that allows successful predation: they aren't like the norm of humanity.

At some point either the people of the nation or those outside of it will put down the sociopaths causing the problems and that society will have a few generations of peace and prosperity until the sociopaths increase their numbers and work their way into power again and begin screwing things up again.

ETA:

Supporting charities isn't a mark of good intentions or behavior. Psychopathic drug cartels are well-known for charitable giving in the regions they need support. The Mafia dons were great supporters of Catholic churches and charities.

Giving a little back doesn't make up for taking too much in the first place. Should we let a conman off because he gives a large percentage of his take to charity?
edit on 20-11-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


oh i agree. that's gross prosperity, on a global scale. again, the question is, how was the prosperity gained? if thru hard work and dedication, and not by literally stealing it from others, then obviously, the workman is worthy of his wages. however, even the definition of stealing gets all wobbly when generational issues are brought in.

for example, white folk, who are the ancestors of the white apartheid people in south africa, are losing their farms and any prosperity they managed to earn, to indigenous black people who just march in and take it, and chase the owners out or kill them on the spot. although that does have a sort of satisfying revenge factor in it, and although it seems justice was done, sadly, it wasn't done to the actual perpetrators, perpetuates hate and misery and pushes the ability for those two racial groups to form lasting bonds and work together. instead, it promises to keep the area in perpetual racial hatred, in fact, the government no longer allows businesses to hire white people. only blacks. and the reason? 70+% of the black population there are unemployed. i have no idea why that is, but it certainly isn't because white people are there because most of the now indigneous white south africans, have no future there due their skin color and their ancestors.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


we aren't talking about that. for example, the average working american pays out large amounts in taxes. if you're self employed it's even higher. those taxes go to support various social programs like welfare. many also work in soup kitchens, environmental programs, and do so for free and because they care about people, not because they want to get away with something. i'm sensing some real hostility from you and i don't like where it's going



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


It's a case of "what goes around, comes around".

The original white invaders, to use the proper term, were no doubt sociopaths and psychopaths who took what they wanted by force, pretty much wherever they went, be it South Africa, the Americas, Australia or wherever. Any cursory reading of history will tell you that. Dig deeper, and you'll find truly appalling psychopathies at work.

Until and unless we find a way to either eliminate or control the sociopaths among us we will continually have these sorts of problems.

Using the convenient argument that "it wasn't me, it was my dad, my grandpa, my great-granddad" avoids the necessity of taking personal responsibility to make amends for their behavior while enjoying the fruits of it. It never washes and never will until and unless positive steps are taken to ensure a lack of repetition. If your father, grandfather, and great-grandfather acted like that, how is anyone supposed to believe that you won't, given the opportunity?

If you are the victim of such behavior for generations, would you trust their kids just because they said they were different? Wouldn't you require some proof and securities before trusting them with your life and livelihood?

Mind you it wasn't just whites, they were just the most successful at it recently. It really boils down to the number of sociopaths a society breeds and tolerates.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   


"what goes around, comes around".
reply to post by apacheman
 


and i suggest to you that's sociopathic. what if women the world over just suddenly decided that all men everywhere should pay for their generational sins? nobody.would.be.left.standing. nobody. so don't get all up in my face with that generational crap.. it's racist, bigotted, misogynist crap.

i WILL NOT be held responsible for what other people do or did. i will only be held responsible for what i do or did. and you better hope the same applies to you



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Edit: UNDO - I disagree, especially with the 1st paragraph in your 1:18pm Post ... it doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the definition of a sociopath does NOT change. It never changes. Their tactics and their MO, method of operation, may vary and change from time to time, but the definition does not change. Much like a woman ... she is either pregnant OR she is not pregnant ... one or the other, no in-between. A person is either a sociopath or they are not. They are either a narcissist or they are not ... no in-between.

Here is what defines a sociopath/narcissist. This has always been and will always be a way to determine if one is pathological, detached and devoid --- a sociopath is someone without a conscience or empathy. They lack a conscience and they lack the ability to feel empathy. A narcissist does have a conscience, but does not have empathy. So, the commonality between the two is this -- neither feel empathy/compassion and both are very dangerous people.

They never care about others. Sometimes, they may pretend to care and therefore are quite adept at fooling others. Both may pretend to have empathy and compassion. But, in reality it's not genuine. Their brains are hard-wired very differently from normal people. They are soulless, devoid of emotions. They care only about themselves. They get their energy by playing mind games, abusing and belittling others and/or by re-victimizing them -- there is nothing normal about this type of thinking. The only way they can feel good about themselves is to screw others out of whatever it is they have and to put others down ... no other way.

If they seem to care about others, there is a hidden agenda. If they extend a common courtesy, there are plenty of (irrational and illogical) conditions, as well as (unnecessary) strings attached, and they must benefit significantly more than those they are "helping". They do not give a rat's arse about "for the benefit of all". They play to win at the expense of others, even if they happen to wear a smile and may otherwise appear normal. They fail to see the struggles of others, nor do they care in the least. If they are clearly in a position to help someone, they will not do so unless the pay-off is great. Doing anything out of the goodness of the heart that they don't have, is not going to happen. It's always all about them.

Secondly, there is no correlation whatsoever with wealth and socio-pathology/narcissism. There is also no correlation with success and socio-pathology/narcissism. A certain percentage of poor and middle-class people are pathological, as are some rich people. While some wealthy people and some poor people have plenty of empathy, some do not. So, just as one cannot determine these disorders by appearances, one cannot determine if an individual lacks empathy by their income, bank account and their assets. Two false statements: "Most rich and successful people are greedy sociopaths'. 'Most poor people are empaths'.

Third, we cannot possibly determine if one is a sociopath/narcissist by their job title or by their educational level or IQ. Again, there is no correlation.

Those best suited for leadership positions are people with: empathy, a conscience, the passion/drive to provide sound leadership combined with an above-average to high IQ ... NOT one or the other -- ALL of these qualities and components are absolutely necessary. Sadly, few "leaders" have ALL of the above ... which is exactly why the country, as a whole, is tanking and it is also why some 'haves' and 'have-nots' are in conflict ... exactly what they want. They divide people because they operate on the principle that strength and power are in numbers.

These horrid people tend to stick together and they hire each other, which I believe is the main reason this country is spiraling downward, as I mentioned in my previous post. People hire people most like themselves.

BTW, when you are reading through the posts on ATS, it's not usually hard to determine if an anonymous poster is devoid of emotion -- a sociopath or narcissist. They hate for their disorder to be exposed and they tend to protect their pathology. They despise awareness. They also want the haves and the have-nots to be divided. That IS exactly what they want.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Jana12 because: Edit: to add on first line



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo



I also think IQ should be a requirement.
reply to post by Laokin
 


i think that depends. i'm not sure whether tests are available that can conclusively measure things like common sense or if there are tests capable of that since common sense is often predicated on social norms. what seems sensible to you or me or some guy in botswana, would not seem sensible to somebody in tibet or brazil. ya get the idea. i realize we have to draw the line somewhere when pondering these big questions, but it worries me that this may branch out into punishing people because they have material possessions. it seems a human foible to begrudge other people their prosperity. it also seems a human foible to become grossly prosperous at the expense of debilitating others, although a certain amount of that is necessary to maintain society. certainly not to the point of impoverishment of that society.


Good point, however, there has to be someway to reliably gate this. If there isn't an adequate solution to the problem, then research should be done on this particular problem.

I don't think anybody who was ever in a position of power to make a change like this, has ever really pondered this question to hard, at all.

Which is a bit sad, because I feel like it's an important question to be ignored.

However, you do raise some points -- but IQ tests aren't really a measure of common sense. The questions are right and wrong... some have shades of gray, but ultimately they are based on whichever the current society deems morally right/wrong.

If a president isn't smart enough to detect a trick question, he shouldn't be allowed to be president. Maybe they need to just make a new test for politically electable professions.

There has to be an answer and an acceptable middle ground somewhere.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Excuse me? To what are you referring?

While is is true that many support good causes willingly, a brief review of subjects here on ATS shows that many more deeply resent any portion of their taxes going to feed, shelter, or provide healthcare to the unemployed, who they view as lazy, drugged-out parasites.

The actions of the few don't outweigh or excuse those of the many.

Each must take personal responsibility for what they do or don't do. Just because Joe Blow gives and supports, it doesn't excuse John Doe from doing his share, and John can't take credit for what Joe has done.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
APACHEMAN ...

All of your posts are right on target. They are based on scientific evidence and they are some of the best posts I have ever seen here on ATS. All of your posts are a value-add. Stars ... Thanks ... JANA12



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I agree it is sociopathic and that is why steps must be taken to identify sociopaths and prevent them from acquiring the power and means to express it to all of our detriment.

That doesn't mean killing them or dismembering them as you so luridly put it.

It simply means not allowing them to take or hold positions of power that by their very nature demand a degree of empathy. It is no different than screening people for colorblindness when the job demands an ability to discern colors to a high degree.

I don't want a person who is physically incapable of empathy to be a judge, a cop, a priest or a politician: that is a sure recipe for social disaster.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jana12
 


My thanks for your appreciation of my efforts.

I try my best to present the best and clearest evidence I can to further understanding of the various issues.





new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join