Feminists whats your opinion on men that have been victims

Post Reply New Topic

The biggest problem is the definition of "good". Hell, I'm not even that good with philosophy but just between various form of deontological ethics I could argue at least 3 or 4 different definitions. That leaves out consequentialism and pragmatic ethics. Heck, even if we could decide on "good", we'd have to come to an agreement on whether we want to speak in terms of individual good or collective good, then universalism, absolutism, we could go on for days.

A somewhat smaller problem is that determining whether or not people are "mostly" "good" from an empirical point of view is difficult. Not only due to the definition itself, but also due to the severe limitations of any experiments or statistics.

The problem with the experiments are the conditions surrounding them.
The problem with statistics that there are too many independent variables that can distort the picture given, and that's not even touching on the manipulation that can be done consciously or unconsciously by the person making them.

I think that in this context, what JakobVirgil meant by "good" is altruistic by nature and inclined to treat people well when they are treated well.

That's reciprocal altruism, which is in essence what I've been talking about throughout my posts, which is more of a "tit for tat" mechanism, than an inclination to act in a "good" way. However, how do we decide how to treat people well? If we go by the "do onto others" philosophy, that means that we view the whole world through our own subjective lens, with the effect that we treat people as we would like to be treated, which is not necessarily how they would like to be treated.

I think that in this context, what JakobVirgil meant by "good" is altruistic by nature and inclined to treat people well when they are treated well.

No, I think people tend to be altruistic even when they are treated badly.

Well I for one am not one of them. And based on years of observations IRL I see that most people do not behave that way unless they are foolish and/or have extremely low self esteem. I also observe people who have been treated well behaving selfishly towards others; and this includes taking advantage of those they perceive as weak.

Just because you are a sociopath does not mean everyone else is.
I think you may be caught in a theory of mind problem.

Dude, the word "sociopath" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Refusing to "turn the other cheek" does not make you a sociopath.

The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

Don't tell us your score (it private and sociopaths lie so we won't believe you anyway).

Sorry JV, but I'm not going to bother taking that test for the simple reason that I don't have to prove anything to you(plus I'm not that interested either).

Nice Strawman, BTW.



(1)Well if I'm lying about being a sociopath, then clearly you must be lying about being an aspie! Your ad hominems are certainly very *insightful* and certainly are helping you win this argument.

There is a calculus to conversation it is a useful thing to learn.
If you parse what I said it is not a strawman in the classic sense.
I was not saying your argument was because you are a bad person.
I was saying that your data was skewed by your psychology.
It is am sure you will admit anecdotal data and thus prone to such things.

(1) this of course is very telling you offer a definition of aspie as someone that can not have this sort of insight
and then go ahead and make the same sort of claim in the same sentence.
You are lucky you are wrong because than it would make you an "NT" and who would want to be one of those icky folks.

How is my data skewed by me being an aspie? If you're trying to invalidate my argument about human behavior simply for me being an aspie then you failed. You claim that people are basically good by your definition, and you have not provided any evidence to back up this claim. What I have done is point out counterexamples. You attempt to dismiss them as anecdotes but it is not my job to prove your claims false! It is YOUR JOB to prove them true.

I happen to know other people who are not aspies whom I have compared notes with and they have made similar observations.

Great thread.

And there are many definitions of good and evil, btw. A victim of any crime or abuse doesn't have to rely on one definition of good to feel victimized by an evil committed onto them.

No it is because you are a sociopath. (please try to keep up)
The null hypothesis is that humans are a mix of good and evil it takes more than people have been mean to you to prove the nefarious nature of man that you are selling.
I will continue to believe in the better nature of man if I have your permission.

You are insisting that most people, as in >50% of the human population, are basically good(as you defined it) and it's going to take much more than just witty remarks and sociological stats to demonstrate that this is actually true and not just what you personally want to believe. Due to my observations of other peoples behavior as well as my own experiences my cynicism of your UNIVERSAL claim is logically sound. My experiences aren't proof of anything, but they serve as counterexamples to your generalizations.