Is genocide justified when it comes to psychopaths?
27 Feb 2012, 4:16 am
Then how do you explain the higher incidence of violent crime in countries with higher levels of poverty? Are impoverished ethnic minorities genetically programmed to be criminals?
People who live in poverty are more likely to turn to crime and gang activity to make a living. However, that isn't psychopathy. They may commit violent acts, but it's because they got mixed up in some bad things, NOT because they're insane (usually). If you change those peoples' environment, their behavior will change. That's not the case with psychopaths. Actually, I could argue that more psychopaths are rich and therefore come from a good environment.
I found a more detailed article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-old.html
He strangled the child with a jump rope. That's proof positive there that it was premeditated, and he knew exactly what he was doing. If you're going to strangle someone on a whim, on impulse, you're going to use your hands, because that's the closest thing you have to use. Also, as you'll notice in the article...
There's no word of an apology or remorse. If the child had said he was sorry, I'm sure they would've put that in the article. It sounds like he just flatly explained what he did to police. That's what psychopathic serial killers do.
EDIT: 10 year olds are old enough to know what death is, and to understand basic right from wrong.
27 Feb 2012, 4:52 am
Alright: This conversation is getting really ugly. It's very difficult to pass judgement on anything; the logic involved is contextual, based only on the information chosen and looked at in a closed structure. So for example, you are passing judgement on a 10 year old, saying that based on the actions he took in one narrative within his life, you know exactly what kind of person he is, that he has no capacity for good, that he is worthless, that he does not deserve to be treated humanely, and that he is a burden. Beyond this, you're using this judgement on this 10 year old to villainize the concept of lacking empathy, which is something I think you should be more careful about doing.
Lacking empathy is a really frequent mental symptom, associated with alot of disorders, not just found in psychopaths. And lacking empathy doesn't mean what you think it means; you might lack an instinctual understanding of why you should treat others well, but you might do so anyways. Because you don't want to face consequences, because you want to be a good person, or just cuz.
Alright, imagine if you were a person who lacked empathy and you were reading this conversation. You'd feel like garbage. There are alot of people within this conversation who appear to be lacking in empathy themselves: Eugenics is a concept that has been unfashionable since the holocaust, and it's been broached here at least a couple of times. And villainization makes people feel unsafe. Basically if you can categorize somebody as a villain (which I don't think any human being can be categorized as through a complete examination of their life, since it involves a person entirely through their own motivations having no redeemable qualities or capacity for good), that seems to make them fair game for any treatment whatsoever.
The 'villain' categorization shouldn't be thrown around in real life, or have any bearing in legal systems. Because all actions taken against people have to be rational, based on actual offences committed and not discriminatory. If groups are villainized the consequence will be intolerance and fear and oppression. Gay people were villainized, black activists were villainized, feminists were villainized, jewish people were villainized . . . well, villainization just seems to go hand in hand with oppressive systems, human rights violations, cruel and unjust punishment (e.g. public executions) and genocide. What really makes villainizing groups problematic is that it justifies not treating them as humans, and brings out all the ugliness dormant in supposedly normal, rational people. Basically if treatment starts breaking human rights codes, you know you're doing something wrong. So discrimination based on mental condition definitely falls within that domain.
There's just a lapse in logic though, anyways. You're bringing up specific, particularly ugly crimes, saying that those people are irredeemable and unfit to be treated as humans (which I wouldn't say), and by extension suggesting that, as a group, people without empathy don't deserve to be treated humanely. But even just saying that, about any group, as an opinion or not, is hateful, and oppressive, and uncomfortable.
27 Feb 2012, 5:07 am
Lacking empathy is a really frequent mental symptom, associated with alot of disorders, not just found in psychopaths. And lacking empathy doesn't mean what you think it means; you might lack an instinctual understanding of why you should treat others well, but you might do so anyways. Because you don't want to face consequences, because you want to be a good person, or just cuz.
Alright, imagine if you were a person who lacked empathy and you were reading this conversation. You'd feel like garbage. There are alot of people within this conversation who appear to be lacking in empathy themselves: Eugenics is a concept that has been unfashionable since the holocaust, and it's been broached here at least a couple of times. And villainization makes people feel unsafe. Basically if you can categorize somebody as a villain (which I don't think any human being can be categorized as through a complete examination of their life, since it involves a person entirely through their own motivations having no redeemable qualities or capacity for good), that seems to make them fair game for any treatment whatsoever.
The 'villain' categorization shouldn't be thrown around in real life, or have any bearing in legal systems. Because all actions taken against people have to be rational, based on actual offences committed and not discriminatory. If groups are villainized the consequence will be intolerance and fear and oppression. Gay people were villainized, black activists were villainized, feminists were villainized, jewish people were villainized . . . well, villainization just seems to go hand in hand with oppressive systems, human rights violations, cruel and unjust punishment (e.g. public executions) and genocide. What really makes villainizing groups problematic is that it justifies not treating them as humans, and brings out all the ugliness dormant in supposedly normal, rational people. Basically if treatment starts breaking human rights codes, you know you're doing something wrong. So discrimination based on mental condition definitely falls within that domain.
There's just a lapse in logic though, anyways. You're bringing up specific, particularly ugly crimes, saying that those people are irredeemable and unfit to be treated as humans (which I wouldn't say), and by extension suggesting that, as a group, people without empathy don't deserve to be treated humanely. But even just saying that, about any group, as an opinion or not, is hateful, and oppressive, and uncomfortable.
Um, a psychopath would not feel like garbage by reading this.
People with autism do not lack empathy, that is a myth. If a person lacked empathy, and they read this argument, they would not feel like garbage. That is a myth. If a person is offended by the arguments within, then they are not a psychopath. Keep in mind the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. There is a very big difference. A sociopath might be offended, but a psychopath would not be. A psychopath would probably just be amused, and this is the evil within.
Alright, I agree with you, that death penalty is wrong, but seriously, psychopaths are the most likey to prety on weak people, ie autistic people. Is it any wonder the hatred for them expressed in this thread.
If a person here has no empathy and takes no offense to the arguments provided, then there may be reason to be concerned. Otherwise, they are normal.
27 Feb 2012, 5:24 am
Meh. Children are all psychopaths. Do you deal with them often? Their empathy is such a work in progress that I would blame poor supervision rather than the 10 year old in this case.
I think that psychopaths should be directed towards fields that they can claw their ways to the top in/ contribute to human greatness/ the economy/ industries in, and supervised to prevent great cruelties from occurring, thus making modifications in institutions to work around their disabilities rather than expecting them to be normal. Psychopaths often become incredibly talented, if that means anything. And nowadays I think the psychopath diagnosis/pseudo-diagnosis is mostly thrown around to justify not treating people humanely, which I find disgusting. What crowds of humans can do to others is way scarier than anything one psychopath could do.
You are severely mistaken. Psychopaths can manipulate the crowd to do their will. They are likable, charming, and undetectable by your average person. A mob of good people cannot destroy a psychopath through words alone. It is an impossibility. The only way to defeat a psychopath is to stoop to their level in which case you would be destroying yourself. You would be surprised what a psychopath is capable of.
As for people who are misdiagnosed with psychopathy yes I agree with you. But true psychopaths have no morals, they have no conscience. Misdiagnosis is something to be aware of, but again, psychopaths are ruthless and deserve no sympathy - pussyfooting around a psychopath will wind you in the mental ward. I don't say this to be cruel, I say it because people with autism need to be aware of evil in this world. This does not make me a bad person, it makes me a good person.
27 Feb 2012, 5:39 am
This sounds more like a definition for a villain than a definition for lacking empathy. What's with this 'normal people are offended,' (i.e., having feelings) 'psychopaths are amused' business? Like, you're not talking about a lack of empathy, but a basic unhuman-ness, like a person who doesn't have feelings in the manner of normal people. A psychopath would be offended, or at least feel threatened, by people not treating them like humans. You're not distinguishing them from normal people through a lack of empathy, but by the presence of this unhuman-ness and something about evil (?) Saying someone is evil and meaning something by it is basically calling someone a villain, which you shouldn't do. It doesn't actually mean anything, it's just code for the way you're willing to interpret their actions and treat them.
Plus this evilness, this amusement . . . it's like you're referring to the villains in superhero comics, like, Kim Possible. Not people in real life. You're thinking of a theoretical person, because Evil is undefineable and can't just become permanently attached to any person or concept. Calling something evil is based on the way you're contextualizing it.
Empathy means any one of these listed definitions (they vary, so I couldn't just choose one): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
And as you can see, not fitting any of these definitions doesn't equate, in practice, in itself, to a person being evil, or being fair game to villainize, or not treat humanely. Based on the premise that a person could lack empathy and still be a good person, through the manner they live their life and the ways they contribute to society.
But, I havn't proven that psychpaths shouldn't be treated inhumanely. Well, my stance is that no humans should be treated inhumanely, no exceptions, that things in real life can't be called evil, that people cannot be called evil or villainized simply because they lack empathy (which means lacking empathy can't be used as a categorizer for calling people evil, and that can't be the reason psychopaths are considered evil.), and that you shouldn't villainize people or groups in real life. You can condemn specific actions in the circumstances they arise because of the circumstances they arose in, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances. The world won't be made a better place through any sweeping generalizations.
27 Feb 2012, 5:48 am
This sounds more like a definition for a villain than a definition for lacking empathy. What's with this 'normal people are offended,' (i.e., having feelings) 'psychopaths are amused' business? Like, you're not talking about a lack of empathy, but a basic unhuman-ness, like a person who doesn't have feelings in the manner of normal people. A psychopath would be offended, or at least feel threatened, by people not treating them like humans. You're not distinguishing them from normal people through a lack of empathy, but by the presence of this unhuman-ness and something about evil (?) Saying someone is evil and meaning something by it is basically calling someone a villain, which you shouldn't do. It doesn't actually mean anything, it's just code for the way you're willing to interpret their actions and treat them.
Plus this evilness, this amusement . . . it's like you're referring to the villains in superhero comics, like, Kim Possible. Not people in real life. You're thinking of a theoretical person, because Evil is undefineable and can't just become permanently attached to any person or concept. Calling something evil is based on the way you're contextualizing it.
Empathy means any one of these listed definitions (they vary, so I couldn't just choose one): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
And as you can see, not fitting any of these definitions doesn't equate, in practice, in itself, to a person being evil, or being fair game to villainize, or not treat humanely. Based on the premise that a person could lack empathy and still be a good person, through the manner they live their life and the ways they contribute to society.
But, I havn't proven that psychpaths shouldn't be treated inhumanely. Well, my stance is that no humans should be treated inhumanely, no exceptions, that things in real life can't be called evil, that people cannot be called evil or villainized simply because they lack empathy (which means lacking empathy can't be used as a categorizer for calling people evil, and that can't be the reason psychopaths are considered evil.), and that you shouldn't villainize people or groups in real life. You can condemn specific actions in the circumstances they arise because of the circumstances they arose in, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances. The world won't be made a better place through any sweeping generalizations.
Your stance that no humans should be treated inhumanely implies that you are a good person but perhaps a little naive.
The way to deal with this, like I already said is to punish crimes, and not inborn traits.
I have known bad people and I know what bad people are capable of. Have I sued them? No Have I turned people against them? No. i simply ignored them, because it was the only way to protect myself.
There are bad people in this world, people that are not worthy of sympathy, and that was my point.
Psychopaths are generally toxic people. They are generally a bad influence. These are simply facts. Psychopaths have no conscience so there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing evil when they know they will not caught. It is a cold hard fact of life. Some people lack conscience. Does it make any sense to feel sorry for a stranger who lacks a conscience? No, not really.
I used to feel the way you do but being taken advantage of over and over and over again has hardened me some. I will be a good person and ignore the bad people. It is very simple.
27 Feb 2012, 5:56 am
The way to deal with this, like I already said is to punish crimes, and not inborn traits.
I have known bad people and I know what bad people are capable of. Have I sued them? No Have I turned people against them? No. i simply ignored them, because it was the only way to protect myself.
There are bad people in this world, people that are not worthy of sympathy, and that was my point.
Psychopaths are generally toxic people. They are generally a bad influence. These are simply facts. Psychopaths have no conscience so there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing evil when they know they will not caught. It is a cold hard fact of life.
That seems about right. Because you're not threatening to categorically take action against psychopaths by virtue of their diagnosis, their human rights are being respected, and they will only face consequences for committing actual crimes. Therefore they are being treated humanely. I agree with this stance.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
27 Feb 2012, 6:12 am
more than a copuple in this thread perhaps??
trying to judge other before one understand the actual issue will always show the person judging wrong.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
27 Feb 2012, 6:34 am
The murderer in question was 10 years old. He's old enough to know exactly what he's doing. Torturing and killing animals at that age is the sign of a future serial killer, but he's already murdered another human being. 10 year old children don't kill people because of a "bad upbringing". They do it because they're completely psychotic to the core. People like that child have absolutely no place in a civilized society. The article didn't say if the child felt remorse, but I highly doubt he did.
From what I've personally read, a lot (if not all) of the serial killers had bad upbringing. Very bad may I add.
That's not true at all, not sure where you're getting your information from. Dahmer is just one example.
I think Dahmer was tormented mostly by internal demons. And you never know, he could have been abused by someone and nobody even noticed. His parents seem kind of strange actually.
27 Feb 2012, 6:41 am
Never mind. Maybe I was wrong. Apparently, psychopaths are not even concerned with consequences which really does not change my argument much. A key trait of psychopathy seems to be lack of fear of consequences actually. So perhaps my argument was bass-ackwards.
http://tami-port.suite101.com/can-psych ... ted-a28604
I don't know, I am not a psychologist. All I am saying is there are bad people out there, and it is something to be aware of. I am not implying that all psychopaths are "bad" because I cannot make that assertion. I just know that they are simply incomprehensible to most normal people. I know I feel plenty of guilt so while I may suffer some narcissistic tendencies, I do know I at least have a conscience.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
27 Feb 2012, 6:42 am
so there simply doesnt exist a way to push a 10 year old to murder?
i think anyone can be pushed to do anything giving sufficient motivation and time
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,532
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
27 Feb 2012, 10:04 am
I said no, and for two reasons:
1) if its a convenience thing we'll just greatly broaden what we consider psychopathic
2) if we're going to go the genocide route in terms of regulating undesirables this is still far too narrow a window. Genocide as a solution is really something that only makes sense if a society is perfectly okay with taking out everything - the mentally ill, the disabled, the criminally deranged, those with ASD's (which is one reason I don't like the idea of big government control), pretty much whatever is jamming the pipes up or making the world run less smoothly. You don't get to just pick one narrow group, at least not for any length of time with contagium in effect.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,995
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
27 Feb 2012, 10:27 am
Then how do you explain the higher incidence of violent crime in countries with higher levels of poverty? Are impoverished ethnic minorities genetically programmed to be criminals?
People who live in poverty are more likely to turn to crime and gang activity to make a living. However, that isn't psychopathy. They may commit violent acts, but it's because they got mixed up in some bad things, NOT because they're insane (usually). If you change those peoples' environment, their behavior will change. That's not the case with psychopaths. Actually, I could argue that more psychopaths are rich and therefore come from a good environment.
I found a more detailed article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-old.html
He strangled the child with a jump rope. That's proof positive there that it was premeditated, and he knew exactly what he was doing. If you're going to strangle someone on a whim, on impulse, you're going to use your hands, because that's the closest thing you have to use. Also, as you'll notice in the article...
There's no word of an apology or remorse. If the child had said he was sorry, I'm sure they would've put that in the article. It sounds like he just flatly explained what he did to police. That's what psychopathic serial killers do.
EDIT: 10 year olds are old enough to know what death is, and to understand basic right from wrong.
Well personally I don't typically jump to conclusions about things like this when I hear about them. I mean in reality all you have is second hand information and articles so though it can be an intresting topic of discussion there is no way for anyone to know for sure if he was a psychopath based on a newspaper article the media sometimes leaves things out. But yes he could have been a psychopath.
Also you can say what you want but according to psychology 10 year olds are technically not old enough to know right from wrong or understand death in all instances.
_________________
We won't go back.
