Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[Skepdick]

No, you seein' me as meat, attemptin' to treat me as meat, doesn't make me meat (cuz I'm a person).

Yes Henry, that is what you SAY about yourself.

You SAY that your personhood is intrinsic.
I SAY that your intrinsic personhood is bestowed.

Neither narrative has any ontological significance - neither narrative captures who or what you actually are, but most importantly - we both agree that you have personhood. Bestowed OR intrinsic - who cares?

Exactly. What you are and my assessment of you are two different things.

Obviously they are different things. And it's way worse than that.

What you assess yourself to be and what you actually are - also two different things!

Just because you assess yourself to be an "intrinsic person" it doesn't mean that you actually are an "intrinsic person". It's just what you SAY about (bestow upon) yourself.

And it's because we have bestowed "intrinsic freedom of speech" upon ourselves, I will continue saying what I am saying; and you will continue saying what you are saying.

Yet for some reason you seem to think that your words carry greater ontological significance than mine. That's just your (intrinsic or bestowed) self-importance speaking.

[henry quirk]

"Bestowed OR intrinsic - who cares?"

I do.

[Skepdick]

"Bestowed OR intrinsic - who cares?"

I do.

That's just your (intrinsic or bestowed) self-importance speaking.

For as long as society keeps recognizing my personhood, I don't care if it's intrinsic or bestowed. I don't even care whether I am actually a person.

Being uncertain about my identity (defining myself) is not something that bothers me - I am comfortable knowing that I don't know what I am.

[henry quirk]

For as long as society keeps recognizing my personhood, I don't care if it's intrinsic or bestowed. I don't even care whether I am actually a person. Being uncertain about my identity (defining myself) is not something that bothers me - I am comfortable knowing that I don't know what I am.

Okay.

[Belinda]

St Paul said nothing about how we are incapable of learning to be better people.

Actually, he said a ton about that. Here's just one bit:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

You may trust the Doctrine of Atonement as a bargain between Jesus and Almighty God . Or you can learn from the example of Jesus as paradigm and seer. If the latter, aided by the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, you are a learner who is continuously developing morally and intellectually from your birth to your death.
It does happen quite often that progressive leaders as was Jesus of Nazareth also become martyrs to their causes of intellectual or moral enlightenment.

[Immanuel Can]

However, as I said before, psychopathy was your posit, not Henry's. If you don't believe it's real, why did you posit it?

Because you believe it's real (which is your language, not mine). And that makes for a perfect case-study.

It was not my choice. I feel no particular interest in selecting that case. You chose it.

Many psychological conditions are due to environmental factors or chemical ones.

The diagnosis of most psychological conditions depends on self-reporting, and yet you objected to the self-reporting of a "super-athlete".

I did not "object" to it. I merely pointed out that there would be absolutely no way to confirm the self-report without reference to behaviour. The athleticism would be intrinsic but only latently, until it was demonstrated dynamically. But for all that, the athleticism would be real.

The point was this: that to judge something like athleticism or psychopathy by behaviour is not inconsistent or irrational. It is, in fact, the right way to judge.

There's no other way to say this: you are using a double standard.

Incorrect, as you can see above.

Consider, for example, autism or bipolar disorder -- both are scientifically associated with things other than intrinsic states, and yet they are psychological as well.

But autism and bipolar are considered to be ONLY psychological, not environmental

This is untrue. Bipolar disorder is tied to chemical imbalances in the brain, and can be adjusted by means of drugs like Lithium. Meanwhile, for autism, there are many theories, including that heavy metals or humanly-produced chemicals are implicated.

No you can't. You don't know anything about what a haemophiliac will do

They WILL bleed indefinitely if cut. I am saying this with 99% certainty.

You're speaking merely of physiology, not of behaviour. The fact that they are hemophiliacs will not inform you of anything behavioural.

Haemophilia relates to bleeding, so I can tell you with great degree of certainty what will happen.

But zero about what the hemophiliac will DO, behaviourally.

If psychopathy relates to behaviour then go ahead and tell me with such high degree of certainty how a psychopath is going to behave.

We don't know, for sure. All we can say is that he has a statistically vastly higher probability of indulging in antisocial behaviours, inflicting of harm on others, unethical choices, and so on. That's the nature of behavioural assessments -- a their most accurate, they're only probabilistic, not absolute.

But that's no stroke against them. We can't fault behavioural assessments merely for not being as accurate as measurements from a graduated cylinder, because behaviour remains a choice of a free agent.

If your objection is that "bleeding is not a behaviour" - then you are only disagreeing about categorisation, not substance.

I'm disagreeing with your choice to mix categories, actually. You're falsely comparing physiology (hemophilia) to psychology (psychopathy). That's what's called an "amphiboly error," between categories.

I see you're hung up on that. But again, "predictive utility" is only one of the epistemic virtues, not the whole package

You don't even know what "the whole" package is when it comes to psychology.

I'm referring to "epistemic virtues." Are you not familiar with the idea that "predictive utility" sits among them? There's consistency, accuracy, consistency, scope (unification), simplicity, fruitfulness, logical integrity, empirical adequacy...and so on. You've never heard this?

. And the point of having the package is that any particular theory is only able to satisfy the majority of the criteria, and few can satisfy all.

The criterion for science is prediction.

No, it's not ONLY that. See above. There's a whole group of such criteria.

In any case, your objection is even poorer than that. For to say that a diagnosis of a psychological condition lacks "predictive" efficacy in regard to behaviour is to mix two different realms, and thus create amphiboly. Your argument, then, would make no more sense than to say that because cancer tells you nothing certain (or "predictive") about the behaviour of a cancer patient, cancer does not exist and is not scientific.

Correct! Cancer is not an (ontological) thing! There are many different and very dis-similar medical conditions which are all labeled as "cancer".

Interesting. I"ve seen a whole bunch of people who have died of this non-existent ailment.

Not at all. I'm simply asking on what basis you posited the concept "psychopath." It's your concept, I would think you would have had something objective in mind, no?

It's not my concept. It's a psychological concept. I need not believe the words I use. Do I?

You do if you predicate an argument upon it. Then you're asking us to take for granted what you (presumably) don't think even exists. So we're no longer under any conversational obligation to answer the question, if you don't. It would be like asking us "How many leprechauns can dance in a telephone booth?"

Q.E.D I think psychology is bullshit, even though I am using the word.

Leprechauns, then. No answer needed.

That's also how I got my Aspergers' diagnosis.

Ah. I've got it now.

You've got an Aspergers' diagnosis? And you don't like it? Well, then, it makes complete sense that you don't want to think other psychological diagnoses, such as psychopathy, refer to anything.

how come we have Popperian verificationism?

Popper was a Falsificationist. He argued that scientific tests don't verify truths, they falsify bad hypotheses. So he said.

Haemophilia predicts SOMETHING.

Not a thing, in respect to behaviour.

Psychopathy doesn't predict anything.

It does. It predicts increased odds of highly antisocial behaviour. However, it does not -- and does not purport to -- guarantee those predictions in all cases.

The prediction is very successful statistically on the broad scale. So, for example, it predicts very well that a large number of people who are presently in jail will always be psychopaths. But it does not predict individual conduct. So, for example, the successful CEO of your company may secretly have obtained his competitive success by his total lack of empathy and his willingness to inflict harm -- in short, by dint of his psychopathic character. It will not tell you why this particular CEO found a socially-approve way to exercise his psychopathy, whereas the guys in jail didn't.

Psychopathy is an a-posteriori assertion about past events (behaviour) with zero a-priori predictive utility.

As in the case of jail populations, you can tell that it's actually very highly predictive.

"Psychological phenomenon" is an oxymoron.

It's not. It just means a thing that takes place within the psychology of a free individual.

It's like saying, "The Super Bowl is not real, because DNA won't tell us the winner in advance -- ordinary testing has no predictive value."

It's nothing like that. What an idiotic analogy. Only an idiot-philosopher could come up with that.

Thank you. A minute ago you were saying all philosophers are playing a stupid game.

You could be right. Or you could be so utterly clueless about that you're not even really aware that what you are calling a "game" is going over your head. We'll have to see which it is.

But we are on a philosophy forum...so if this is all just a stupid game...what are you doing here? A person who believed what you say wouldn't even be bothering, it seems to me...

Test is another fucking word for VERIFICATION.

That's naive Verificationism. It hasn't been credible since the '60s, I'm regret to tell you.

[Immanuel Can]

St Paul said nothing about how we are incapable of learning to be better people.

Actually, he said a ton about that. Here's just one bit:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

You may trust the Doctrine of Atonement...

I do. But that's totally irrelevant. It wouldn't change one thing if I didn't.

You said Paul didn't say anything about that. I showed you he did. You may not like that it's so, but that's also irrelevant to the question. It is what it is.

[Skepdick]

It was not my choice. I feel no particular interest in selecting that case. You chose it.

And you chose not to select another one. You stuck with it.

I did not "object" to it. I merely pointed out that there would be absolutely no way to confirm the self-report without reference to behaviour.

It's still self-reported behaviour. Most psychology happens in an arm-chair and involves no surveillance of the actual patient in the real world.

The athleticism would be intrinsic but only latently, until it was demonstrated dynamically. But for all that, the athleticism would be real.

So how would one demonstrate latent psychopathy? There you are with the silly "real"/"not real" language.

So... I am climbing up on that horse then. Nothing is real! Everything is just an illusion. Can we drop the stupid now?

The point was this: that to judge something like athleticism or psychopathy by behaviour is not inconsistent or irrational. It is, in fact, the right way to judge.

I have no idea what you mean by "rationality" but my conception of that word is game-theoretic. Rational people act in the way that maximises their utility-function.

I have no idea what utility you derive from judging things.

Incorrect, as you can see above.

Not correct either. Since I suspect your conception of rationality is probably some stupid variation of JTB; realism or the correspondence theory.

This is untrue. Bipolar disorder is tied to chemical imbalances in the brain

Which is local to the patient and medically testable. So it's NOT "environmental" in so far as your brain is not part of the environment.

Of course, you are free to categorize it as such.

, and can be adjusted by means of drugs like Lithium.

Once it is medically determined that the actual imbalance is, in fact a Lithium deficiency. Which is NOT a behaviouristic test/verification.

You're speaking merely of physiology, not of behaviour. The fact that they are hemophiliacs will not inform you of anything behavioural.

I already addressed this point. Your objection that "bleeding is not a behaviour" is an objection about categorization, not substance.

You WILL bleed and you WILL die Whether you categorize that as physiological or behavioural is sophistry.

But zero about what the hemophiliac will DO, behaviourally.

Categorical sophistry.

Behaviourally they WILL die.

You can't even say that much about a psychopath.

We don't know, for sure. All we can say is that he has a statistically vastly higher probability of indulging in antisocial behaviours, inflicting of harm on others, unethical choices, and so on.

Affirming the consequent. Direct examples of anti-social behaviour, inflicting harm (on people and animals) and unethical choices is PRECISELY how psychopathy is diagnosed.

So I am not sure what it means to have "vastly higher probability of indulging in X" when one is already actively indulging in X.

THAT"S HOW YOU DIAGNOSED THEM. That you have labeled that set of behaviours as "psychopathy" tells you NOTHING new about the patient.

That's the nature of behavioural assessments -- a their most accurate, they're only probabilistic, not absolute.

If they are based on self-assessments and NOT witness testimonies they are neither. They are bullshit.

There is correlation between behaviour and label - by definition.
There's no correlation between the diagnosis and another free variable.

But that's no stroke against them. We can't fault behavioural assessments merely for not being as accurate as measurements from a graduated cylinder, because behaviour remains a choice of a free agent.

It's exactly a stroke against them. If a predictive model produces more errors than a coin - it's broken.

I'm disagreeing with your choice to mix categories, actually.

Your disagreement has been noted and ignored. Categories are subjective.

You're falsely comparing physiology (hemophilia) to psychology (psychopathy).

You are incorrectly asserting falsehood because your categorization-scheme is different to mine.

That's what's called an "amphiboly error," between categories.

OK. But your categorization-scheme is erroneous.

My one is the correct one. Because everybody's own categorization-scheme is the correct one.

But then again, Categorical Thinking is only an ailment of Western Philosophy.

Easterners think in interactions/relationships - not categories.

I'm referring to "epistemic virtues." Are you not familiar with the idea that "predictive utility" sits among them? There's consistency, accuracy, consistency, scope (unification), simplicity fruitfulness, logical integrity, empirical adequacy...and so on. You've never heard this?

I've heard it all. And I discarded it.

It's but one concrete categorical scheme of epistemology of many possible categorical schemes.

I much prefer to remain categorically-agnostic and construct my categories on the fly - in so far as they are needed within a conversation.

No, it's not ONLY that. See above. There's a whole group of such criteria.

*sigh*

Every solution of the criterion problem in epistemology is subjective. So... (if you didn't hear me last time).

Your categories are wrong. Why? Because they are YOUR categories and not MY categories.

Your perseverance in imposing your taxonomy on me will be met with another stern "Fuck off".

If you are "correcting" my point then you understand my point.

Interesting. I"ve seen a whole bunch of people who have died of this non-existent ailment.

So given the choice between the colloquial (shallow) absurdity, and the medical (deep) understanding of why cancer is not real.

You've chosen the simpleton retort. Gotcha!

You do if you predicate an argument upon it.

I don't have to believe the arguments that I furnish. Do I? After thousands of years of Philosophy - surely you understand that?

I've said it before, I am saying it again - my arguments are smokescreen for my pragmatic goals.

I choose my arguments circumstantially. So for example.......

Then you're asking us to take for granted what you (presumably) don't think even exists.

Nothing exists. I've just chosen this position because in thousands of years of philosophy nobody has ever come to an agreement of what existence even is. The language of "existence" is unprofitable.

The "existence" or "non-existence" of things is not an area of enquiry that's interesting to me.

So we're no longer under any conversational obligation to answer the question, if you don't.

Lol. Why? Because you only talk about things that "exist" and you don't talk about things that "don't exist".

You don't exist! Why am I still talking to you?

It would be like asking us "How many leprechauns can dance in a telephone booth?"

Trivially answerable question if you give me the dimensions of a leprechaun. Irrespective of your existential attitude towards leprechauns.

Leprechauns, then. No answer needed.

I'll give you one anyway.

Given their relative size - I think you can't fit more than 2 in a phonebooth.

Ah. I've got it now.

You've got an Aspergers' diagnosis? And you don't like it?

No. Let me explain the experiment to you.

I scheduled four appointments with four psychologists.
I randomly decided (using a dice) to "pretend to have Aspergers" with 2 of the 4 psychologists.
I decided to "pretend to NOT have Aspergers" with the other 2 psychologists.

In all four "examinations" I obtained EXACTLY the diagnosis I set out to obtain.

I can further reproduce this on ANY self-reporting test.

That's.... reproducible or something. Like I gamed the system to produce the exact result I wanted. Or something.

Well, then, it makes complete sense that you don't want to think other psychological diagnoses, such as psychopathy, refer to anything.

Yeah. The fact that I can obtain whatever diagnosis I want to obtain definitely erodes one's faith in psychology.

As if the reproducibility crisis wasn't bad enough...

Popper was a Falsificationist. He argued that scientific tests don't verify truths, they falsify bad hypotheses. So he said.

You are inferring what he was from what he said. I notice that you are no longer using his behaviour as an indicator.

Even though science requires a whole lot of verification....

Not a thing, in respect to behaviour.

Sophistry.

It does. It predicts increased odds of highly antisocial behaviour.

It doesn't do that. You are confusing the very symptoms which leads to the diagnosis (past behaviour) with a prediction (future behaviour).

However, it does not -- and does not purport to -- guarantee those predictions in all cases.

No shit. All predictive models have an error-rates. Is just - the error-rate of psychological models is astronomical.

The prediction is very successful statistically on the broad scale.

Gibberish. High error rate.

So, for example, it predicts very well that a large number of people who are presently in jail will always be psychopaths.

Obviously when you define "psychopathy" as "people who engage in violence and immoral behaviour", then you will find immoral violent people in jail.
That's not a prediction - that's confirmation bias. Jails select for those very same individuals.

What's your control case?

But it does not predict individual conduct.

No statistics do. There is no way to translate the ensamble probabilities into the time-domain.

So, for example, the successful CEO of your company may secretly have obtained his competitive success by his total lack of empathy and his willingness to inflict harm -- in short, by dint of his psychopathic character. It will not tell you why this particular CEO found a socially-approve way to exercise his psychopathy, whereas the guys in jail didn't.

It also won't tell you why the vast majority of psychopaths don't end up in jail.

As in the case of jail populations, you can tell that it's actually very highly predictive.

Given the fact that most psychopaths DON'T end up in jail - it predicts nothing.

Selection bias...

It's not. It just means a thing that takes place within the psychology of a free individual.

So it takes place beyond the psychologists's phenomenal view --- that's what I am saying.

Thank you. A minute ago you were saying all philosophers are playing a stupid game.

Aren't you?

You could be right. Or you could be so utterly clueless about that you're not even really aware that what you are calling a "game" is going over your head. We'll have to see which it is.

Or I am playing the game better than you, and that's going over your head

But we are on a philosophy forum...so if this is all just a stupid game...what are you doing here? A person who believed what you say wouldn't even be bothering, it seems to me...

I need not believe what I say if it's instrumental to my goals.

That's naive Verificationism. It hasn't been credible since the '60s, I'm regret to tell you.

Just because they renamed it in the 60s it doesn't mean scientists stopped doing it.

They may have well stopped saying it, but they sure as shit are still doing it.

[gaffo]

You have a mind, and seem to know history so welcome disscussion - BTW I affirmed than the Atheist Meo killed more than anyone else, your reply to this seemed confusing to me - as if i denied this fact. clarify if you would this particular? maybe you missread my earlier post wrt to Meo?

And if you know Spanish history, you know for sure that the Crusades were political, started with the objective of "liberating" Byzantium from the Muslims who had already conquered it...in other words, it was a military counter-crusade.

In the temporal world all things are political for folks in power - so folks of any/all religion distort their faith and force it to conform to their actions.

including "christians"

per the Crusades, there were 3 waves, and all of them were prior to the fall of Byzantium to islam (1543?) - so you are wrong on your history here.

NONE of the 3 crusades were about liberating Byzantium from the Muslims since the former was not Muslim. they were about liberating Syria and Israel from Islam (and the last "crusade" was about plundering Eastern Orthodox Byzantium of its wealth).

here is absolutely nothing in the teachings of Christ to sponsor, approve or even allow such behaviour to be Christian.

agreed Sir.

nor is there in the Koran BTW.

So there's nothing "irrelevant" about that fact, in determining whether the Crusades were "Christian" or not.

its called hypocrisy, and its an equal opportunity employer - regardless of race, sex and religion.

Well, the Spanish Inquisition was a case of the religious being used by the secular. And it was an anti-Semitic mess, implicating, perhaps, the Catholics of the period.

see above. they called themselves Christian, so you being a christian have a duty as being one in their camp to condemn them. not just "washing your hands to them and play the "no true scottsman game.

Moderate Muslims play your game too - and i am calling them out on it too - when a fundie muslim asshole/nutt kills many in the name of his god, the moderate Muslims remain largely silent or say "he was not a real "real" muslim/etc...........).

they are playing your game. i call you both out. you have a cancer in your camp (as they do) - call then out on it! not by say they are not "true Christians" but by saying they Are Christians but also assholes.

then you need to ponder how this might be so/possible.

I know it is possible because one's character is not defined by their theology/reiligion, but there character - the latter is more core and true, the former is literally irrelivent - to me at least.

But it has nothing to do with Christianity.

ya, and?

everything to do with Character - which is not linked to one's Religion in any way.


snipped the rest of your post. you know some of history and so welcome disscussion (to have understanding one must know history - and so you do have some measure of wisdom).

I welcome future discussion sir.

[Immanuel Can]

It's still self-reported behaviour.

Not necessarily. Behaviour is ostensible, not merely self-reported.

Nothing is real! Everything is just an illusion. Can we drop the stupid now?

Hey, that was your "horse," not mine. You can drop it when you want.

I have no idea what you mean by "rationality".

That which is "rational" conforms both to logic and to the way things are in the world.

This is untrue. Bipolar disorder is tied to chemical imbalances in the brain

Which is local to the patient and medically testable. So NOT it's no "environmental" in so far as your brain is not part of the environment. [/quote]
Then you'll have to explain why things like Lithium can address it. Because Lithium, and whatever similar chemicals will produce the same effect, are from the environment.

Your objection that "bleeding is not a behaviour" is an objection about categorization, not substance.

I addressed this: the category error is yours, not mine. I did not introduce the hemophilia example...nor, for that matter, did I introduce psychopathy as a case. They were both yours. And I made no analogy between them -- I'm arguing (rightly) that any such analogy is bad. You did that.

Behaviourally they WILL die.

You can't even say that much about a psychopath.

I can say that about every living being. But in point of fact, hemophiliacs do not all die.

We don't know, for sure. All we can say is that he has a statistically vastly higher probability of indulging in antisocial behaviours, inflicting of harm on others, unethical choices, and so on.

Affirming the consequent. [/quote]
Nope.

Unless we accept your assumption that there's no such thing as intrinsic psychopathy, then we are not deducing from psychopathic behaviour to psychopathy. Rather, we can do things like dispositional testing, with "blind" subjects, to locate psychopathic dispositions.

From that, we can asses a higher statistical probability of psychopathological doings in populations. It cannot prove who goes to jail; it can show that a percentage of them will.

But all of this is moot. Where are we going with this?

If a predictive model produces more errors than a coin - it's broken.

It depends what you're trying to "predict." The diagnosis of psychopathy is "broken" only to the extent that it can't tell you what a given individual would do; it's quite excellent for telling you that statistically, aggressive and antisocial groups, such as convicts, are going to be disproportionately psychopathic.

I'm disagreeing with your choice to mix categories, actually.

Your disagreement has been noted and ignored. Categories are subjective.

It's the "mixing" part I'm suggesting is fallacious. You can pick the category you like: but mixing categories, like going from physiological to psychological, as you have done, is going to produce fallacious conclusions.

You're falsely comparing physiology (hemophilia) to psychology (psychopathy).

You are incorrectly asserting falsehood because your categorization-scheme is different to mine.

Is your claim that physiology and psychology are the same category? Bleeding is like thinking, you imagine?

Easterners think in interactions/relationships - not categories.

Heh. Your understanding of Eastern philosophy needs some work. They always think in categories...just different ones from the West.

I'm referring to "epistemic virtues." Are you not familiar with the idea that "predictive utility" sits among them? There's consistency, accuracy, consistency, scope (unification), simplicity fruitfulness, logical integrity, empirical adequacy...and so on. You've never heard this?

I've heard it all. And I discarded it.

Well, irrationally, then, you kept only one criterion, and arbitrarily rejected the rest?

Interesting. I"ve seen a whole bunch of people who have died of this non-existent ailment.

So given the choice between the colloquial (shallow) absurdity, and the medical (deep) understanding of why cancer is not real.

No. Given the absurdity of your claim.

You do if you predicate an argument upon it.

I don't have to believe the arguments that I furnish. Do I? After thousands of years of Philosophy - surely you understand that?

No, you don't. But you do have to have some point. Right now, I'm not seeing any.

Then you're asking us to take for granted what you (presumably) don't think even exists.

Nothing exists.

Hilarious. So now, here you are...a nothing...writing on a non-existent computer...to a nobody...for no reason.

Awesome.

You don't exist! Why am I still talking to you?

Yep. That's my question, alright.

Ah. I've got it now.

You've got an Aspergers' diagnosis? And you don't like it?

No. Let me explain the experiment to you.

I scheduled four appointments with four psychologists.
I randomly decided (using a dice) to "pretend to have Aspergers" with 2 of the 4 psychologists.
I decided to "pretend to NOT have Aspergers" with the other 2 psychologists.

In all four "examinations" I obtained EXACTLY the diagnosis I set out to obtain.

That's.... reproducible or something. Like I gamed the system. Or something.

This you did for...what reason?

Even though science requires a whole lot of verification....

Naive Verificationism again.

Obviously when you define "psychopathy" as "people who engage in violence and immoral behaviour", then you will find immoral violent people in jail.That's not a prediction - that's confirmation bias.

Ah, so you think the reasons the jails are full is because of diagnoses of psychopaths?

I'm bored.

Thanks for the chat.

[Skepdick]

its called hypocrisy, and its an equal opportunity employer - regardless of race, sex and religion.

It's the human condition.

I tried very hard not to be a hypocrite but I failed.

If I can't change it - I will just work with the materials I got...

[gaffo]

its called hypocrisy, and its an equal opportunity employer - regardless of race, sex and religion.

It's the human condition.

yes it is sadly - due to ego.

I tried very hard not to be a hypocrite but I failed.

"failed"? not faling? you stopped the fight? if so why so?

I've have fought and still do the same fight you speak of.

this is a personal war (i.e. for me to not be a hypocrite) internally, and externally toward others that are hypocrites.

the other "goal" (not a war per say - but no less easy) is my wish to become Wise - or at least more wise tomorrow than i am today (and i do not assume i cannot backslide - I know i can, i've seen others that used to be wiser than they are today (its rare, but seen it - sadly my best friend is one (who is now an alcoholic and surrender his life to drink over thought/wisdom). and it break my heart to know this, since he and i were best friends since middles school he being an "old soul" - introspective, wise in nature.............and now seeing he is less of both via liqour via whatever demons he has to drink and drink and drink to destroy himself).

If I can't change it - I will just work with the materials I got...

oh i see, so you are selling the sellout theory of you got yours so i will get mine!


"you do girl"

I think you are being Sardonic in your post, but if not you can of course clarify.

[gaffo]

"Henry, are you patriotic? Do you recognise what your country does for you?"

My fortunes are tied to the fortunes of the U.S., so: it's in the best interest of me and mine that America do well (even if it doesn't always do good). What I recognize: I pay a tidy sum on a regular basis to the state and federal govs, both which spend my contributions poorly. Both should do less.

So, what I am is: a practical, somewhat disgruntled, citizen.

Of course! Good man that you are your reply is as I expected.
Your fortunes are tied to the fortunes of that Collective called The United States of America. That great collective is organised as a democracy and the disgruntled citizens are needed for the democratic process to work. I hope the time never comes when no citizens are disgruntled, same with my own country.

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

It saddens me to think of how both the Left (with its PC tribal indentity politics of tribalism (i.e. gay female black haitian one eyed person indentity - vs the straight male haitian/ gay female non haitian/ etc.............) and the right (fuck a civic mindset..........its all about me me and ME!!!!!!!!!!!) - both have failed american (Clinton for the PC and Reagon for the me, me and ME!!!!!!!!! for the right).

I'm a fucking 70's Liberal - ya Liberal (not Progressive - whatever the fuck that is) - and no Liberal is not a four letter word. I affirm my Liberalism and I also affirm some Conservative concepts (non Social one nor Economic one) - but Constitutional ones (and why i claim i am a Liberal Libertarian) - Jury Pardon, Strict Rule of Law mostly original intent interpretation of the Constitution and other legal documents (national and international).

I affirm the restoration of the prior mentality of Americanism as the Melting Pot Collective.

where is it now? where are the old school liberals now? am i alone shouting in a forest with no one else to hear and shout with me?

there is nothing wrong with a "collective" if it is via a good mindset Sir.

Henry, i've seen your post for 2 yrs now, and said many times i view your philosophy of "me is mine, and island of me is all that matters" as lacking what is needed for a functioning Nation. (its bleak too BTW).


your Philosophy is Reaganism take to the end of the road. its lack America's prior melting pot/civic identity as a collective (i.e. victory gardens anyone?) of prior decades.

[henry quirk]

Of course! Good man that you are your reply is as I expected.
Your fortunes are tied to the fortunes of that Collective called The United States of America. That great collective is organised as a democracy and the disgruntled citizens are needed for the democratic process to work. I hope the time never comes when no citizens are disgruntled, same with my own country.

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

It saddens me to think of how both the Left (with its PC tribal indentity politics of tribalism (i.e. gay female black haitian one eyed person indentity - vs the straight male haitian/ gay female non haitian/ etc.............) and the right (fuck a civic mindset..........its all about me me and ME!!!!!!!!!!!) - both have failed american (Clinton for the PC and Reagon for the me, me and ME!!!!!!!!! for the right).

I'm a fucking 70's Liberal - ya Liberal (not Progressive - whatever the fuck that is) - and no Liberal is not a four letter word. I affirm my Liberalism and I also affirm some Conservative concepts (non Social one nor Economic one) - but Constitutional ones (and why i claim i am a Liberal Libertarian) - Jury Pardon, Strict Rule of Law mostly original intent interpretation of the Constitution and other legal documents (national and international).

I affirm the restoration of the prior mentality of Americanism as the Melting Pot Collective.

where is it now? where are the old school liberals now? am i alone shouting in a forest with no one else to hear and shout with me?

there is nothing wrong with a "collective" if it is via a good mindset Sir.

Henry, i've seen your post for 2 yrs now, and said many times i view your philosophy of "me is mine, and island of me is all that matters" as lacking what is needed for a functioning Nation. (its bleak too BTW).


your Philosophy is Reaganism take to the end of the road. its lack America's prior melting pot/civic identity as a collective (i.e. victory gardens anyone?) of prior decades.

No, my 'philosophy' is stated up-thread, and it ain't what you think.

No, it's not.

[Skepdick]

"failed"? not faling? you stopped the fight? if so why so?

Not a single person in the history of humanity has won it.

Some Stoics even celebrated it. They say that Seneca had outstanding principles, even if he failed to live up to them.

I've have fought and still do the same fight you speak of.

If you win - let me know. I'll change my mind.

this is a personal war (i.e. for me to not be a hypocrite) internally, and externally toward others that are hypocrites.

Have you found a narrative that doesn't contradict your behaviour yet?

the other "goal" (not a war per say - but no less easy) is my wish to become Wise - or at least more wise tomorrow than i am today (and i do not assume i cannot backslide.

Is there wisdom in accepting and owning the things one cannot change? Is it self-deception to pretend one can?

oh i see, so you are selling the sellout theory of you got yours so i will get mine!

Oh no! You do you. I will even cheer for you.

If you win - I will gladly consider you my role-model.
If you lose - you know where to find me.

I think you are being Sardonic in your post, but if not you can of course clarify.

Not at all. I am being ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

You could even say that I anecdotally agree with "None are righteous, none - not one.".
But perhaps I have unrealistically high standards.