User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 213

Thread: Ted Bundy

  1. #171
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Looking back in the thread I see that I did quote the part addressed to me. And I had also read the part about freewill. If freewill has biological basis, then it too is prone to the same issue of its existence being dependent upon brain structures.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #172
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I didn't read the part not addressed to me. You'll just have to ask Michael if he was born a psychopath. Wait, that case doesn't count because something MUST have happened to him at an early age, correct? Correct.
    Well, we'd have to delve for years. Michael probably has a whole host of disorders, including pathological lying.

    I'll admit that some fallacies I listed aren't formal fallacies, therefore they don't prove you wrong. So I'll list one on that is a formal fallacy - circular reasoning. I also sense evasion - the fact that you don't want to count the exact number of therapists who you know believe what you believe and report the number here, and then bowing out of the convo because - as I almost always do - I only quoted what I wanted to address. I thought I quoted the entire part addressed to me and not that other guy. Why should I respond to something that wasn't a response to me?
    My reasoning regarding our innate good was not circular logic. It was quite solid, which is likely why you don't refer to it.

    "...just completely ridiculous" is not an argument, although it could be considered an attempt to bully someone into agreeing with you. And observing normal human development is not the topic here. Abnormal human development is the topic here.
    I'm embellishing and adding emphasis. There is nothing wrong with that. That was just an aside, it wasn't part of my argument. lol.

    I am not a therapist and I don't have much experience with abnormal human development, though I wish someone would enlighten me.

    But I DO KNOW normal development and I can deduce from that correlaries regarding abnormal development and its sequelea.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  3. #173
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Well, we'd have to delve for years. Michael probably has a whole host of disorders, including pathological lying.

    My reasoning regarding our innate good was not circular logic. It was quite solid, which is likely why you don't refer to it.
    It's paranoid to suggest that I'm ignoring something you wrote based on the fact that I didn't refer to it. I only just read it (while I'm busy handing out damn payroll checks), as I was expecting noutou to respond to his own without me jumping in the middle. That's likely why I didn't refer to it.

    I see you also mention ideas such as your belief in God and Divine Determinism, a theory that makes all human effort fruitless. And you say it has something to do with your behavioral theory of child development, and free-will. But DD and free-will are thoroughly incompatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I'm embellishing and adding emphasis. There is nothing wrong with that. That was just an aside, it wasn't part of my argument. lol.
    I did say it wasn't an argument. But if it doesn't add to the discussion, then what is it for?

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I am not a therapist and I don't have much experience with abnormal human development, though I wish someone would enlighten me.

    But I DO KNOW normal development and I can deduce from that correlaries regarding abnormal development and its sequelea.
    You do know technical terms such as "sequelea" [sic] which I normally only hear when I'm working around doctors. But I don't see what good theory could possibly come from A. ignoring case studies, and B. extrapolating from normal development which you have experience with, to abnormal development which you don't have much experience with.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #174
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post

    I see you also mention ideas such as your belief in God and Divine Determinism, a theory that makes all human effort fruitless.
    Grant me the serenity...

  5. #175
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Grant me the serenity...
    If you want to just sit on your thumbs waiting for God to grant you things, then go right ahead.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #176
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Because humans have free will. They can choose to harm each other, help each other, or do nothing.
    No one is born immune to corruption. See above. It's about quality and quantity of armor we each have.
    But why do they have the temptation to do evil in the first place? Why don’t they all choose to be good? Why do we even need that “natural armor” to keep us from evil?

    This debate can go on for very long, since it seems to have turned theological. I just don’t believe people are born for a reason. Life happens because it can. To me, that’s the beauty of nature: its complete chaos and unpredictability. It has no plan or motive, it just is, and we can only study what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon.
    But I certainly can’t disprove Divine Determinism, and won’t try, so as we are stuck, I propose we move on here, if it’s ok with you?

    Genes. This is organic brain chemical [dis]orders I'm referring to. Schizophrenia (which is completely organic, which I'm still not convinced about personally, due to lack of knowledge of this specific disorder), and autism, etc., just color an individual differently, and make our interaction with them different than 'normal' people. Kind of like how Down's Syndrome children have a disorder, but still have a good purpose to serve in life and society.

    Organic disorders are much rarer than behavioral disorders. DSM lumps them together, erring on the side of saying behavioral disorders are organic. This is utter nonsense, and illustrative of just how ignorant we as a people are regarding the causation of mental illness.
    Again, you say “this is utter nonsense” without justification. Why can’t psychopathy be organic, if schizophrenia and autism are? It all about how much empathy an individual can feel, and the empathy center is situated in the brain.

    Primitive brains (which is all babies have when they are born) seek only one thing: To be nurtured and taken care of in their own best interests. A mother's interests don't matter! A father's interests don't matter! Parents naturally should not only sacrifice for their babies, and children (until they are independent), but they are programmed to love them. Ask any mother or father carrying a baby (who isn't mentally ill) and she will tell you she loves her baby with her whole heart. That becomes even stronger at birth, and as the baby grows. That love is rather irrational if you think about it. It's all to grow a healthy new person. If that happens, that new person will not want to behave in antisocial ways, because it won't feel good. What feels good is to love and be loved.

    That is the natural process. If that is the natural process, then that means we are inherently about love and therefore, Good. If we are about Good, there can be no room for any inherent evil theory that you are proposing.
    Actually not all mothers (and fathers) fall in love with their babies at first sight, even though most of them do. These women aren’t necessarily diagnosticated with mental illness. But I suppose you’ll answer they must be ill anyway.
    Whatever, here again you say all babies are born programmed to love and be loved, and would never turn bad if that need is nurtured, but this is the whole point of our discussion. I think it is possible that some people are not that way.
    This is the natural process, you say, but nature is imperfect, so there is room for “my inherent evil theory”. Though I must note that I’m not entirely comfortable with using the word “evil” here, which has connotations I don’t like very much, but if you insist I suppose it doesn’t really matter in the end.

    True. Empathy or lack thereof is usually learned.
    Ah. So everyone is born without empathy, but motherly love teaches it to us, and so neglected children never know it? Is that it?
    Anyway, here again you make a statement without justifying it. I see no reason why empathy can’t be something inherent to the personality (by which I mean people are either born with it or born without it). Actually, there *must* be something about it that is inherent, making it more or less receptive to the environment.
    And don’t forget, I’m not arguing environment doesn’t have an impact on the child’s mental health, I am merely questioning your assumption that people can’t be born psychopaths (lacking that thing which permits us to feel empathy toward others).

    The problem with your reasoning that I’m trying to point out is that you seem stuck in a circle. You start with a premise that isn’t a universal truth, and then build your whole argument upon it, stating the same thing again and again, getting to a conclusion, and then using that conclusion to justify your premise. This is getting us nowhere.
    Fact is, it is very difficult to *prove* there has been no abuse or neglect in an antisocial person’s early years. We can just point out to cases where there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and these won’t satisfy you.
    But you can’t prove such abuse has occurred in every such case either. So I think the possibility that these people are simply born without empathy exists and must be considered.
    Generally, I think it would be dangerous to just assume abuse has occurred each time a psychopath is found, without proof, because it puts his/her family (the parents above all) in such a damning position.

    This is the link I posted earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/ma...pagewanted=all
    It is about a young psychopathic boy, Michael, raised in what seems to be a very healthy environment.

    Lacking empathy or not being strongly empathic is not what makes a psychopath. Psychopaths lack empathy, yes, but something else causes them to lack empathy. It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy. And that 'something else' that causes their lack of empathy, also causes them to become antisocial at high rates. Antisocial is not just lacking empathy, it's wanting to inflict harm, and lacking conscience for doing so.
    So you concede it is a possibility that some people are born without the possibility to be empathetic, but you still think this isn’t the case with psychopath because something else causes their lack of empathy? Why?
    1) Psychopaths are not all violent. Actually if you believe some statistics, we all should have a psychopath amongst our general acquaintances. It could even be your boyfriend, only you won’t know it because they spend their whole life learning how to hide it from society.
    2) It hasn’t been proven that psychopaths that turn out violent necessarily come from unhealthy environments. Again, why should we justify their terrible acts with a bad childhood even without proof? It may be so, perhaps they have all been awfully abused and we just don’t know it. But then it may be not, perhaps it was just the way they are. If they lack empathy for their victim, they won’t feel guilty about what they are doing to them, so this isn’t going to hold them back. Didn’t Ted Bundy say something about liking the sensation of power it gave him? I remember him saying in a quote that he was feeling like God in those moments when he was looking at his victim’s eyes and could see the fear there, and then watch as life leave them. Something like that.
    3) “Antisocial” isn’t necessarily “wanting to inflict harm”.
    4) “It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy” Even if lacking empathy isn’t enough to make a psychopath, those other traits can also be inherent, which is the whole point.

    So yeah, I think it is possible that some people are born without natural empathy and without ways of growing out some. These people would be psychopathic (depending on your definition), though not necessarily violent ones.

    If someone is born lacking this organically, then that is sad. Just like any genetic disorder is sad.

    But what is even sadder is when normal kids are exploited and lose their God given right to easily feel love and compassion.
    Both idea are depressing, there is really no point in finding out which is saddest.

  7. #177
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    It's paranoid to suggest that I'm ignoring something you wrote based on the fact that I didn't refer to it. I only just read it (while I'm busy handing out damn payroll checks), as I was expecting noutou to respond to his own without me jumping in the middle. That's likely why I didn't refer to it.
    I was busy . And I'm a girl!

  8. #178

  9. #179
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Yet another logical fallacy. That one is called begging the question.

    Someone would be born to do evil because of innate problem areas in the brain related to a lack of inhibitory mechanisms and no innate predisposition toward emotional empathy.

    Now you will ask me to prove that abuse didn't exist in cases like Bundy's, or of Michael in the other story. But that is once again the argument from ignorance because it puts the burden on those claiming a negative. And since I can't prove that abuse didn't happen, somehow your theory is proved by arbitrary fiat.

    But all your years of counselling experience can't prove that abuse always existed in your patients or clients, especially when the possibility of planting false memories has been proven to exist. That one doubt is all it takes to disprove your theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuttou View Post
    Why does evil exist at all? Why isn’t everyone born immune to corruption? Why are some people born with mental or physical illness? Why is everything in the world not beautiful or perfect? People are just born the way they are, there is no hidden motive or great plan behind it all. A natural phenomenon has a cause but no reason unless humans have a say in the matter.

    Your reasoning seems to be:
    --> People can’t be born without empathy, so
    --> Psychopaths are always made by childhood abuse, so
    --> If we find no proof of abuse in a psychopath’s childhood, it is either because it is hidden from us or because we didn’t look deeply enough
    See the problem in your reasoning? You always start with the premise that psychopathy can’t possibly be genetic, without argument. And then try to make everything else fit this assumption. Saying you *know* something to be true isn't enough to convince people (or make it so).
    I say we know the brain can be born unhealthy (see autism, schizophrenia, etc…), that empathy is controlled by some area of the brain, and we know of no reason why that area of the brain would be magically protected from malformation or simply from being underdeveloped. So we should at least consider the possibility that babies can be born psychopaths unless proven otherwise.

    Have you read that article I posted? If you have, what do you think of Michael?


    Just because I know children in healthy environment that are not antisocial doesn't mean antisocial children in healthy environment can't exist.

    But yeah, I know the idea that some kids are born incapable of feeling love or compassion isn't pretty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuttou View Post
    But why do they have the temptation to do evil in the first place? Why don’t they all choose to be good? Why do we even need that “natural armor” to keep us from evil?

    This debate can go on for very long, since it seems to have turned theological. I just don’t believe people are born for a reason. Life happens because it can. To me, that’s the beauty of nature: its complete chaos and unpredictability. It has no plan or motive, it just is, and we can only study what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon.
    But I certainly can’t disprove Divine Determinism, and won’t try, so as we are stuck, I propose we move on here, if it’s ok with you?


    Again, you say “this is utter nonsense” without justification. Why can’t psychopathy be organic, if schizophrenia and autism are? It all about how much empathy an individual can feel, and the empathy center is situated in the brain.


    Actually not all mothers (and fathers) fall in love with their babies at first sight, even though most of them do. These women aren’t necessarily diagnosticated with mental illness. But I suppose you’ll answer they must be ill anyway.
    Whatever, here again you say all babies are born programmed to love and be loved, and would never turn bad if that need is nurtured, but this is the whole point of our discussion. I think it is possible that some people are not that way.
    This is the natural process, you say, but nature is imperfect, so there is room for “my inherent evil theory”. Though I must note that I’m not entirely comfortable with using the word “evil” here, which has connotations I don’t like very much, but if you insist I suppose it doesn’t really matter in the end.


    Ah. So everyone is born without empathy, but motherly love teaches it to us, and so neglected children never know it? Is that it?
    Anyway, here again you make a statement without justifying it. I see no reason why empathy can’t be something inherent to the personality (by which I mean people are either born with it or born without it). Actually, there *must* be something about it that is inherent, making it more or less receptive to the environment.
    And don’t forget, I’m not arguing environment doesn’t have an impact on the child’s mental health, I am merely questioning your assumption that people can’t be born psychopaths (lacking that thing which permits us to feel empathy toward others).

    The problem with your reasoning that I’m trying to point out is that you seem stuck in a circle. You start with a premise that isn’t a universal truth, and then build your whole argument upon it, stating the same thing again and again, getting to a conclusion, and then using that conclusion to justify your premise. This is getting us nowhere.
    Fact is, it is very difficult to *prove* there has been no abuse or neglect in an antisocial person’s early years. We can just point out to cases where there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and these won’t satisfy you.
    But you can’t prove such abuse has occurred in every such case either. So I think the possibility that these people are simply born without empathy exists and must be considered.
    Generally, I think it would be dangerous to just assume abuse has occurred each time a psychopath is found, without proof, because it puts his/her family (the parents above all) in such a damning position.

    This is the link I posted earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/ma...pagewanted=all
    It is about a young psychopathic boy, Michael, raised in what seems to be a very healthy environment.


    So you concede it is a possibility that some people are born without the possibility to be empathetic, but you still think this isn’t the case with psychopath because something else causes their lack of empathy? Why?
    1) Psychopaths are not all violent. Actually if you believe some statistics, we all should have a psychopath amongst our general acquaintances. It could even be your boyfriend, only you won’t know it because they spend their whole life learning how to hide it from society.
    2) It hasn’t been proven that psychopaths that turn out violent necessarily come from unhealthy environments. Again, why should we justify their terrible acts with a bad childhood even without proof? It may be so, perhaps they have all been awfully abused and we just don’t know it. But then it may be not, perhaps it was just the way they are. If they lack empathy for their victim, they won’t feel guilty about what they are doing to them, so this isn’t going to hold them back. Didn’t Ted Bundy say something about liking the sensation of power it gave him? I remember him saying in a quote that he was feeling like God in those moments when he was looking at his victim’s eyes and could see the fear there, and then watch as life leave them. Something like that.
    3) “Antisocial” isn’t necessarily “wanting to inflict harm”.
    4) “It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy” Even if lacking empathy isn’t enough to make a psychopath, those other traits can also be inherent, which is the whole point.

    So yeah, I think it is possible that some people are born without natural empathy and without ways of growing out some. These people would be psychopathic (depending on your definition), though not necessarily violent ones.


    Both idea are depressing, there is really no point in finding out which is saddest.
    You just sound like you are trying to intellectualize this, enslaved to some ego fixation you have about needing to believe that someone can be born bad.

    I have stated my strong beliefs about it. I really haven't the heart to argue about it any further right now. To me, it's extremely obvious. People are inherently good. They LEARN to BE bad. It's that simple.

    I don't mean to be cranky. I just don't like going in circles. Especially online. It just seems like a waste of time. Doesn't it?
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #180
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    You just sound like you are trying to intellectualize this, enslaved to some ego fixation you have about needing to believe that someone can be born bad.

    I have stated my strong beliefs about it. I really haven't the heart to argue about it any further right now. To me, it's extremely obvious. People are inherently good. They LEARN to BE bad. It's that simple.

    I don't mean to be cranky. I just don't like going in circles. Especially online. It just seems like a waste of time. Doesn't it?
    I LEARNED that someone can be born bad. But if you truly believe that it's all in the nurturing, then people aren't born good or bad, they are neutral until their environment influences them one way or the other.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. What Question would you ask Ted Bundy?
    By chubber in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-12-2016, 08:36 PM
  2. Better off Ted Characters- what are their types?
    By ladypinkington in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 01:07 AM
  3. Ted Nugent??
    By alcea rosea in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 02:58 AM
  4. [NT] Ted.com
    By fleurdujour in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 07:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO