Introduction to the psychopathic life

Post Reply New Topic

Ruyven, you have one of the smartest heads here but you're forgetting something - human societies and AS don't mix too well. For most other humans psychopathy is probably best avoided due to it's percieved unproductiveness yes.

But

I've often thought the only way for an aspie to enjoy life is to be a sociopath (doesn't sound as bad as psychopath), perhaps a new category needs creating - sympapsychopath perhaps? A bit unwieldy but we can work on it .

Vana I think I love you

I have been an Aspie since I was born. My material needs have been fulfilled by what society provides. Without society I would be dead. My relations to society have not always been easy, but they have been necessary.

ruveyn

Psychopathetic topic

Tro Next, please.

Exactly, don't you think your life may have been more enjoyable if it had been easier?

I think the reason a lot of aspies seem to be so unhappy is, even though they know they're different, they try to live in the same way and with the same values other humans do then they get upset when they see they're not getting the same things other humans do even though they do the same things.

We know we need to do things like learn, communicate, work etc in different ways to NTs but for some reason we still think it's a good idea to live like them.

I have strong morals but they're different to everyone elses, what I do is ignore everyone elses morals in the pursuit of what I want. If I can do that without negatively affecting anyone else then I think I'm doing the right thing. If I'm not hurting anyone (in fact I help my friends get what they want too) and I get what I want then why shouldn't I?

interesting perspective. BTW James Bond fits the exact definition of a psychopath

Amusing post.

Sure, I'll grant you that society is evil, but that does not lead us to the notion that psychopaths, or any grouping that exists is good.


No, people are afraid of someone outside of their control. Most people prefer to have their plans and run their lives without much interference, but a being who by nature interferes in a negative manner will quickly be harmed by other beings as a matter of preserving their own desires. I mean, if you mess with my day and disrupt my pleasure, how else SHOULD I react other than calling you a sickness and locking you away? It is the easiest way to deal with my problem.


Sure they are. Intent. A truthful person is intending to provide an answer that conforms to the reality perceived by themselves. A liar lacks this intention.


I suppose you are relating "aliveness" to energeticness, yes? I find spontaneity mildly distressing, as where in spontaneity are the more temperate pleasures? I am spontaneously reading based upon my whim? I have my own clocks and like my own times, and only wish that others found out that they should all act in a manner corresponding to my personal schedule.


Life is worth precisely what I say it is worth. And for you to judge how I should value my life, and commit violence against me only merits my violence in return.


Who says we should admire those individuals? Great artists are often nut jobs for multiple reasons and they deserve to be scorned for their insanity, unless self-mutilation should be our new style of course.


And that's why you must be considered a sickness. Your perspective, by nature, is different than our perspective. Because of your perspective, you interfere with our desires. Therefore, we destroy you and feel no shame for it. I mean, ashamed of violating the values of a psychopath? Who would feel remorse for doing the right thing against such depravity!? And who would be so dumb as to give a mortal enemy some level of humanity?

Every existential thinker wrote a lot about this. It is basically one of the defining elements of existentialism.

i think i'm prolly more of a maniac than a psychopath

To apply psychopathology as a label to anyone who has a different vision of life and morality is to greatly distort the term. There are multitudes of ways of seeing the world differently from what is accepted in any particular culture and since cultures differ widely on morality the diluting of a diagnosis of pathology into mere unusual viewpoints makes the term basically meaningless.

Oh, really, you don't say?


Explain.


How can you do other than 'you damn well please'? You simply can not do other than you will to do.


Right, you get it!


So, you are a psychopath, not a robot; I don't get your criticism?


Where did this come from? The population at large commits more violence than psychopaths do. Violent psychopaths are a tiny minority; sort of like violent men, violent Blacks... see how that works?


Sick like a homosexual? Sick like an Asperger? Psychopath is a label put on human beings to exclude and harm them. It is a cognitive detention camp.

That sux that you identify with society, which is nothing but a ghost, an unreal illusion, but against psychopaths, who are real people, your brothers and sisters.

The oposite of psychopathy is prejudice, fascism, and bureaucracy.


It's a bit like how Jew was used in 1930's and 40's Germany. Or how n****r is used in America. We have to reclaim these words: Niggaz, Psychos, Homos, Pedos, Aspies!

Sand wrote:

Vana wrote



Is it semantics you are complaining about? Do you want all people with original thought to be declared psychopaths? Do you want all people with disorders in their nervous systems to be declared original thinkers? That strikes me as most peculiar.

The issue is that the kind of viewpoint you promote stands against the kind of viewpoint I like. Spontaneous people annoy me and random forces annoy me.


The population at large is comprised of a larger number of people, so of course it commits more violence. However, another issue is whether or not one agrees with the violence of one group vs another group. At least, I will disagree with the violence of psychopaths.


Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.


Society is made of real people, and you know that. It is a fictitious way to reference a larger group.


The opposite of whatever an individual considers good is always labeled as some form of evil. What more is this than an illusion you create using rhetoric?

I chose these words very carefully. Think about it a little bit...

"...an Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life.

This art of living counter to all forms of fascism, whether already present or impending...."

- Michel Foucault
http://columbus.indymedia.org/node/117

A psychopath is like a Jedi. But, the Sith is not the inevitable result of the Force.

Best psychopathy song ever!

"Some say ya' troubled boy
Just because you like to destroy
All the things that bring the idiots joy
Well, what's wrong with a little destruction?

And the kunts won't talk to you
Cause you kissed St. Rollox adieu
Cause you robbed a supermarket or two
Well, who gives a damn about the prophets of Tesco?
...
Well the fallen are the virtuous among us
Walk among us
Never judge us
Yeah we're all blessed
...
So I'm sorry if I ever resisted
I never had a doubt you ever existed
I only have a problem when people insist on
Taking their hate and placing it on your name"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLkdkMst8j8

yeah, this still doesn't address the problem that the definition of psycopathy you use pretty mych runs totally against any and all usage in western europe and north america. unless you reject that definition in favour of your own as part of your being a 'psychopath', you know reject all 'norms' and stuff.

I don't see what to think about. Fascism is a term. It used to be positive. Now it is negative because of the actions of fascists in the 20th century. Applying terms seems utterly irrelevant though.

When was fascism (outside of fascist countries) favorable?

ruveyn