33 replies to this topic

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

No. Because it's a clear motive. It doesn't mean you're a psychopath. It means you are evil. Because you clearly, with all of your faculties in order, chose to carry out a horrible action.

To assume that people with properly functioning faculties would always make moral choices is incorrect.

 

Don't think you understand what a psychopath/sociopath is. It's not an excuse to do evil things. It is a mental illness technically speaking, but the main problems it causes are lack of empathy and increased boldness/likeliness to act out/act badly. Other than that, they often seem lie totally "normal" people. In fact a lot of sociopaths manage to feign empathy and so can be practically impossible to differ from a normal person. They are fully functioning. They typically aren't suffering from psychosis or lessened intelligence in any way.

Most sociopaths are not killers or even violent. The ones that are do not need motive to hurt or kill.  They lack many social skills and do not understand another person has emotions. You are throwing out words you do not know the meaning to. The girls had a clear motive,a sociopath killer needs none.

As i just showed above, I'm pretty aware of what a sociopath is. 

I actually said I think one of them is a psychopath, and one is a sociopath, because both of them showed little to no regret, but one of them definitely seemed to be the "leader" so to speak, and decided to go out and kill someone. That type of boldness and uncalled for aggression and want to kill would make me think she is psychopath (obviously combined with the fact she's perfectly calm about the fact she stabbed someone that was supposed to be her friend 19 times). The other girl appeared to essentially just be following what the psychopath was doing, not taking action herself (in other words, not something she would think of just randomly doing herself). That seems like something a sociopath would do.  If I remember correctly that's the same girl who said there was a "Bad part that wanted her to do it and a good part that didn't." That slight remorse would also be more indicative of her being a sociopath, since they can start to develop actual feelings of empathy for people very close to them (as this girl was supposed to be).

[Gimbal]

Riiiight... And both of them just so happened to have physical or chemical problems with their brains...

It's not like chicken pox. It doesn't just spread around contagiously. Somehow I feel the need to mention that here?

Because no minor has ever killed for the "fun" of it before right?

Methinks you need to look up events in the real world.

 

The article said that at least one of them likely had a mental disorder. They didn't both have to have one. The on with the disorder could have convinced the one without one. Most twelve year olds aren't stupid enough to believe in Slenderman either so chances are they both have some kind of disorder when it comes to separating fiction from reality. I never said minors don't kill for the fun of it. I said normal twelve year olds don't believe in Slenderman. I'm not an expert on mental disorders(and neither are you so your cliche act of having knowledge on the subject can be saved.) but I know what I and my peers thought, believed and or talked about when I was twelve. I don't care if they have a mental disorder or not, either way they don't think like normal twelve year olds. 

 

@Bold: Be more original. Saying "go do research" is much too common internet fare, to the point you're probably so predictable I can just add you to my ignore list and still know what you'll say. You people constantly arguing the same karpy way and saying the same karp is starting to seriously irk me. The amount of research I've done or you've done on any of the karp we usually talk about here doesn't mean a thing to anyone. As I get frustrated over people acting like stupid crap like how much research they've done on murders commited by minors, or console specs matters I realize that getting upset over people caring about stupid karp is also caring about stupid karp, then I'm back to laughing. Goodbye my average, cliche friend. If anyone has an odd mind it's me.

Edited by Gimbal, 09 June 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[Socalmuscle]

Don't think you understand what a psychopath/sociopath is. It's not an excuse to do evil things. It is a mental illness technically speaking, but the main problems it causes are lack of empathy and increased boldness/likeliness to act out/act badly. Other than that, they often seem lie totally "normal" people. In fact a lot of sociopaths manage to feign empathy and so can be practically impossible to differ from a normal person. They are fully functioning. They typically aren't suffering from psychosis or lessened intelligence in any way.

As i just showed above, I'm pretty aware of what a sociopath is.
I actually said I think one of them is a psychopath, and one is a sociopath, because both of them showed little to no regret, but one of them definitely seemed to be the "leader" so to speak, and decided to go out and kill someone. That type of boldness and uncalled for aggression and want to kill would make me think she is psychopath (obviously combined with the fact she's perfectly calm about the fact she stabbed someone that was supposed to be her friend 19 times). The other girl appeared to essentially just be following what the psychopath was doing, not taking action herself (in other words, not something she would think of just randomly doing herself). That seems like something a sociopath would do. If I remember correctly that's the same girl who said there was a "Bad part that wanted her to do it and a good part that didn't." That slight remorse would also be more indicative of her being a sociopath, since they can start to develop actual feelings of empathy for people very close to them (as this girl was supposed to be).

Disorders are not illnesses. They are simply uncommon actions.

The article said that at least one of them likely had a mental disorder. They didn't both have to have one. The on with the disorder could have convinced the one without one. Most twelve year olds aren't stupid enough to believe in Slenderman either so chances are they both have some kind of disorder when it comes to separating fiction from reality. I never said minors don't kill for the fun of it. I said normal twelve year olds don't believe in Slenderman. I'm not an expert on mental disorders(and neither are you so your cliche act of having knowledge on the subject can be saved.) but I know what I and my peers thought, believed and or talked about when I was twelve. I don't care if they have a mental disorder or not, either way they don't think like normal twelve year olds.

@Bold: Be more original. Saying "go do research" is much too common internet fare, to the point you're probably so predictable I can just add you to my ignore list and still know what you'll say. You people constantly arguing the same karpy way and saying the same karp is starting to seriously irk me. The amount of research I've done or you've done on any of the karp we usually talk about here doesn't mean a thing to anyone. As I get frustrated over people acting like stupid crap like how much research they've done on murders commited by minors, or console specs matters I realize that getting upset over people caring about stupid karp is also caring about stupid karp, then I'm back to laughing. Goodbye my average, cliche friend. If anyone has an odd mind it's me.

So... If a guy can be convinced... Who's to say the first one wasn't convinced by someone else.

Just disproving yourself. And again... Yes you do need to do some research. Because your odd mind isn't doing you any favors.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 10 June 2014 - 12:26 AM.

[Gimbal]

Disorders are not illnesses. They are simply uncommon actions.

So... If a guy can be convinced... Who's to say the first one wasn't convinced by someone else.

Just disproving yourself. And again... Yes you do need to do some research. Because your odd mind isn't doing you any favors.

 

Aww I'm disproven. Too bad. 

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Disorders are not illnesses. They are simply uncommon actions.

Wow. today I learned.

Honestly I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Disorders are just uncommon actions? Like what the heck?

You're clearly too educated and experienced for me. I concede.

[Socalmuscle]

Wow. today I learned.
Honestly I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Disorders are just uncommon actions? Like what the heck?
You're clearly too educated and experienced for me. I concede.

That's what they are.

Didn't mean to overwhelm and wasn't being mean.

Simply stating the facts.

Most people don't know the difference. Thats why education is important.

Too many things are thought of by the general populace to be a "disease" or "illness" when in fact they're nothing of the sort.

And it is a very important distinction.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

That's what they are.

Didn't mean to overwhelm and wasn't being mean.

Simply stating the facts.

Most people don't know the difference. Thats why education is important.

Too many things are thought of by the general populace to be a "disease" or "illness" when in fact they're nothing of the sort.

And it is a very important distinction.

But you were the one who started talking about illnesses and what ever. I just said they're probably psycho/sociopaths.

[Socalmuscle]

But you were the one who started talking about illnesses and what ever. I just said they're probably psycho/sociopaths.

And sociopathics represent a disorder. Not an illness. In other words it's a way to describe behavior. To categorize someone's actions. Not to determine that "something is wrong" or there is a medical reason for it.

You seemed to imply that they had an excuse for what they did. Sociopaths do not. Hence the need to explain proper usage of that terminology.

They simply violate commonly held morals. Which, in itself is tricky, since the world is consistently making up its morals as people go along. But I digress.

In the end, though psychologists are loathe to use such terms, it's about categorizing someone whose behavior isn't considered "normal"

At that point the behavior is "treated" with new learned behavior... Often simultaneous with expensive. Drugs.

This doesn't always work, since it doesn't get to the root cause, whatever it may be. But it does have limited success in limiting future disturbing behavior.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 11 June 2014 - 06:58 PM.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

And sociopathics represent a disorder. Not an illness. In other words it's a way to describe behavior. To categorize someone's actions. Not to determine that "something is wrong" or there is a medical reason for it.

You seemed to imply that they had an excuse for what they did. Sociopaths do not. Hence the need to explain proper usage of that terminology.

They simply violate commonly held morals. Which, in itself is tricky, since the world is consistently making up its morals as people go along. But I digress.

In the end, though psychologists are loathe to use such terms, it's about categorizing someone whose behavior isn't considered "normal"

At that point the behavior is "treated" with new learned behavior... Often simultaneous with expensive. Drugs.

This doesn't always work, since it doesn't get to the root cause, whatever it may be. But it does have limited success in limiting future disturbing behavior.

I actually specifically said it wasn't an excuse iirc, but sociopathy isn't defined by actions. It's often identified by actions, yes, but not defined. In other words, you can tell someone is a sociopath by how they behave, but how they behave does not make them a sociopath. Their lack of empathy for others make a sociopath. Empathy is an emotion that the average human being feels. Sociopaths do not feel those emotions, therefore, they are not normal, and have a slight "disability". That doesn't justify or excuse any crimes they commit but it is often a part of why the do commit crimes.

[Socalmuscle]

I actually specifically said it wasn't an excuse iirc, but sociopathy isn't defined by actions. It's often identified by actions, yes, but not defined. In other words, you can tell someone is a sociopath by how they behave, but how they behave does not make them a sociopath. Their lack of empathy for others make a sociopath. Empathy is an emotion that the average human being feels. Sociopaths do not feel those emotions, therefore, they are not normal, and have a slight "disability". That doesn't justify or excuse any crimes they commit but it is often a part of why the do commit crimes.

actually it's defined. Because there is nothing to identify. It's a matter of behavior.

It's not like a microscope is used and they find the problem. It's a lot of guesswork. Not an exact science.

Any disorder is a labl put on a series of behaviors. In NO WAY WHATSOEVER is a disorder a disability.

For example a bulimic, or someone with an eating disorder is labeled as such because of what they do. By their behavior. They eat too much. Or too little for what is healthy.

A disorder is exactly what it sounds like things are out of order. Some disorders are easily and accurately described. Such as an eating disorder. Others, dealing with moral direction are more difficult to define, simply because society has gotten away from a sense of what is absolutely right and wrong.

Most of the time psychological theory takes great pains to separate behavioral "disorders" from actual illness. The only time this fails is in labeling alcoholism -or drunken disorder - as a disease, which it is not. Most mental health experts agree. But it is too entrenched.

To label a murderer as a sociopathic so quickly is foolish. Especially if they never displayed this tendency. Before.

People DO perform actions contrary than their core character all the time, even actions with dire consequences. It isn't always linked to any disorder nor illness.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 11 June 2014 - 11:48 PM.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

actually it's defined. Because there is nothing to identify. It's a matter of behavior.

It's not like a microscope is used and they find the problem. It's a lot of guesswork. Not an exact science.

Any disorder is a labl put on a series of behaviors. In NO WAY WHATSOEVER is a disorder a disability.

For example a bulimic, or someone with an eating disorder is labeled as such because of what they do. By their behavior. They eat too much. Or too little for what is healthy.

A disorder is exactly what it sounds like things are out of order. Some disorders are easily and accurately described. Such as an eating disorder. Others, dealing with moral direction are more difficult to define, simply because society has gotten away from a sense of what is absolutely right and wrong.

Most of the time psychological theory takes great pains to separate behavioral "disorders" from actual illness. The only time this fails is in labeling alcoholism -or drunken disorder - as a disease, which it is not. Most mental health experts agree. But it is too entrenched.

To label a murderer as a sociopathic so quickly is foolish. Especially if they never displayed this tendency. Before.

People DO perform actions contrary than their core character all the time, even actions with dire consequences. It isn't always linked to any disorder nor illness.

There's a difference between someone with builmia and a psychopath (besides the obvious). Someone with builmia has a problem more like an addiction. Usually comes from past experiences influencing them (I think). A psychopath actually has a problem because they can't feel empathy. That is a whole emotion that is just missing from their brain, and (in the case of psychopathy, not so much sociopathy from what I understand) they are simply born that way (once again in most cases I think). Is it an exact science seeing if someone is a psychopath or not? No. Do they usually just tell a psychopath by their actions and what they say about their actions? Yes (as far as I know). Does that mean that psychopathy is just a doing those actions? No, because once again those actions are just a diagnosis of the problem. It's kind of like alzheimer's/dementia. In the early stages, they don't have scientific proof so they just go on people not being able to remember. It's only in the later stages that you can actually start to see the problems in the brain.

Also, psychopaths often have previous signs showing they are psychopaths. Sociopaths it's a little harder to tell sometimes, but there can be warning signs there too. I was just guessing that they are psycho/sociopathic becauseof their lack of remorse towards stabbing someone 19 times and the lack of empathy it would take to plan to do that to someone who is supposed to be your friend. Those are decently telling signs.

[Socalmuscle]

There's a difference between someone with builmia and a psychopath (besides the obvious). Someone with builmia has a problem more like an addiction. Usually comes from past experiences influencing them (I think). A psychopath actually has a problem because they can't feel empathy. That is a whole emotion that is just missing from their brain, and (in the case of psychopathy, not so much sociopathy from what I understand) they are simply born that way (once again in most cases I think). Is it an exact science seeing if someone is a psychopath or not? No. Do they usually just tell a psychopath by their actions and what they say about their actions? Yes (as far as I know). Does that mean that psychopathy is just a doing those actions? No, because once again those actions are just a diagnosis of the problem. It's kind of like alzheimer's/dementia. In the early stages, they don't have scientific proof so they just go on people not being able to remember. It's only in the later stages that you can actually start to see the problems in the brain.
Also, psychopaths often have previous signs showing they are psychopaths. Sociopaths it's a little harder to tell sometimes, but there can be warning signs there too. I was just guessing that they are psycho/sociopathic becauseof their lack of remorse towards stabbing someone 19 times and the lack of empathy it would take to plan to do that to someone who is supposed to be your friend. Those are decently telling signs.

That's where it gets muddy. Because most sociopaths CAN feel empathy. But the proper response is overridden by their desire to do something most people would call "evil" or "disturbing."

And the more they do it, the more the conscience gets subdued and desensitized.

Most have at times in their lives exhibited empathy for family members and pets. But then a curiosity toward some demented thing is sometimes actually taken to action and once that threshold is crossed, every time thereafter is easier and easier until there is no more remorse.

Though we try to help people by recognizing abnormal behavior and offering help, a label isn't one size fits all.

Most serial killers, for example, are highly intelligent people with as much capability intellectually,husk calmly, and emotionally as anyone. But there becomes an erosion of Conscience as bad choices continue to be made in life.

It's not so much the person has an identifiable malady. Nor were they born different.

But their choices lead to continued behavior which erodes the normal "check that they had the first time.

Rapists and murderers have many times confessed to how it starts out. First a fascination with porn or movies about killing. Then it becomes acting out what they've seen. First it's a "normal" encounter with someone or it's killing an animal. Then it grows from there.

Many times both types of criminal have confessed to that sweaty, rapid heart rate, heavy feeling that we have when we are about to knowingly do something wrong. But when they CONTINUE to do so, they lose that conviction. That "check" built into our conscience.

Hence the term DISORDER. it's not the normal orderly conduct that the majority exhibit.

A behavior that is horrible isn't always (or even often) a result of disease or something along those lines. It's a moral compass issue and a behavioral issue.

That's why it's a disorder. When the various terms were coined, there were strict reasons for these labels. Sad to se how so many intermix and misunderstand them today.

Add to that the fact that psychology is nowhere near and exact science and you have confusion.

But the idea that someone who does a bad thing must be doing so as a result of them being different is false. With extremely rare exception, They are the same as anyone else but who have chosen to do wrong, young and old alike.

[KeptMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

That's where it gets muddy. Because most sociopaths CAN feel empathy. But the proper response is overridden by their desire to do something most people would call "evil" or "disturbing."

And the more they do it, the more the conscience gets subdued and desensitized.

Most have at times in their lives exhibited empathy for family members and pets. But then a curiosity toward some demented thing is sometimes actually taken to action and once that threshold is crossed, every time thereafter is easier and easier until there is no more remorse.

Though we try to help people by recognizing abnormal behavior and offering help, a label isn't one size fits all.

Most serial killers, for example, are highly intelligent people with as much capability intellectually,husk calmly, and emotionally as anyone. But there becomes an erosion of Conscience as bad choices continue to be made in life.

It's not so much the person has an identifiable malady. Nor were they born different.

But their choices lead to continued behavior which erodes the normal "check that they had the first time.

Rapists and murderers have many times confessed to how it starts out. First a fascination with porn or movies about killing. Then it becomes acting out what they've seen. First it's a "normal" encounter with someone or it's killing an animal. Then it grows from there.

Many times both types of criminal have confessed to that sweaty, rapid heart rate, heavy feeling that we have when we are about to knowingly do something wrong. But when they CONTINUE to do so, they lose that conviction. That "check" built into our conscience.

Hence the term DISORDER. it's not the normal orderly conduct that the majority exhibit.

A behavior that is horrible isn't always (or even often) a result of disease or something along those lines. It's a moral compass issue and a behavioral issue.

That's why it's a disorder. When the various terms were coined, there were strict reasons for these labels. Sad to se how so many intermix and misunderstand them today.

Add to that the fact that psychology is nowhere near and exact science and you have confusion.

But the idea that someone who does a bad thing must be doing so as a result of them being different is false. With extremely rare exception, They are the same as anyone else but who have chosen to do wrong, young and old alike.

Yes all that is true, but it only further proves my argument. The girl I assumed to be a sociopath said "It's like the bad part of me wanted to do it and the good part of me wanted to stop."

Seems very much like what you described for a first killing. Also the thing you described about how sociopaths do have the ability.

The other girl seemed to have 0 remorse and was the one who suggested it first and the one actively pushing for them to continue. That seems more like a psychopath.

[Socalmuscle]

Yes all that is true, but it only further proves my argument. The girl I assumed to be a sociopath said "It's like the bad part of me wanted to do it and the good part of me wanted to stop."
Seems very much like what you described for a first killing. Also the thing you described about how sociopaths do have the ability.
The other girl seemed to have 0 remorse and was the one who suggested it first and the one actively pushing for them to continue. That seems more like a psychopath.

If you say so.