Hello All

No. Remember what motivates sociopaths -- power and control over others. That's where their focus always is. They do not have a vested interest in things that do not increase their power and control over others. But it is true that they have found ways to manipulate many things for that purpose!

Of course, given our currently insane system, run by sociopaths! But what Joseph and Fresco are doing is looking ahead to what a new system might look like that would be run by normal people instead of sociopaths.

It appears you have misunderstood my yawn, Rose. I was not yawning because I was bored with your comments, I was yawning because I was bored with the one I was about to make! I was not implying any disrespect towards you, I was making fun of myself. You should understand by now, after all these years, that I welcome differing opinions and do not under any circumstances criticize people for simply holding opinions that I don't hold. Much of the time, I myself once held those very same opinions, so of course I understand why they would hold them!

I am more than happy to hear any critiques against Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco, Hitler, history, capitalism, property rights, me, and even sociopathy. Zook has been concentrating on critiquing me and sociopathy for years, and I enjoy those challenges. So when anyone agrees with me, that's fine, and when anyone disagrees with me, that's even better. I'm not looking for like-mindedness. If I was, I'd still be at Avalon!

 

As we all know (yawn), I suggest sociopathy plays the biggest role in the bulk of the problems of our world. But could it be that the controllers (ruling sociopaths) have a vested interest in capitalism and property rights?

 

I'm going to demonstrate why David is a liar (which is consistent with his being a sociopath), and I will also show how sociopaths construct their lies.

David claims I accuse everyone I disagree with to be a sociopath. Not so. Sam Hunter came to Inphinet claiming to be a sociopath. I disagreed with his claim and presented Sam with evidence supporting why I did not believe him to be a sociopath. That is a clear example of me disagreeing with someone and not accusing them of being a sociopath.

You will also note that I have had disagreements with Rose, the administrator of this forum, yet I have not accused her of being a sociopath. In fact, I have done the opposite -- I "accused" her of sometimes being too empathetic, particularly when dealing with sociopaths.

Now let me show you how David's claim is a typical twisting of the truth, which is the way sociopaths lie. While it is not true that everyone I disagree with is a sociopath, it is true that I disagree with all sociopaths! Did you catch that distinction? Being a non-sociopath, it is inevitable that I will disagree with the perspectives of a sociopath! As Gemma would put it, empathic logic does not agree with psychopathic logic. A person of empathy will always, at some level, disagree with a sociopath. Why? Because their psychologies are incompatible.

Probably not one person in ninety would see through this kind of truth twisting that sociopaths employ, which is precisely why sociopaths use it. All sociopaths do it, including right here in this forum, as clearly evidenced by Stephen, Shezbeth, Shadowself, UncleZook, and now David.

Yes, David, I now agree with you. You are indeed a sociopath, as you have claimed from your initial post at Inphinet.

 

Because you've known all along. I certainly didn't know it, but you showed us all quite convincingly.

LOL! You remind me so much of Stephen here. You remember that, right, back at Atticus1.org? How vicious he was? How deceiving? How entertaining? How manipulative? And how sad it was to see such ugliness spew out of one human being...

I didn't even know this forum existed until Rose told me about it maybe six months ago. Stephen had already been banned by Rose by then, for having stolen control of the forum from her.

You just got here. Give yourself some time. But seriously, you got off to an immediate start in your very first post, trying to create a rift between Chico and the rest of the forum, remember? And you are still doing it even now! Such hypocrisy, David. You should be ashamed, but that ain't gonna happen.

Where are you getting this nonsense? Can you provide a link to where I "dragged Rose into things"? How about a link to my "indignant response to Rose...'mom mom, David insulted me and hurted my feewings waa wa.' was also a give away". Are you all bark and no bite?

That would be this post that triggered Shadowself's pre-planned attack against me. So you did study all that, as I mentioned earlier. Of course you did, because you are trying to succeed using the same strategy that she used, even pulling your son into the discussion. You sociopaths are really quite amazing.

Chico is negative, David is constructive. Chico serves Kool-Aid, David contributes. Chico says everyone is a sociopath, David says David is a sociopath.

So you can imagine how I am looking forward to the damning "history" you hope to dig up on Chico. Shadowself tried the same thing, even gushing online that she hit "pay dirt" on me! Why don't you conspire with her? That is, after all, the sociopathic thing to do. And you won't be the first sociopath to go that route. Zook, Andy, Ross/Pod, Richard, 9eagle9/Warponies, Stephen/Atticus, digitalindustry, and many more have all tried it. Digitalindustry (Kolin Evans) even created an account as Chicodoodoo on another forum to invent a history of malfeasance that he could blame on me! Now he was hard-core! Given your superior intelligence, David, I'm sure you can top him. Break a leg!

 

yeah I don't get exactly how you intend to do so. The second part of the post referred to altering effects based upon the odds, the first, the different intention via free will if we have it. Whats left lol?

 

Do we have free will or are we pre destined? Can we act outside an event, or if it is our fate? The movie about the anti superheroes...was it the watchmen? dealt with that question really well actually. According to what you are asking then can a person suspend, change, or tempt fate in such a way that the law of averages has no affect? Thats interesting because you are posing the question in such a way that it is "smaller" than the matter of free will vis a vis fate.

The truth is everyday people try to do things that tempt the averages, but they are usually gamblers, contrarians, etc. YET there are even people who have won lotteries with incredible odds TWICE! Speaking of which, I had a friend who played the numbers and was convinced that a system could be designed for making the odds in one's favor. Of course most would assume the odds are always random. In my opinion life on earth itself, measured against the life of the Universe, measured against what may have existed before the universe, is such an infintesimially small number, it makes one wonder just what the odds are for anything. Show me a civilization that has been around as long as the dinosaurs and their take on the odds, it might be quite different.

 

Confirmation bias at its best.... SEE told you somehow someway...everybody who doesn't drink the Doo Doo kolaid is a sociopath. How did I know I would wind up being a sociopath...humm?? Again, confirmation bias at its best.

For the record one of us (Doo Doo and I) have used other internet identities, banned people on a forum when they did not agree with them... and it was not I. Doo Doo is also a hypocrite. So Doo Doo you went out of your way to pretend you thought I was comparing you to my son...hum? thats quite a manipulative behavoir! sounds kind of like a SOCIOPATH to me. Actually though this is not true because you are not smart enough to do this, rather you are trying to back peddle...nice try. Your lack if intellect gives you away on this one. Your indignant response to Rose..."mom mom, David insulted me and hurted my feewings waa wa." was also a give away No, this really did bother you. So stop lying to look better please.

So Chic how many times have you been in this situation? you mention a few other times, lets multiply that times ten at least....and yet everyone else is the boogyman? Might the problem be you? it would be quite the coincidance if everyone you had a run in was a sociopath, particularly when you display many signs of being a sociopath yourself, albeit one without the requesite intelligence that most sociopaths have... you are narcissistic, manipulative, a liar when it suits you, you look for positions of power... though you hid under the desk while Stephen was here lol. you are also a splitter which is a BIG RED FLAG.

I worked in psych and I want everyone who has an interest to notice something: I came here, and have developed an antagonistic relationship to Chic....Yet...go figure, the board is not fighting with each other, there are no splits into different groups, etc. You see? I am not a splitter. You are. The minute you asserted yourself other members and their threads were affected. Your presence wound up chasing other members out...mine hasn't. Nobody really gives a shit about David's situation with Chick, which is the way it should be. Your reaction is to try to drag Rose into things, thats what a splitter does. Do you see me PMing other members? involving Gemma on the thread? other such things? If, Mark had a thread open and said to me "your response is annoying me could you not post?" I would not post, but Doo Doo boy? when you were annoying another member with your broken record psychobabble sociopath agenda, you being aggreived was the important issue. because Chic is so important! right? sociopath indeed lol. Look in the mirror.

My point is that you probably have a history. Your presence is a negative. I may be haughty about my knowledge, but ultimately I am a constructive presence. You come to these boards to convince others to drink your kool aid, I come here to contribute. And thats the difference between us. That will always be the difference between us...which to you means that everyone must be a sociopath right? lol. Again I would bet you have a history and that is probably why the chip on your shoulder exists.

Your sociopathic brother from another
David

 

Sociopaths always attack the messenger while poo-pooing the message.

From a sociopath's perspective, it's always about intimidation, which is why you believe I am trying to intimidate you. I have never had such an intent, but you won't be able to imagine that.

I have no doubt you were carefully and quietly observing those interactions, to learn from their mistakes. It has already been noticed that when attempts have been made to treat sociopaths, they simply learn from the treatments how to become even better deceivers and manipulators.

Stephen, Shezbeth, and Shadowself share that opinion with you. It would appear that you speak primarily for sociopaths, which is what I expect now.

It was a clever ploy, and you are still milking it for all it is worth in your attempt to kill the messenger. You expose yourself, David.

Actually, you'll use anything that you think will work. The ends justify the means, from the perspective of sociopaths.

 

yeah its your programming Rose! Seriously I have to comment on this statement. Here is an example to demonstrate where I am going with this comment: When I worked as a councellor in a Psych hospital, there were times when a person was not in need of psychiatric care. In advocating the system of health care that treats acute psychiatric problems it was necessary to believe that all patients that arrived were in need of this care. Furthermore if they resisted efforts, said that they had another issue not addressed in a psychiatric hospital...they were in denial.

Well sure enough, we get this patient who complains that he is sick physically. He is told that he is depressed and in denial. He eventually gets permission to leave the hospital, comes back a week later, a new man. he had a food allergy that was causing his symptoms. Another example: a kid comes in with what looks like a first schizophrenic break. The psych intern wants to call it such, we as a staff implore her not to, because there could be another issue and marking somebody with this diagnosis can create a self fufilling prophecy. She is stubborn, so one of us calls one of our long term docs who makes sure the kid is not labelled such... turns out that the kid had a bad drug reaction... meaning that, while they may have had a schizophrenic break, if they did not, given that they can function, they have the benefit of the doubt.

Anytime a system is used to respond to a critic, or anything that attacks the system it will, much like an organic entity, protect itself. Forn systematic epistemology this defense involves labelling the critic as demonstrating characteristics that affirm the system's judgement. So, if someone critisizes a judgement about a sociopath, they are obviously a sociopath.... Just find a behavior in the lexicon of sociopathology and stick it on the person. I must be the millionth person that Doo Doo calls a sociopath.

If you disagree with Doo Doo you are programmed, vulnerable to the machinations of a sociopath like David, etc. Now...For a systematic epistemology to defend itself this way is reasonable. Anything that is to survive needs a way to protect itself...but, when individuals use this strategy of affirmation, which Psych nurses used very often (I may add)... it becomes a form of censorship. And it can be a fine line.

So I would caution my good friend Doo Doo not to use this strategy of affirmation, as a substitute for rational thought and dialogue. We all have to check ourselves at times.

 

People should know that Doo Doo and I are conjugal twins, separated at birth...unfortunately only one of us could have the brain... need I say more?

There is nothing to discuss, moved past this long ago...You don't appear to understand subtleties about some of the terms you use, sorry that is just how it is, wish you did but you do not. The fact of the matter is you are a bully who, like a lot of remedials, believes by saying something enough times (Propaganda anyone) you will make it so...I am not intimidated by you, you humor me and that bugs you...You could certainly bother Brook couldn't you! Even chased Zook away! lol. Yes those are my opinions. Others may feel differently. All I know is I enjoyed looking in on those threads before the topic became "everything is sociopaths, and thats the root of everything...again and again."

All you ever do is try to confirm and bully your way into discussions with your belief that sociopathology is the major issue of any discussion. You say it over and over again, then when people get upset you hide behind obligations inherent in a social discourse..."poor Doo Doo has a right to express himself, if one does not like him shitting on their thread, then put him on ignore!" So you wind up chasing off people who actually have interesting things to say and yes thats my opinion by the way, I don't pretend to speak for all.

I gave you the last word, ignored a bit more of your gibberish but you have to remain relevant...this discussion isn't about you sociopath, it is about a topic at hand...we know your beliefs thank you for sharing them.... It shows your symptoms when you assumed my desire to process my son's film was to belittle you...who the fuck are you to belittle? lol. I am an up front sort of sociopath...I don't use children or small animals to belittle those I wish to succumb to my evil inclinations! bwaaaa hahahha! Doo Doo not much is needed to belittle you frankly...sorry just the truth.

So once again, have a say or two, but do try to stay on topic please. I will stop responding to my dear friend, sociopath hunter to the stars, Indiana Doo Doo.... but all sociopaths beware! Doo Doo will find you and....castigate you! he will end your evil ways in a flash. Just look at how many evil doers he has banished from various social media...all socio paths I guarantee!

 

In this case its modeled off of Quantum processes. When locating an electron/photon we never know objectively where it is, we have a probability of where it will be based on us observing it, among other things. What makes it interesting is that one way of categorizing HOW we categorize (lol) is to look at the schism in physics: Einstein told us how BIG things behave...Planets, people, matter converting to energy, etc. But Einstein, and the whole neutonian paradigm become quite crazy when describing how small things work, and how forces affect small things. For example, technically under gravity because of the laws of how a force needs a greater or equal reaction, when we affect gravity the whole earth is affected and moves...sound ridiculous? Just an example of how we are unable to explain small, subtle things, sub atomic things and the way forces act with them.

This brings us to trying to explain how small things work: The attempt to create systems and predictive models out of Quantum processes initially came when physicists were left trying to explain why it appeared our observation of an effect changed the effect and...how manipulating a process in one location could affect a process a great physical distance from the first process.

Eventually philosophers tried to model other systems out of the attempt to model the behavior of electrons..so we have computer programming done with quantum processes, we have social problems, financial problems modeled based on probability and a calculus of things changing and while not subject to one conclusion, subject to the probability of any number of conclusions.

This is a very different way of looking at the law of averages. I personally believe that when we are able to wrap our heads around quantum probability we will find a new way to conceptualize the world, and we will develop technology to match. But its not easy! Epistemology went through an entire purification where notions of subjectivity and objectivity were challenged and deconstructed. Are we biting off too much?

Traditionally a law of averages is based on the probability of a singular real event. What we are talking about is non real event independent of how we are calculating the probability of an event! Its hard to wrap around that one! yet people are working with it and revolutionizing the financial industry, wargame industry, etc.

 

Is there some special significance to this "having the last word" thing? I take it you don't want to discuss it further, because your mind is becoming closed on this subject. Is that the correct interpretation?

This is a very poor definition, especially #3! Particular principles that an organization propagates is propaganda?! Would that include accepted facts and other truthful statements?

No, propaganda is always designed to deceive while appearing non-deceptive. That is its fundamental purpose. It accomplishes this by judiciously mixing truths with untruths while withholding certain critical information needed to resolve the two.

Yes, I noted that. That leaves room for him to be deluded but completely convinced that his delusions are reality. I did understand that on my first reading of your words. While I won't dismiss that possibility, I think it is more likely that it is his audience that is not understanding the context and supporting interconnections of his perspective.

 

No, I didn't forget. A good opening defense for a sociopath is to sarcastically claim he is a sociopath. You are not the first one to do that with me, so I've seen it before. In my experience, sociopaths always expose themselves, and with this embarrassing post of yours, you have done exactly that.

Note that you will not be embarrassed at all by your post, in fact you will be proud of it! But a person with normal empathy making such a post would feel shame. I know I would.

 

Yes. And what is the primary goal of capitalistic corporations? Improve the bottom line. Maximize profit. That is basically greed. There is no real concern for parties who are outside the corporation unless those parties contribute to maximizing the corporation's profit.

What I am suggesting is that capitalism as it is understood today is sociopathic.

Absolutely not. You are forgetting that sociopaths aren't much different from normal people. They lack empathy, which changes their psychology in subtle but critical ways. Another way to look at it is that normal people are sociopaths with empathy. We tend not to look at it that way because the sociopath is the deviant, way outside the mainstream, making up only an estimated 2% or so of the population.

If capitalism is inherently sociopathic, non-sociopathic legistators trust-busting from inside the system would probably not be a sustainable solution.

Your programming is speaking there, Rose. It depends on what you are greedy for. What if you are greedy for a tide that will lift all boats? In other words, you are greedy to improve the lot of all humanity?

Besides, no system is likely to be trouble-free, whether you include greedy individuals or not. Since when do limited and flawed humans make perfect systems?

 

I think I haven't communicated it clearly enough. There is a problem with your phrase "propaganda style persuasion techniques". Propaganda styles itself after legitimate persuasive methods. It (propaganda) is the fake, the imposter posing as truth. You may be confusing legitimate persuasive methods for "propaganda style persuasion techniques", resulting in a perception that someone is trying to fool you, when in fact they have no such intent.

That's an enormous stretch to equate those two. You would have to believe that the intent of making that first statement about objectivity is to hypnotize someone. I don't see such an intent, because I understand why Peter Joseph suggests we don't think objectively due to the dominating influence of our programming. If we have been programmed, do we think objectively?

 

Tried that....even gave him the last word. Its also mind boggling that he could take the film entree as directed towards him lol. Sorry that cracks me up. Chick is actually my dear friend, love him like a brother.