Protect the weak, infirm and the sociopath?

1. 59

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   The is not the natural-way-of-things.
   "Balance" is demanded for life to exist on this planet.
   How can protecting the weak, the infirm, the sociopath be a progressive act for humankind?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So what are you suggesting Dear Qwark? Are you calling on Mrs. Pailin to pull out her shotgun?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Just food for thought my dear Klara...:-)
         Lets see what kinds of responses we get. Should be interesting....I hope...lol :-)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            YOu should be ok. I passed by and touched your question with my little magic wand. You'll have plenty of responses now, I am sure.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Klara you are devilishly blessed...now! back into the inferno with thee! Thee shallt be rewardly handsomely if this question becomes the acme of forum chat! Now begone and work thy develish potions in my favor...ooowwwwooooooohhhhhhh! !

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  All I have to do now is post nude pictures of Greek One. Then, we'll get a real good following!!! LOL

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Klara: if Greek is a lovely famale about 5'3"s and has worked for Victoria's secret...Post!Pls Post!

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I'd expect anything from GreekOne. I wouldn't be surprised! LOL

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           ...If not, Your magic incantations and brews had better start working, or your devilish lil *ss is grass...lol :-)

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Hahahaha.... Wait, let me work my magic once again! It's slow today!

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Dead! is the word!  :-(

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Klara's magic is on the RISE!!!!

                                    replyreport
   2. 61

      Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think we are expected to act with more intelligence and compassion than rest of the animal kingdom. It was reason that put us above rest the animals on this planet. So, acting like animals and claiming only the strong should survive is dimmishing human beings to the level of rats and insects.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      syzygyastroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that in the natural ecosystem, any plant or animal that gets weak, get weeded out. Human beings are a part of nature, though we may think we are above it. With the advent of modern medicine, we have been able to overcome diseases that would have crippled, like polio, in the past and yet, we say that we should not place them out to die of exposure if they are kept alive after the ravages of the disease, but weakened and infirm. In this case we are going to have to be subjective as well as objective.
      
      Suppose for a moment that for a moment that you got a crippling illness. If you are an average human being, you would still want the right to live, just in case there is a discovery that restores full function. And what of the sociopath that got that way in a theater of war due to shell shock. Do we kill someone after they heroically went to war to make the world safe for democracy?
      
      These are complex issues to say the least as more is involved then a mere profiling someone as an 'untermechen'. This has been done in the past under regimes like the Nazi that described Jews, gypsies, gay people, political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, the handicapped and others were all put to tortured death and many of these were neither sociopaths, infirm or weak. We see again when France rounds up and deports tens of thousands of people simply because they do not fit into the austerity paradigm.
      
      A better answer would be to seek out genetic cures for genetic based illnesses and ways to eradicate disease. The answer is not to behave like wolves tearing apart a deer that has been captured in a hunt. If you are familiar with the fang and claw approach, these situations devour the host while still alive and conscious. They suffer the torments of being torn limb from limb. If we as a species agree that this is what we are to do to the weak, the inform and the sociopath according to our preconceived notions, then we should seek out the savanna and live like lions and hyenas, dragging down our choices of victim and tearing them apart alive, conscious and screaming. But then again, that is what torture is all about, isn't it?
      
      Ultimately we are part of nature and we are animals that share the ecosystem, but being human, we can develop compassion and we have something other creatures don't have; science, the means to change the order of the world, to eradicate infirmity, disease, weakness and mental illness whatever form it takes. We should take this road or descend collectively down the world to species insanity. Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad with power.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   Not sure about the sociopath, but we all will be weak and infirm at some point in our lives.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ron ..ok carry it on...love to hear more.

      replyreport
3. 61

   A la carteposted 13 years ago

   While sociopaths are not nice people that does not mean that they do not need help and protection..even if that help is psychological.Would you be a sociopath if all you did was lie? Just wondering.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A La....my bad, pardon me.
      I speak of the sociopath who is a danger, and jeopardizes or ends the lives innocent others.
      There are def. levels of sociopathy.

      replyreport
4. 61

   Elpasoposted 13 years ago

   OK...I'll jump in.
   And I have to first ask you Quark; are you well?
   
   Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was until 1980 the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. However the publication of DSM-III changed the name of this mental disorder to Antisocial Personality Disorder and also broadened the diagnostic criteria considerably by shifting from clinical inferences to behavioral diagnostic criteria.[3] However, the DSM-V working party is recommending a revision of Antisocial Personality Disorder to "Antisocial/Psychopathic Type", with the diagnostic criteria having a greater emphasis on character than on behavior.[4] The ICD-10 diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization also lacks psychopathy as a personality disorder, its 1992 manual including Dissocial (Antisocial) Personality Disorder, which encompasses amoral, antisocial, asocial, psychopathic, and sociopathic personalities.
   
   PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU INCORPORATE THE OLD, THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED, THE CANCER STRIKEN; WITH PEOPLE WHO DROWNS CATS AND BECOME SERIAL KILLERS?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Elpaso - you should come around and meet my granny sometime

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         SCARED OF HER!!!

         replyreport
   2. 59

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      El Paso:
      I don't!
      My question is simple. We act contrary to nature and the balance she has required from her birth.
      Is this a progressive act for our species?
      Am I well?..."well: what?    beats me  :-)

      replyreport
      1. 67

         alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It is not contrary to nature at all - you are on the wrong foot from the start.
         
         Parents naturally protect and nurture their young.  The evolutionary gift of intelligence allows us to reason that this natural phenomenon extended to society is a 'natural' advantage to our species .

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Alternate...you'd think so!
            Pls tell me how you think that there is a "natural advantage" in protecting the infirm, the weak and the deadly antisocial human creature. ty

            replyreport
            1. 67

               alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The weak and infirm is easy.  We were all, or will be, both at various times in our lives.  To keep randomly 'losing' people from our society not only loses what they bring to society it reduces the effectiveness of the healthy society would have to spend resources protecting themselves against all the possibilities of this happening to them.
               
               The sociopath cannot be lumped together with the weak and infirm because they are a totally different issue.  your question is the same basis as asking should we kill mosquito's - and whales !
               
               If however we consider the sociopath to be ill and there is a possibility of recovery then you could, just feasably, lump them together with the infirm.  But this is not the case and so we should protect the weak and infirm for good natural reasons - and we should shoot sociopaths for the same natural reasons.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hahaha Poet, good answer but doesn't answer the question asked in the title. protecting those mentioned, is causing a great imbalance in nature. Since we are the prime predator on the planet and have no natural enemies but ourselves and now have the very "unatural" ability to jeopardize all other life, with a burgeoning population growth, wouldn't it be expedient and judicious to just let nature take it's course in reducing we humans naturally? By letting the old and infirm pass and destroying the useless deadly sociopath?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     "The sociopath cannot be lumped together with the weak and infirm because they are a totally different issue.  your question is the same basis as asking should we kill mosquito's - and whales !"
                     
                     Yea Poet.  That's what I was trying to say.

                     replyreport
                  2. 67

                     alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I could completely agree in some respects.  Except the other side of that coin is what you consider to be weak and infirm.  I consider the religious morons to be weak, and dangerous, so we should cull them first, then most of the recent politicians who have caused so much suffering and misery and endangered their own po;ulations, then any government official, then ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME HA HA HA HA  !!!!
                     
                     I think you can see where this would go ?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Poet: I am in complete agreement about monotheists.  lol...lets rid ourselves of them first...:-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Danger zone! This could get very bad.
                           
                           most people are good. Most people are lost and looking to follow anyone or anything they think will keep them safe. The problem is most people will destroy each other and themselves to hold on to that feeling of belonging.

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              The suggestion was a joke to illustrate the dangers of 'getting rid' of anybody.  However much I might 'internally' like to go there
                              
                              Most people are not lost, some become lost after stone age religious nonsense tells them they are 'mssing something', but most people are grounded and sensible and know what they are and what they want out of life.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Amen to that brother!
                                 But, alot of people belong to one cult or the other. I thought they were the majority. My mistake.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 67

                                    alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    No - they are just the most vociferous and repetitious so it just seems that way.  Most of the people 'counted' as following some kind of god actually rarely even think about it or act on it, it is just a bit of cultural inheritance.

                                    replyreport
      2. 61

         Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         sorry for questioning your sanity.  But, could you explain combining the weak and the infirm with the evil and dangerous?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            El Paso...my goodness! I didn't make the comparison!
            Why would you think I would think of the old and infirm as evil and dangerous.
            Lesser animals succumb to the overpowering forces of nature.
            We seem to nourish and protect them.
            The dangerous sociopath is billeted for life(depending upon available space)where he is offered an opportunity to fool the system and return to, again, terrorizes innocents.
            My question is as simple as is life in regard to our eventual survival as a species.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "Why would you think I would think of the old and infirm as evil and dangerous."
               
               Did you intentionally twist my question to keep from answering it?
               
               If you just misunderstood my statement and question; let me clarify:
               I think our reason and compassion push us to care for the weak and infirm.  I think our common sense forces us to protect ourselves from the insane and dangerous.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  El Paso...but there's nothing civil about the human creature.
                  WE have dedicated oouselves to our destruction since we appeared as "modern man" about 35k years ago.
                  That need for predation cannot be sublimated in time for us to survive as we presently exist.
                  Why not just let nature do her thing. WE are not a "compassionate" species. I don't know where you got that..

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     well...we strive to be good compassionate human beings. So I have to agree with you to a point. But, your view may not carry the day in the end. You dont know for sure how we will evolve and improve in the end.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        El Paso...correct I don't....but as a "thinking" human creature and knowing man as I do, I cannot rationalize and optimistic end for our species.
                        That end, if you consider human evolution and progress, is not far in the future.
                        Thanks for the "civil" responses.

                        replyreport
            2. 61

               Elpasoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I just think our survival depends on us acting like human beings, not animals. We, as sane, compassionate, and alert human beings, should protect ourselves and the weak against harm. And that is the natural way of things. We are a part of this earth just like black widow spiders. We do not eat our own!

               replyreport
5. 80

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Looking after kin and community is absolutely natural and part of the balance.  If we didn't protect "weak" babies there would be none of us left.  If we didn't protect the "weak" elderly we would lose their skills and wisdom.  Even rats and wolves look after their injured family members and bring them food.

   replyreport