The difference between a psychopath and a sociopath
'Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.
Do They Have a Conscience?
A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.
'A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.
Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.'
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1
Christine Ramsay calls herself Catholic and says she is a married mother, yet says it is OK to have illegitimate offspring.
Fornication is considered by Catholics to be a mortal sin.
Having illegitimate offspring is conclusive evidence that one has committed the mortal sin of fornication.
What is the point of having a religion that does not even maintain minimum standards of sexual morality?
Minimum standards of sexual morality are ensuring that most parents in your society are parents of legitimate children. Christianity is clearly kaput in Britain. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
No civilisation can continue to survive without a religion that maintains minimum moral standards of sexual morality.
It is religion that tells us what we must or must not do.
Everyone has something they are supposed or not supposed to do. Our roles - whatever they are - need to be properly defined.
I think once we are told it is OK to lie or let liars get away with lying, then it is inevitable that the rule of law will break down.
The integrity of a person should be measured with his honesty and capacity for logical thought, as well as for the principles he is said to uphold. The further he strays from that, the less he should be regarded as an honest, reasonable and decent person.
The first two - truth and logic - are fairly easy to understand, I hope.
The third of having principles boils down to having religious principles, since religious principles are the principles that are most effective and because they are known eg a Jew/Muslim is not supposed to eat pork and believe that their holy book is divinely sourced, a Christian is supposed to believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God but without any divine authority whatsoever for this belief, for the Doctrine of the Trinity was cooked up by fallible mortals.
The third way of measuring the decency and intelligence of a person is therefore to know what principles a person is supposed to hold and to what extent they adhere to them.
The writing is on the wall, isn't it? It is the countries that have for centuries identified as Christian who are least Christian if you define being Christian as people who worship an executed revolutionary as God, which they should know is idolatry. In other words, it is the West who is now least Christian since the repeal of the blasphemy laws. This means Christianity has failed and the solution must be to replace it, because no known civilisation has ever survived without a religion maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality. Indeed, all civilisations have been known to decline for being effeminate ie being sexually lax.
The solution is obvious to me and that solution does not involve a Christian revival - which would require totalitarian blasphemy laws to enforce such as burning heretics at the stake for denying the Trinity or seeing to it that employment opportunities are closed to them if they do not affirm the Trinity, nor does it include converting to Judaism (which would be as realistic as expecting peasants to become aristocrats without equipping them with the birth, background, education and means to be so not to mention the bone deep antisemitism that is present in so many gentiles, as old and pervasive as the Deadly Sin of Envy) or becoming Hindu or Buddhist (which would be as foolish as taking on the defective religions of fallen civilisations).
I further deal with Christine Ramsay's questions at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdo5Bq9Zj-M&t=181s
No comments:
Post a Comment