Sociopath Community

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

There are people who only act straight from being straight abused by torturous methods such as Conversion Therapy. 

The sword cuts both ways, and the side that sides with the majority tends to cut sharper. 

Bisexuality is the easier path, which I am thankful to err towards. 

 Celibacy is even easier.

If you have a ton of Saltpetre with you maybe. 

so like, psychology. according to psychology. 

the defining factor of what makes something a mental illness diagnosable is... marked, inhibited function in the individual. 

so no, being gay is not a mental illness. it is a sexual orientation, which is very different from what mental illness is.

and neither is having an opinion a mental illness either. 

unfortunately sometimes people have formed their own ideas about life or conformed to ideas that maybe, are shitty sometimes. but it doesn't make them insane. 

having really extreme opinions could be a sign of like, rigidity for example which is associated with certain personality disorders for instance. 

but again, personality disorders and mental illness are two completely different ball games. 

i will say there are very rare instances of people out there with 'undiagnosable' mental illness type or subtype that just simply is unheard of or not known to exist, little is understood about it, is either extremely under researched or extremely rare. psychologists will struggle to categorize (diagnose) and treat the illness, as its outside too many lines while meeting criteria for multiple mental illnesses and none of the above at the same time due to being so outlandishly unique. 

this is why they have an otherwise unspecified category, though they want to throw it out... well, some do. or some have. psych's will still use this... 

unfortunately it's been sort of misused where otherwise unspecified ends up being a category that people are just thrown into by for example ER doctors who don't, have the time to properly diagnose someone? and they're just not sure what's wrong with you. 

so it became an 'interim' diagnostic category which was not really the intended use... 

the truth is there really are people out there who fall into the otherwise unspecified category... of most 'diagnosable' mental illnesses. for example, eating disorder not otherwise specified. or, otherwise specified disociative disorder (there's even subtypes for this category labeling changes based on what country you're in currently and that still doesn't cover it all),... 

but yeah i think, i think extreme opinions and personality disorders can tend to go hand in hand- or mixed personality disorders.... due to rigidity being a really common defining factor of pd's in general.... so, that's maybe the correlation you're seeing there. (a good example is white supremacy being a popular theme in prison's, where people are commonly dx'd with aspd or mixed personality disorder, etc.) 

but having the opinion alone does not mean you are xyz personality disordered or mentally ill by definition per say.

this is all just based on what information we have at the time, that is widely understood and accepted by a majority of professionals... but, hey, things evolve in this field, it is a study so. you never know. it's all subject to change.

Blanc said: 

so like, psychology. according to psychology. 

the defining factor of what makes something a mental illness diagnosable is... marked, inhibited function in the individual. 

so no, being gay is not a mental illness. it is a sexual orientation, which is very different from what mental illness is.

It used to be considered a mental illness, until the times changed and people normalized the concept. We're seeing similarly now with the Trans movement too. 

Speaking as someone who has leanings in that direction who also has other disorders, I feel like that's a bad approach to psychology. The point of the DSM is not to say it is bad to have these issues so much as to identify what those issues are and try to help them, and once politics can pick and choose what is and isn't acceptable that way is where that stops being the case. 

How are others with things deemed disorders supposed to feel when some are deemed 'acceptable' and others are not, based purely on the political climate rather than the diagnosable material put in front of us? It falls into the criteria for being labeled as a disorder, but pure opinion-craft has decided this one is somehow 'more okay' to such a point as to make others look 'less okay'. 

Should we have Attention Deficit no longer treated as a disorder, since it's moreover a different learning strategy rather than a true problem? Much like homosexuality, if you have a room full of ADD people the struggles once seen start to normalize. It's not that ADD is dysfunctional, it's that they function differently with traits that resemble a surprising number of disorders, yet ADD stays in the DSM? 

Homosexuality is sociopathy because it violates social norms.

Just look in the dsm 1 and Dsm 2 homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

homosexuality deviated heavily from standard social norms and their sexual behaviours were deemed harmful, immoral and deviant. Which they are. 

infact homosexuality and pedophilia were both considered to be sociopath personality disturbances so homosexuality and pedophilia are on the same page in my opinion.

Why homosexuality is sociopathy

let’s look at the symptoms of Aspd(sociopathy) and let’s align the behaviours of homosexuality with them

repeatedly breaking the law. (Homosexuality chronically violates the law in religious countries)

repeatedly being deceitful.(Closet homosexuals lie about their homosexuality in order to hide themselves to avoid persecution, rehabilitation or to avoid being condemned. They may also be selectively closeted. for example a homosexual man might not tell a couple that he is baby sitting for that he is homosexual so he can gain access to children)

being impulsive or incapable of planning ahead.(Homosexuals engage in frequent spontaneous sexual behaviours without the use of protection which can cause sexual diseases)

being irritable and aggressive.(Homosexua 

having a reckless disregard for their safety or the safety of others.(Homosexuals engage in anal penetration and other sexual acts which can lead to homosexuals acquiring sexual diseases.

being consistently irresponsible.(Homosexual sex provides no higher goal from there sexual interactions which is reproduction. Therefor concluding that homosexual sex/relationships is for sexual gratification with no intent to making a contribution to this world which is Irresponsible.

lack of remorse. Homosexuals consistently display there lack of remorse for engaging in homosexual activities from   Displaying “pride” for their sexuality at pride events. Their pride events include disgusting and overt displays of sexual activities between the same sex in front of children.  Homosexuals also display narcissism and arrogance when it comes to there sexuality a homosexual also tries to justify his homosexual actions.

So there you have it homosexuality is indeed sociopathy and anyone who says it isn’t is a fucking retard.

Fuck faggots

 Turq it sounds like you've once again have become attracted to a woman and are trying to convince yourself that it just doesn't make sense. 

Thatsall said: 

Fuck faggots

 Very homosexual and sociopathic of you to say such a thing. 

Thatsall said: 

Homosexuality is sociopathy because it violates social norms.

I don't think the DSM is on the same page, a lot of things violate social norms without being disorderly. 

My point earlier if anything is over how they got rid of it from it because it no longer violates said norms, which draws more focus to the ones they choose to keep. Rather than pointing out differences, it's become a way to chastise the differences that 'don't belong'. It's like how some countries handle Schizophrenia more like Shamanism. 

Even the word 'disorder' is strangely offensive for how much traction it still has, they ought to rebrand the terminology to become more modern. 

infact homosexuality and pedophilia were both considered to be sociopath personality disturbances so homosexuality and pedophilia are on the same page in my opinion.

You... really see diddling a kid as on the same page as two consenting adults enjoying eachother physically? 

Oh right, you're a pedo. Makes sense I guess. 🤷

Turncoat said: 

Thatsall said: 

Homosexuality is sociopathy because it violates social norms.

I don't think the DSM is on the same page, a lot of things violate social norms without being disorderly. 

My point earlier if anything is over how they got rid of it from it because it no longer violates said norms, which draws more focus to the ones they choose to keep. Rather than pointing out differences, it's become a way to chastise the differences that 'don't belong'. It's like how some countries handle Schizophrenia more like Shamanism. 

Even the word 'disorder' is strangely offensive for how much traction it still has, they ought to rebrand the terminology to become more modern. 

infact homosexuality and pedophilia were both considered to be sociopath personality disturbances so homosexuality and pedophilia are on the same page in my opinion.

You... really see diddling a kid as on the same page as two consenting adults enjoying eachother physically? 

Oh right, you're a pedo. Makes sense I guess. 🤷

 Calling me a pedo because you’re offended. You have hit a  new low turncoat 

Thatsall said: 

Turncoat said: 

Thatsall said: 

Homosexuality is sociopathy because it violates social norms.

I don't think the DSM is on the same page, a lot of things violate social norms without being disorderly. 

My point earlier if anything is over how they got rid of it from it because it no longer violates said norms, which draws more focus to the ones they choose to keep. Rather than pointing out differences, it's become a way to chastise the differences that 'don't belong'. It's like how some countries handle Schizophrenia more like Shamanism. 

Even the word 'disorder' is strangely offensive for how much traction it still has, they ought to rebrand the terminology to become more modern. 

infact homosexuality and pedophilia were both considered to be sociopath personality disturbances so homosexuality and pedophilia are on the same page in my opinion.

You... really see diddling a kid as on the same page as two consenting adults enjoying eachother physically? 

Oh right, you're a pedo. Makes sense I guess. 🤷

 Calling me a pedo because you’re offended. You have hit a  new low turncoat 

I'm not offended, in this case at least, I'm stating a fact that seems to be supported by your comparing them to gay people. Pedophilia is offensive but this is more a case of your prior arguments in conjunction with the current statements. 

If you see them as the same, after all the pedo-defending you've done in the past, all that tells me is that you're playing 'pecking order' logic. You have a lot more to say against homosexuals than pedophiles, and that shows a lot about you. 

Turncoat said: 

Blanc said: 

so like, psychology. according to psychology. 

the defining factor of what makes something a mental illness diagnosable is... marked, inhibited function in the individual. 

so no, being gay is not a mental illness. it is a sexual orientation, which is very different from what mental illness is.

It used to be considered a mental illness, until the times changed and people normalized the concept. We're seeing similarly now with the Trans movement too. 

Speaking as someone who has leanings in that direction who also has other disorders, I feel like that's a bad approach to psychology. The point of the DSM is not to say it is bad to have these issues so much as to identify what those issues are and try to help them, and once politics can pick and choose what is and isn't acceptable that way is where that stops being the case. 

How are others with things deemed disorders supposed to feel when some are deemed 'acceptable' and others are not, based purely on the political climate rather than the diagnosable material put in front of us? It falls into the criteria for being labeled as a disorder, but pure opinion-craft has decided this one is somehow 'more okay' to such a point as to make others look 'less okay'. 

Should we have Attention Deficit no longer treated as a disorder, since it's moreover a different learning strategy rather than a true problem? Much like homosexuality, if you have a room full of ADD people the struggles once seen start to normalize. It's not that ADD is dysfunctional, it's that they function differently with traits that resemble a surprising number of disorders, yet ADD stays in the DSM? 

 yeah, see. this is where things get a little blurry. where do we draw the line in the sand, essentially. 

and i personally just go by the standard, which is just, 'marked inhibited function in the individual' (or a poorer quality of life and their own health/safety, stability, general mental well being, emotionally, mentally, evem relationally, etc). 

however, yes. i see what you're saying, and- with the whole, wave of, influence coming from the current time especially about, neurodiversity... it can really get blurry, as far as where the line is drawn as to what is defined as 'mental illness' and is not. 

it's kind of, it can be tempting to just perspective shift on the entire thing and play devils advocate and go, 'well what if society is broken not the individual' or things like 'gender is a social construct' or things like that. 

but, the reality is, it's difficult to understand what is set in stone as verbatim truth, and that is why... things are always open to discourse, research, trial, etc. and, this field of study evolves over time. 

where our understanding may be at one time, is just where it's at. some choose to accept that, some choose to be a bit more noncomformist about it, either way.... 

regarding the homosexuality and the uh, 'anti pro life' bit, correlation does not mean causation is sort of what i'm arguing here.

but i've wondered it myself, abstractly you know like, hey, what if all religion is mental illness in a way, like, an example of shared psychosis or group psychosis, or, how do you distinguish the line between, what a cult is, what a religion is, and, what a society is. 

so i understand where the line of thought is coming from. 

we're kind of in the dark, like. we only have as much information as we have thus far to go off of, and that is what we form our 'facts' around. but, if all the information is not on the table, as we have come to find out, you know. things can change from that point... 

it's easy to sort of cross examine intellectual topics using information we are starting to understand about another topic, and start applying it to everything. this is how we integrate new information typically,.... it's like all the silly definitions we've made like stabs in the dark suddenly don't look so straight and narrow, and clear- when you put them all together, they don't all, stack up quite right. they're uh, the math is not mathing. 

so, that's why i think sam vaknin is interesting to listen to, though some might consider him pretty radical. his *way* of thinking about psychology like the lens which he is viewing everything from, is more abstract and interconnected, model... so he tries to allow things not to, confuddle each other but rather tries to see how this all works together as one large pot of information that all adds together to be leaning on the side of most true verifiably true, with the least incongruencies, inconsistencies, and conflicting overlapping data that, muddies the waters and inhibits the psychologist from doing their job they set out to do in the first place which is, to help the individuals who are, suffering from what we 'define' as 'mental illness.' 

otherwise, the gray area just keeps gettng larger and larger, until you've determined we are all insane, and nothing is really true- 'fact'- or rather it is only theoretical. 

but, this is everything intellectual realistically, it always comes to this point. where we scratch our heads and go, 'well, but what if we don't know, what if we aren't correct, what if we are missing information, here's proof we don't know for sure, here's proof we could be wrong.' and so everything is essentially theoretical. 

psychologists, or at least, sam vaknin for example seems to have moved past this and accepted this notion. that it is all indeed just theoretical.