Sociopath Community

I find your subjective look on morals and good/evil as an objective definition disturbing.

Why?

yeha 

This, I can understand. It's easier for me to manipulate, attack, etc.someone I don't know. If it's someone I do know, they probably know more friends and acquaintances. So they would tell them and I would lose them. I wouldn't hurt my boyfriend because I know him very well and love everything. With my new friends, I decided that not hurting them would be a good thing to do, because I'm trying to change. It doesn't really depend on the personality, it really depends on how long I get to know them without major planning. So, I'm more likely to do something if you're outside my group. Because, I don't really need you.

In genocide there is no real us vs them. This is just in in their mind. I am not talking about war I am talking about genocide.

It is an excuse to kill by depicting their enemies as absolute evil and themselves as absolute good. I notice so many people think they are favored by God. It gives them the right to hate and kill. I mean its counteractive. I hear them say they want morality then use that as an excuse to kill. It might even be evil to try to eradicate subjective evil. I mean one person thinks being gay or a have a lot of sex is wrong so they kill. 

I know people call gays and women who get abortion evil and they use that to justify hatred against them. It is stupid. I mean they say their goal is love but they have so much hatred. In fact they waste a lot of time trying to attack them say to those people that. It shows they are hypocritical to their own beliefs. I mean they say they wanna follow god then still eat pig even though it is forbidden. It is forbidden to wear multiple fabrics at once. I wanna see more the religious against the fashion industry. At least they would be less hypocritical. 

The pursuit to eradicate subjective evil can be evil itself. 

My Morality:

I think evil in my view is causing someone pain and suffering on purpose. It is evil to hate on people who have different views of sexuality if they are not causing harm. I think everything else would depend just on the individual of what holds to their own morality. It is not right to hold a standards higher than that on individuals. It is not right to hate on them for sexuality, morals, lifestyle if it does no harm. It is the only rule that I think is important or everyone would kill and hurt each other. I do judge more on the intention. I think someone can be hurt or killed without it being wrong if they do not have an intention to create suffering. 

I do not take "I did it for god" as a good intention. I see this as an excuse to pretend they are justified. I know they think they are removing evil when I just see them committing evil. I mean their view of evil is too personal and subjective. I only believe it is wrong to have the intention to hurt or kill because

I want the human race to survive. I know some people here might think they want to kill or hurt different individuals. I am just saying that if everyone does that then it would be complete chaos. I don't think murderers should be killed because the pursuit to eradicate evil is evil. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I would rather they be rehabilitated. It would seem killing them is just revenge for losses. 

I can talk more about this later... 

 

Because its exactly the very problem you describe.

People do not need an excuse to kill.

They kill as a result of their morals/believes.

It is true they do not need a reason. I am sure they use an excuse to either convince someone they are good, recruit help in their pursuit or avoid a conscience that is influenced by society or may derive from self (Trying to cheat their conscience).  

And if you think thats wrong, well so do they, just like you, but on the other side.

I think it is wrong and I do not want to kill because of it. I mean I might harbor resentment between a known killer. I would not want them dead because I do not want to pretend i know what life is like being them. I know I do not know their experiences and the way their mind thinks. I can assume that in their situation I might have even done worse. 

The main reasons I think it is wrong...

1. World chaos. 

2. I would live in fear. I would live in fear of being killed every day if it was no longer part of the law. I would rather not have to fight to survive every single day. It would be more apparent that there is always an us versus them. I like happiness and it is hard to be happy when I would be in constant fear. I think most killers would rather not killing be legal because they may want to be one of a few killers. I doubt they would want to have everyone be able to kill them at any moment. 

I see not killing more as a mutual contract in fear of being killed. I know that if I were to clone myself I would not plot to kill my clone even though they creep me out. It is simply because if I am willing to kill them I know they are willing to kill me. I would rather not watch my back every second wondering if I will kill them or they will kill me first... I feel like this is why there is "treat others as you want to be treated". It is a bit vague. In the end it shows that if you treat someone right they are more inclined to treat you right. In the animal kingdom there are bats that will get blood and give it to a bat who did not find blood if they know that bat has helped them in the past. It is a bit of a survival tactic. I think it is wrong because I do not want it done to me and I am willing to not kill. I prefer the mutual agreements of helping. I can see some people would want to fend for themselves and maybe would not mind every man for himself. I hope this makes sense. 

 

The only real side is your own, but when you realize that, you can't judge others condescendingly for doing the same thing.
Now who you think is on your side and etc, that is subjective and not relevant in the general theory.

There is always some level of us versus them unless the person is able to value someone over them self. It has varying levels of intensity. I think the only time it might be gone is if a mother dies for her child. I mean she put someone before herself considering that person almost part of their identity of self.  It is show that when couples break up they feel they lose a part of them self. It might still have a small degree of disconnect. I know the child might still be a  "them". It is subjective to the person how they label the levels.  

 

If you think you do not live by them versus us, you are wrong, unless its a me versus them thing. Because there will always be someone who do not fit with your subjective ideas and that someone is automatically a "them".

I do have a "me" vs "them and distance between individuals. In certain case I might even kill. I know I would defend someone I love from death and kill to protect them because I consider them "us". I want to use this knowledge more to create less of distance and a barrier between me and people I want. I know I see people sometimes and I just want to have them. In high school the first time I saw a girl I told myself I want to be her friend and now she is my best friend. I want to use this to break distance and barriers.

I doubt I could break the barriers all over the world to create world peace. I mean if world piece were to be achieved there would have to be unity and less distance. It would mean considering everyone "us". It is shown in some movies when all of mankind units to fight aliens. There is only unity to fight off the one of greater distance. I know people actually trust their enemies slightly more than strangers. It could be because they feel they know their enemy and know what to expect from them. I tend to respect my enemies for their honesty and I do value them over a stranger. 

 

There is nothing wrong in any act by itself, its important why its done.

I think intention is the most important. 

So this works in sociopaths as well. It is distance that brings pain and suffering.