Sociopath Community

It is possible to argue that I am nice because I want an alliance and I prefer the alliance survival tactic. I want to destroy distances to be with people I think might even help me a little. I do not think that every day when I am being nice I just think it could be argued. I know I do not want to attack or create suffering. I do not want to be attacked of hurt. I do not mind when someone is unkind towards me depending on the severity. I can forgive pretty easily unless I can tell they are refusing to stop. I tend to be less nice when someone is against someone I care about. I tend to defend them more than myself. It is because I value this person the most over someone with greater distance. It does not sound as appealing when it is described in this manner. It does not account for the part where I do emotionally care and attach to the individuals.

It might seem wrong that I would compensate and put down my weapons for those around me to put down their weapons. I am not using this occasion to strike I am using to create some peace. I know some would still be willing to kill me. II don't think I can convert someone who just wants to kill. I do not expect everyone to put down their weapons and make peace. I especially do not expect anyone to be the same as me. I see alliances or relationships come in varying levels. 

Bottom Line Summary: I just offer what I would want to be offered. It is still offered when I am being attacked. I treat individuals in the manner I think they want to be treated to earn a level of real peace. I can already tell some might think it is a fake peace. I do not have fake peace. I do have loyalties. It means I might value a peace or relationship over a different one. 

It was shown when I was defending systematic against Ed. I have nothing against Ed except I had a slight more connection with Systematic. I sympathized more with systematic. I did have a bias because I have a smaller disconnect with him. I am not saying I will not argue what is true or false. I just would not attack the person. I would be against their arguments. I do try to keep personal attacks minimal. I am in no way saying I did not believe in the side I took. I realize it is not black and white. I do think Systematic was more justified. In the case where I had no connection I might have ignored the argument or I would have stuck with Systematic I just would have not made any insults. I would mostly be less involved. I have nothing against Ed I just see him as a stranger. If I thought Ed was right I would have tried to convince Systematic in private or ignored the fight... #MomentOfTruth

Yes! A lot of times religion can be used to make the "THEM" seem immoral. I know an instance where they will say shit like "Oh they have sex with multiple partners. They are sub humans. An enemy of god". They make up shit to demonize their enemies and justify their killing. I mean there are even religious people who call their enemies possessed by demons. It goes to show they dehumanize and devalue their enemies to feel morally right in the end. 

kill in the name of religion, irony at it's best

religion deserves it own thread, you should start one.

humans feel the need for religion due to our understanding if our own mortality

I have said I want to use this information to create greater bonds. I see that minimizing distance physical or social could be the key to creating better relationships. 

It could have to do with my culture.I live in a culture where we want everyone to form a blanket to catch each other when we fall. I literally drop money without noticing and someone will pick it up for me. I can leave my house door unlock for the most part without fear of robbers. I drop things and I intent to pick it up in a minute and someone still picks it up for me even though I am closer. It is a mutual alliance to look out for each other's backs. 

In Canada...

1. Universal Healthcare

There is universal healthcare. I know everyone has each other's back in the health system. I can walk into the doctor free of any charge and get the treatment

I need.

2. Known for Kindness. 

It is a country that is known for being kind and helping out world wide. It still is able to defend the allies in times of war. It defend allies because it wants to be defended considering our army is small.

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.

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

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.

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".

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

This view is a bit disturbing because it does undermine relationships and being nice. I don't see many people becoming friends with "I want an ally" in mind. It just sees it might be in the background behind why there are relationships. I think is hard to be selfless. I know even if they do not want anything they may still hope for something. It might be that the person will be nice to them in the future. It might be they will be nice to or to someone in need who will be nice to them in need. It might be they want there to be a more gentle world to live within. It could be they want to be nice to have someone smile because it makes them smile. It leads to a gain even if small unless it is sacrificing their own life. It could be possible to have pure intention and being nice without wanting a single gain. I mean helping a stranger have painkillers the second before they die of natural death without anyone knowing has no self gain. I do think even if one might not always be selfless it is possible to be close to selflessness. I am not trying to depress anyone by saying relationships are alliances. I mean there is still love, care, admiration, lust... I will not deny it. 

Okii maybe I misunderstood. It might be shallow. 

I find that minimizing distance can be a display of diminishing a power one might posses. In the case someone is on a throne or an interviewer is in a comfy chair. It is important to diminish the distance. It means becoming more of an "us" with the person of power. Instead of being at the bottom of a throne come and stand up in front of beside the throne. In an interview sit beside the interviewer. It can be easily done by saying something as simple as "I know we can work on x idea together" and showing them a piece of paper with information. It is an excuse to come around without being a threat to magnitude of power. It is only one way that power can come to a balance. It is obvious that distance and closeness is an important role in social interactions. 

This is actually so deep.

To achieve unity, people need a "us" versus "universe" mentality.

And its possible, but not for many many many, thousands probably, years from now.