Sociopaths

[CynicalSkeptic]

That's exactly what I meant—I was referring to the grief-striken.

My bad. I took your quote out of context by mistake.

We are in violent agreement. Calling them sociopaths is a wrong-headed attempt to demonise them IMO and contrary to critical thinking.

Depends on your definition of Sociopath.

 

[Francesca R]

IANAP/P (I am not a Psychiatrist/Psychologist), but I'd have to say yes to all of the above. According to another post in this thread...
Now, I'm not saying that the convenience store clerk who sells cigarettes & Lottery tickets is a Sociopath, but the execs at Phillip Morris... I'd say yes according to that definition. Either that, or they are actually deluded in believing their bull5h!t(cigarettes are not harmful, and John Edward really can talk to the dead).

They sell tobacco to people who voluntarily buy it. How does that make them sociopaths?

Depends on your definition of Sociopath.

How so? The buyer of products/services has the tools to judge the harm or uselessness of the same.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

They sell tobacco to people who voluntarily buy it. How does that make them sociopaths?

They choose to live at the expense of segment of society whom they are damaging through the products they are selling. They lie about the damage it causes, they manipulate the formula of their product to make it more addicting, and they market their product to those who have not developed critical thinking. That's the difference between the execs and the minimum wage Joe at the 7-11.

How so? The buyer of products/services has the tools to judge the harm or uselessness of the same.

But the addiction caused by the product causes users to throw that judgment out the window.

 

[Ladewig]

I won't argue iPods, but I'll take a shot at Lottery tickets and cigarettes.

One (humorous) definition of Lottery is "A tax for people who can't do math". In typical (US State) lotteries, not only is winning the big jackpot is a huge longshot (80 million to 1 for the Powerball), but the payoff is actually very poor. I think typical payout is something like 50% of the fees collected. Vegas slot machines have a much better payout percentage. Based on those two statistics, anyone making an informed decision, should not purchase lottery tickets. People are vulnerable in their greed, their judgment is clouded by fantasies of a huge payout, and they stupidly spend money that they shouldn't. Organizations that run lotteries are preying on the vulnerable.

After reading 8 pages in this thread I have come to the conclusion that I don't want to get into an argument about the rationality of buying lottery tickets.

Cigarettes are both addictive and harmful. Anyone who selling them is preying on the vulnerable.

Virtually everyone who purchases his or her first pack of cigarettes knows that they are addictive and harmful. There are government warnings on every pack and on every cigarette advertisement. Therefore I am less inclined to label cigarette manufacturers as preying on the vulnerable in the same way that ADCers exploit the vulnerable.

That being said, at the very minimum, I would require warnings on every ADC sitting and every ADC advertisement.

 

[Ladewig]

They still have the tools to make informed judgements.

But they are less able to apply those tools correctly.

Would you regulate against selling things like "ADC" to the grief-stricken?

Yes. The entire premise is based on a lie. The ADCers are telling lies to get money from people. I would consider outlawing the practice or at the very minimum require ADCers to provide disclaimers to everyone and refunds to the dissatisfied. Alternatively, I would consider regulating them by requiring them to prove their ability under controlled conditions.

Anything else you would regulate, such as fancy expensive funerals "that would have been just what dear old Susie would wanted"?

No. People purchasing expensive funerals actually receive a product they contracted for (e.g a mahogony casket with gold handles). People purchasing ADC sittings are not receiving what they contracted for. They are paying for communication with a dead relative and receive nothing but letters ("I'm getting an 'M'), platitudes ("Grandma says she loves you very much"), and questions ("what is the connection to Florida?").

 

[billydkid]

big difference

There is a fundamental difference between selling anything that actually exists versus something that doesn't exist at all. Whatever you may think of a product a company or vendor is selling, he is still selling SOMETHING. You are getting whatever it is you are paying for. With psychics you are specifically NOT getting what you are paying for. There is absolutely no legitimate comparison between Ipods and lotto tickets and cigarettes and whatever a psychic claims to be selling.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

There is absolutely no legitimate comparison between Ipods and lotto tickets and cigarettes and whatever a psychic claims to be selling.

Unless the psychic has a disclaimer that says "for entertainment purposes only", then he's (legally) selling "entertainment".

 

[Francesca R]

They choose to live at the expense of segment of society whom they are damaging through the products they are selling. They lie about the damage it causes, they manipulate the formula of their product to make it more addicting, and they market their product to those who have not developed critical thinking. That's the difference between the execs and the minimum wage Joe at the 7-11.

OK. How does that make them sociopaths?

But the addiction caused by the product causes users to throw that judgment out the window.

Didn't you just write: "Those tools may be impaired, but they're still there." in respect of grieving ADC clients? But smokers are to be excused from using the tools because they got themselves addicted? Please clarify your position. Mine is that both groups are not deserving of protection from the state. Thanks

 

[Francesca R]

There is a fundamental difference between selling anything that actually exists versus something that doesn't exist at all. Whatever you may think of a product a company or vendor is selling, he is still selling SOMETHING. You are getting whatever it is you are paying for. With psychics you are specifically NOT getting what you are paying for. There is absolutely no legitimate comparison between Ipods and lotto tickets and cigarettes and whatever a psychic claims to be selling.

What are you paying for with a psychic? What are they promising to sell you?

 

[Francesca R]

The ADCers are telling lies to get money from people.

How does that make them sociopaths?

I would consider outlawing the practice or at the very minimum require ADCers to provide disclaimers to everyone and refunds to the dissatisfied. Alternatively, I would consider regulating them by requiring them to prove their ability under controlled conditions.

Are you usually this strong on government regulation? Or is it because you have a zealous dislike of psychics? Would you outlaw cigarettes?

 

[Ladewig]

How does that make them sociopaths?

In post #2, you'll see that I said that I did not think they were sociopaths. At this point, I'll revise my position to "I don't know."

Are you usually this strong on government regulation? Or is it because you have a zealous dislike of psychics?

The latter. I believe it is immoral to tell lies in order to gain money. There may be a few psychics out there who sincerely believe that they can see the future or talk to the dead. However after watching television appearances by big-name ADCers like JE, SB, and JvP, I have come to the conslusion that these folks know they are faking it. I consider them con artists who prey on the gullible and grieving.

As for being "this strong on government regulation," other professionals that charge over $500/hour are required by law to pass some sort of licensing exam (e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers). I don't consider asking psychics to sit for an exam being too strong on government regulation.

Would you outlaw cigarettes?

No, but I wouldn't removing the warning labels.

 

[Yahzi]

I don't think they're sociopaths, because I think they could choose differently.

A sociopath can't help it; he really can't imagine the shoe being on the other foot.

A criminal can imagine it... he just doesn't.

I read somewhere that only 2% of the population is sociopathic, but 30% will imitate a sociopath if it seems to be working...

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

OK. How does that make them sociopaths?

That matches Elizabeth I's definition:

Of course they "choose" to do what they do, that is what a sociopath (now known as "antisocial personality") is - someone who chooses to live at the expense (whether financial, emotional, health-related) of the rest of society without regard for the damage it causes.

Here's another definition: Antisocial_personality_disorder^WP

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated fights or assaults (both physically or mentally)
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

I'd think that Tobacco Execs, Lottery Execs, and Psychics could certainly be cited for #2 and #7, and possibly #5. They get a pass on #1 because their products & services aren't technically illegal even though they are immoral & unethical. Based on this, I'll withdraw my assertion that they are all Sociopaths since this definition is a bit more strict than the one provided above.

Didn't you just write: "Those tools may be impaired, but they're still there." in respect of grieving ADC clients? But smokers are to be excused from using the tools because they got themselves addicted? Please clarify your position. Mine is that both groups are not deserving of protection from the state. Thanks

We are still violently disagreeing .
I agree that neither group is deserving of protection from the state. However, I believe that the people that profit from those dealings are still scum, and possibly have a mental disorder.

 

[blutoski]

We are still violently disagreeing .
I agree that neither group is deserving of protection from the state. However, I believe that the people that profit from those dealings are still scum, and possibly have a mental disorder.

Did you mean protection or prosecution?

In the case of tobacco, nobody ever went to jail for selling cigs just because we discovered they were unhealthy. They went to jail for lying about the ingredients. You go to jail if you misrepresent your product. Especially if people die.

So, actually, it's much easier to send a lying tobacco exec up the river, because you have an objective way to evaluate his honesty. Unfortunately, the psychic racket is better protected by the very unverifiable nature of its claims.

Until we invent a dipstick that detects souls as reliably as we can detect deaths from cancer, Hinn's pretty safe.

 

[Francesca R]

In post #2, you'll see that I said that I did not think they were sociopaths. At this point, I'll revise my position to "I don't know."

OK.

As for being "this strong on government regulation," other professionals that charge over $500/hour are required by law to pass some sort of licensing exam (e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers). I don't consider asking psychics to sit for an exam being too strong on government regulation.

Outlawing them is. That was what you said you'd consider. Would you outlaw the practice of selling "psychic services"?

 

[Francesca R]

I'll withdraw my assertion that they are all Sociopaths since this definition is a bit more strict than the one provided above.

OK

We are still violently disagreeing .
I agree that neither group is deserving of protection from the state. However, I believe that the people that profit from those dealings are still scum, and possibly have a mental disorder.

OK. If your assessment of "scum possibly with a mental disorder" is not—in your eyes—grounds for legislation to protect these people's clients, then the difference between our stances is only the ease with which you toss around the rhetoric, and not what we'd do about it.

 

[Ladewig]

OK.

Outlawing them is. That was what you said you'd consider. Would you outlaw the practice of selling "psychic services"?

I do see that outlawing those practices may conflict with rights to free speech.

Let me start by breaking down psychic services to fortune telling, ADC, and using psychic visions to solve crimes. As I said, there are state and municipal jurisdictions in the U.S. that already outlaw fortune telling. I do not have a problem with those laws. If I were given political power in a jurisdiction that did not have those laws, I would consider implementing them.

As for the ADC, after considering the issue I am more hesitant about outlawing the practice altogether. I might add a regulation that ADC services for over $500 would require a written contract in order to make it easier to bring fraud charges under the Uniform Commercial Code. I would definitely consider some sort of licensing requirement. I would most certainly broaden the law that requires the for-entertainment-purposes-only disclaimer.

As for psychic visions, again, I am unsure about the precise action I would take. Telling make-believe stories to police is a great waste of their time; telling make-believe stories to parents of missing children is abhorrent; and charging money for telling make-believe stories to parents of missing children is heinous. I am very much in favor of outlawing the last item, but would consider arguments against outlawing it.


_______________________
ETA: I do hope that everyone considers selling psychic services to parents of missing children is a clear and unambiguous example of "exploiting the vulnerable."

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

OK. If your assessment of "scum possibly with a mental disorder" is not—in your eyes—grounds for legislation to protect these people's clients, then the difference between our stances is only the ease with which you toss around the rhetoric, and not what we'd do about it.

I concur.

What I'd do about it is bitch and moan, and try to educated the public. But I'm a Libertarian, and I believe less Government regulation is better than more.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

This article is a pretty good mirror of my opinion. Especially the following paragraph.

[FONT=&quot]Madame Rose's underlying belief in the existence of good psychics (I imagine she considers herself one) is easy to mock. But while skeptics chortle over the fraudulence of all fortune-telling, civil libertarians bridle at government restrictions on the right of people to indulge their beliefs in psychic power (which are no more or less ridiculous than belief in God). We don't license preachers or require them to prove they're not conning us (indeed, these days we offer them public funds). Why should we license psychics? Religious freedom means that seances enjoy the same constitutional protection as the sacraments.[/FONT]

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Did you mean protection or prosecution?

'protection', but in the context of the conversation, we were talking about the victims, not the culprits.