God said People who have Flat Noses Canot Serve Him

[Drich]

TRS-Respectfully (or not )You are incorrect. Sociopathy is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Rather no sense of right or wrong, and can act without remorse. One can feel empathy, they are simply not bound to act on it.

Yeah, technically it's called "Antisocial Personality Disorder", and is more complex than I was making it out for the sake of a simple argument. However, I've read quite a bit about it (I was trying to understand the behavior of the high percentage of sociopaths around me, at the time), and I'll summarize from the Psychology Today article about it:

"The severity of symptoms of antisocial personality disorder can vary in severity. The more egregious, harmful, or dangerous behavior patterns are referred to as sociopathic or psychopathic. There has been much debate as to the distinction between these descriptions. Sociopathy is chiefly characterized as a something severely wrong with one's conscience; psychopathy is characterized as a complete lack of conscience regarding others. Some professionals describe people with this constellation of symptoms as "stone cold" to the rights of others."

Emphasis my own. This is why we keep calling you that.

And Again the objection I have is what you identify as a 'right' more often than not isn't one.
spaking for instance. No where in the United states is it illegal to spank your child.
And it is not legal in all 50 states for transgender people to use the 'wrong' bathroom.
A right is a universal freedom guaranteed by the government. Everything I have argued is indeed sanctioned by the current laws. So if your defination requires a complete disregaurd of other people and their rights, then an honest assessment would exclude me from your 'professional' diagnosis.

Wait, where exactly did I say that? Nor did I say all Christians are. I am saying that it is possible for a program of indoctrination, such as communism or Christianity for example, to erode a person who naturally respects the rights of others and empathizes with them until they treat others who are different from what the program says is "okay" with a level of contempt that is indistinguishable from sociopathic behavior.

Which can be true in say a republic where a 'douche' is so intent on arguing for something like the ablity for a man to put on a dress and go into the wrong bathroom he can "erode a person who naturally respects the rights of others and empathizes with them until they treat others who are different from what the program says is "okay" with a level of contempt that is indistinguishable from sociopathic behavior." Meaning those people are willing to put the vast majority of the social populace in danger for their own contempt for 'traditional decency.'

Respect for the inherent humanity and inherent dignity of all your fellow human beings (even and especially those who are very different from myself), and allowing them the maximum possible liberty under that recognition (provided they do no harm to others) is a Humanistic value, and I have never said otherwise. There is no such thing as a moral absolute, and I have never said otherwise. I can, however, tag you as a douchebag for your willingness to ignore the growing recognition, which you label "pop morality", that all people are entitled to Equal Protection and equal value as human beings.

apparently not. apparently 1% of the population gets to dictate a 'modified level of protection' on the off chance they want to use the wrong bathroom in public. This behavior literally allows 1% of the population putting their own "Antisocial Personality Disorder" ahead of the wellfare of the hundreds of millions of other people, and yet when one challenges this NON-Right that person is charged with being the sociopath... How meesed up is your mind that you can not see what is going on in front of you?

Your definition requires a moral standard (A right) to be circumvented with no regaurd to those in whom this circumvention will hurt.

We have a federal right to privacy and a reasonable expectation of safety when we go into a public bathroom. This is a mandate that all public business and facilities are mandated to provide. that is why one can sue if they are not provided with bathroom access or if our privacy has been compromised. This is a standing right in the US. However this right has been circumvented by allowing the opposite sex access to the wrong bathroom. This demand by the LBGT community has absolutely no regaurd, or should I say shows contempt to all who oppose cross gender access...

Yet with your great powers of reasoning and deduction you seem to be focused on calling those who oppose the implication of this NON-right being forced on the community Sociopaths while the group of people who actually fit the literal definition gets your support.

And that is why i call you douche bag.

And thaaaaaaaaaaaat's why I said I'm sure the priests who established your religious system were in favor of a stratified, hierarchical set of roles for all the people beneath them, with them established as "the most holy/pure". But humans are not tools, and it is a failed analogy.

Incongruent statement.
You first identify my use of an analogy describing humans as having tool like qualities/different roles. Then you make an incorrect/strawman statement that restates my position as being Humans are tools.

If you are still confused as to the nature of how analogy works please look at my last posts directed to you that explains all of this. If however you are trying to primitive word game, rest your arguement and try again as I am not playing.

Till then the point I made stands and the rest of your drivel based on your straw man is dismissed:

People are just people, complex and varied, and have many tools... you can have a person who is a pastor on the weekend and also an amazing science teacher during the week. You can have a person who is a Jack-of-all-trades, and has skill at nearly everything. What you cannot have is a person who is disqualified from a role they are otherwise capable of filling because of a simple deformity, disease, or "blemish". That's unique to religious thinkers, and is in defiance of everything I stand for as an American. You can justify your shit any way you want, but it still stinks.

My point is that their actions are indistinguishable from those of a natural-born sociopath, as a result of the religious indoctrination they received which tells them that those who are different from them are not worthy of protection, but of pain and death. It is indeed societal, and religion is the major part of that society which does the eroding of natural human empathy. That's why we refer to the meme that is called Christianity (and religion in general) on occasion as a "virus", because of the way it hijacks other software/memes that operate on our hardware.

And my point is you observation is a double edged sword and it applies to you via the definition you yourself provided more than it does me.