you may run into a violent schizoprenic or a psychopath and if you scare them they may feel they need to defend themselves...was a bouncer in my younger days and used the friendly look in the eye on many an angry drunk and no one ever even swung at me...it's disarming
True. It takes two to fight. The last fight instruction I had [was 17 years ago, gadzz...] was by some mercenaries. We started everything from a stance with feet about shoulder width and arms hanging at the side. That is where a person is when a fight starts so that is where we learned everything from.. that is not a threatening stance, it's casual, I can stand like that and let a hostile person vent and then nothing has to happen... I swear, I spent a couple of weeks getting together a set of tells for psychopaths and I'm about 50% safer now than when I started.. if a person is detecting/avoiding those troublemaking, lying, thieving, murdering, underdeveloped samples of the human race one should get a reduction in the life insurance premiums!
The DSM is the standard used by mental health professionals. I don't know your background but I doubt you know better, and I am 100% confident the elite posters on this forum don't. And just my personal opinion but I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality and sadomasochism being included as disorders. Getting it on with other guys doesn't exactly serve any purpose as far as keeping the species alive, and putting you know what up the you know where isn't too healthy or natural. I do understand it is considered to be genetic these days and I don't dispute that. Plenty of mental and physical disorders are genetic. Some people are attracted to little boys. Should we make that OK too because it is genetic? How about animals? And sadomasochism quite frankly is a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Getting off on hurting others is ****ed up.
Homos used political pressure to get themselves de-classified as sickies. The writers of the DSM must be scared of the Sado-Masochists!!
There could be a genetic component to Psychopathy.. Personally, I knew a truly Narcissistic guy, he was not a bad guy at all, good engineer, had a very pretty and successful wife, he had been a really great Eagle Scout and he was pretty well motivated.. it was just that he was three years old and he didn't get it when others didn't want to play what he wanted to play, right when he wanted to. He drove people crazy but once I understood him, it was very easy to get along with him.. I felt that, with him, there was a genetic switch that should have taken him to the next stage of childhood development and it just didn't switch... Otoh, my father in law was the poster boy for Narcissistic Personality Disorder... I never felt like it was a genetic thing with him, it was more like some horribly mismanaged child rearing coupled with satanic oppression or something... There are things that are always going to be coupled so tightly that the argument will never end as to which is "the cause"... For myself, I've never cared that much how somebody came to be a problem for me. I just want to recognize it before it gets out of control. These psychopaths, even the small time short con artists that seem to be everywhere, once they start entangling you in their chaotic lives you might almost never get out of the mess...
,my generation played outside,pick up games football,basketball,baseball ,cowboys and indians,helping the neighbpor work on his car,all things where you socialized and became conditioned to subtle differences in everyone you knew,this generation ,my daughter grew up in chicago,driven everywhere,sheltered for protection from crime, hometime with computers and tv, when not in some scheduled ,structured social event,she's fine, but imagine the add's,ocd's,schizophrenics, a myriad of slighter undetected handicaps that were not maturing over an important developmental time in there lives with social interaction,learning to accept the many different nuances in today's social bowl of soup ,cope with their own place in that bowl,that would build confidence in ones self,the lack of seems to be evident in the OWS and other protests going on,they come out and say they are disgruntled,unhappy with current world,economic events,but don't have a clue about changing it,afraid to venture out..the world has changed dramatically in the last 30 yrs..and the wolves are taking advantage of it
yes... lots of things have changed. Psychopaths are loose in an environment where victims are easier than ever. Maybe the most significant change is in the food supply. Start taking supplements with the idea of filling in what the food supply lost with it's industrialization and you will be pleasantly surprised. I have given supplements with phosphatidylserine in them to several different people and seemingly all of them got benefits starting at about day three, as was my personal experience. Taking Omega3 for a few months put away most of my allergy problems, winter depression, and a myraid of other things... I'm spending a few hundred $ a month on supplements, rearranging the mix and experimenting constantly. My abilities are better than they ever were, joint pain is subsiding, exercise recovery time shrinking, etc.. The supplement industry offers far more hope for healing than the Medicine people actually. That is one big reason for the push to take that industry under the control of the FDA and thence the control of Big Pharma. I hate any politician that is for that, any other issue and I'm not very incensed but McCain, Billary, etc... I never endorse them or the horses they rode in on.
So they would be looking for supportive feedback.. Some of the short cons that I'm seeing this one woman do are shaped all around that... I'd be looking for validation if I was a confused two year old too...
No background in psychology is required to identify basic logical inconsistencies in people's thinking or actions. The fact is that DSM had classed these 2 behaviours as mental illnesses, then one day it didn't any more. Nothing changed in the nature of the behaviours - the facts stayed exactly the same. All that changed was the opinion of mental health professionals and wider society as to what was culturally unacceptable. Therefore, the methodology of DSM is reliant on mere opinion, rather than actual facts and evidence. That makes it unscientific and unreliable. A legitimate scientific methodology, as we find across the hard sciences, would only make claims that are support by facts and evidence - not ones whose only supporting evidence. When the facts contradict social convention and cultural norms, legitimate science *always* favours the former. DSM didn't, which is a strong sign that it is pseudo-science. Morality and mental illness don't necessarily intersect. For example, beating up someone who called you an idiot isn't a mental disorder, but it is definitely immoral. Thinking you are Napoleon isn't immoral at all, but it is definitely a mental disorder. Thus, moral judgements alone can't decide whether someone is insane or mentally ill. Besides, morals are subjective and not even agreed upon by individuals, and social norms of morality change radically over time (e.g. slavery; homosexuality; blasphemy; racism). As for something not propagating the species - well, having anal sex with your wife or girlfriend doesn't reproduce either, neither does having sex whilst using contraception. Both the pill and straight anal sex have higher health risks. Presumably you don't think heterosexual sodomy or contraceptive use fall into the category of mental disorders? Besides, homosexuality does not necessarily involve anal sex - it'd be rather difficult for lesbians, don't you think? Being unnatural is also irrelevant both to morality and mental illness. Driving a car is unnatural, sitting at a desk all day is unnatural, making plastics or semiconductors is unnatural. No sensible person thinks this is a sign of mental illness or immorality. Finally, even on pure morals, your arguments don't stack up. You are trying to compare consensual behaviours between adults, to non-consensual activities that victimise those who either don't (kids) or can't (animals) give consent - that's a flawed comparison. I am sure that some boxers and MMA fighters enjoy hurting others, so do many of those who watch these sports with interest - is that fucked up too, does that make sport fighting a mental disorder? No it doesn't, because the fighters willingly consent to getting hit and harmed. A non-consensual street beatdown would be fucked up, a brutal boxing match would not be. Just like non-consensual sadism or non-consensual sodomy would be fucked up, but an agreed night of bondage between two adults, or two lesbians having sex, would not be. Plus, there are masochists who don't hurt anybody, so they don't even fall under your classification. All this is rather ironic, considering that you are joining an organisation that has butchered millions of innocent civilians throughout its history. Two women kissing, or a husband tying up and spanking his wife because she asks him to, are immoral and mental disorders according to you, but napalming babies and bayoneting old women, or carpet-bombing civilian areas in neutral countries, is not only acceptable but you actually make it your living to support an organisation guilty of these atrocities. Have you thought that maybe you are the one with the mental disorder and morally questionable conduct here?