/sci/ - Science & Math

you're probably not a sociopath, just stupid

>>10770041
This. OP probably never seriously considered what it's like to be on the receiving end of experiments.

>>10770028
>animal experimentation being wrong
Because it's useless, inefficient and just gives sadists an excuse to kill/torture animals. There's no real reason to even use animal testing anymore

>>10770028
ok you first idiot

>>10770055
Useless? You can gain great knowledge from animal experimentation. Human experimentation is clearly wrong; anyone with empathy can see that, but animals act as a very sufficient way to gain insight on various substances and chemicals.

>>10770028
Yes you’re a sociopath, and also probably stupid for revealing such and not accepting that what is generally considered “moral” behavior benefits you in the long run.

Basically you should be killed.

>>10770147
>Human experimentation is clearly wrong; anyone with empathy can see that

Empathy is the exact same way I “know” animal experimentation is wrong. Experimentation on sociopaths, though? Maybe justified. I can think of no better use for those who constitute enemies of everyone else.

>>10770028
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I8xg_VkL6I

>>10770151
Animals have no souls, they shouldn't be valued the same way humans are. We use them in food production cruelly all the time yet I nor most people care. Sociopaths are still humans, they still live. Empathy is the ability to understand other humans and their feelings, not other species.

>>10770159
>Animals have no souls

Prove souls exist and explain why I should care about them whatsoever, then prove they’re unique to humans. Should be an easy burden of proof to meet.

>>10770159
>Sociopaths are still humans, they still live.

Don’t care. They live in a state of evil, and must be destroyed for the good of others. The only alternative is to lock them away forever.

>Empathy is the ability to understand other humans and their feelings, not other species.

Cool new definition. Into the trash.

>>10770148
What is the long term benefit of killing OP?

>>10770183
>What is the long term benefit of killing OP?

The population of sociopaths decreases by 1, which benefits other entities for potentially many decades by removing dangerous and unscrupulous individuals from their environment. The actual effect of this is sadly minimal, because many more sociopaths exist. I therefore propose a system to screen for them in childhood so they can be exterminated en masse or relocated to some containment facility where they can live out their lives until senescence claims them. I prefer the first option because it has less cost for the rest of us.

>>10770198
You're only concentrate power spikes in the remaining fraction of the sociopath population. Talking about this openly only gives them time to devise a counterstrategy. You've already failed because you appealed to a sense of human decency that they already destroyed.

>>10770165
The soul is the spiritual side of every single human being, sociopath or not. This can include ones state of mind or being, such as being melancholic or joyful, all of this is of course condemned within the human psyche, which is of course unique to humans

>>10770172
>Don't care.
perhaps you're a sociopath yourself if you care not for the lives of others dependent on a personality disorder.

>>10770213
>You're only concentrate power spikes in the remaining fraction of the sociopath population. Talking about this openly only gives them time to devise a counterstrategy.

Sociopaths are short-sighted, aggressive, reckless, and arrogant. Their relations with others are weak and only exploitative. They are also less than 5% of the population, while making up over 30% to 50% of incarcerated prisoners in the U.S. Thus, their ability to cooperate in any meaningful sense to prevent exterpation is at the very best, dubious to nonexistent. To make an admittingly rude comparison, Jews were not able to prevent discrimination and an eventual extermination attempt by Nazi Germany despite holding genuine positions of power, so I do not expect a menagerie of mentally ill criminals who literally can not plan ahead to mount significant resistance.

>>10770215
>The soul is the spiritual side of every single human being

Prove the spiritual exists.

>This can include ones state of mind or being, such as being melancholic or joyful

That’s just emotions, not “spiritual”. You’ve entered meaningless woo territory.

>perhaps you're a sociopath yourself if you care not for the lives of others dependent on a personality disorder.

Wrong. Sociopathy is defined as lack of regard for ALL others. Sociopathy is not defined as “Lack of regard for people who literally have no problem with raping and eating babies.”

>>10770232
>short-sighted, aggressive, reckless, and arrogant
All of those things describe you and your plans. If the only thing you see in <n> disorder is the traits that you have yourself, then you're just not cut out for making determinations about what should happen to others based on the diagnosis you don't know how to perform.

>>10770240
Spirituality is a purpose in life, fulfilment. This is in relation to emotions as well and also doesn't need to be proven as you should easily be able to understand humans desire for fulfilment

You should also have regard for all human beings. It doesn't matter if that human has a fetish for shitting on babies and then cooking them in their oven, this makes them mentally ill, just as a sociopath is. Sociopath is an illness. You don't destroy sick people, you have empathy for them.

>>10770255
>All of those things describe you and your plans.

Prove it. What long-term issues should we expect from sociopaths being extinct?

>>10770028
Who cares if some baby gets butchered or if some pedo is having sex with kids lol

>>10770260
You failed to factor in the cost of genocide. It'll never get that far because nobody is on your side. Every tool you think to use against them, imagine them ending up holding the moral pretense to use against you. Fear will rule if you don't know how to overcome it.

Murder is fear.

>>10770259
>Spirituality is a purpose in life, fulfilment.

So spirituality is the thing some people make up to satisfy themselves. If that’s what it is, I don’t care about it and it has no effect on my moral judgements.

>You should also have regard for all human beings

Don’t agree. There’s no such thing as “should” outside of your own personal moral convictions.

>It doesn't matter if that human has a fetish for shitting on babies and then cooking them in their oven

Don’t agree. There’s no such thing as “should” outside of your own personal moral convictions.

>this makes them mentally ill, just as a sociopath is. Sociopath is an illness.

Yes it is, and the best way to protect people from this illness’ symptoms is to lock away the sick people or kill them.

>You don't destroy sick people, you have empathy for them.

Don’t agree. There’s no such thing as “should” outside of your own personal moral convictions. Sick people should as far as I’m concerned be destroyed if they can not be “cured” and their continued existence puts the wider population at risk. For this reason, I would blockade a city hosting a deadly plague, and kill anyone who attempts to leave because allowing them to would put everyone else at risk, and for this reason I would kill every sociopath in the world. We can empathize after their ashes are in the air. Oh poor Jeffrey Dahmer, what a poor man. Fuck off.

>>10770274
>You failed to factor in the cost of genocide.

Bullets are really cheap. The Soviets would kill thousands in one night and just bulldoze their bodies into a hole.

>It'll never get that far because nobody is on your side.

Citation needed. The amount of people who would not take issue with the deaths of sociopaths is nonzero.

>Every tool you think to use against them, imagine them ending up holding the moral pretense to use against you.

Demonstrably impossible and self-defeating, since it is not possible for sociopaths to hold moral convictions.

>Fear will rule if you don't know how to overcome it.

Fear would be the best tool to go about gathering support for such a large-scale extermination campaign.

>>10770285
>I don’t care about it and it has no effect on my moral judgements.
Your perception of fulfilment does. Your sense of purpose

>Don't agree.
I can't convince your thinking otherwise. According to you every crime could be justified by ones morals because to you there are no moral facts. If I told you rape is acceptable you couldn't tell me otherwise because this is within my moral convictions.

>blockade a city hosting a deadly plague
You would attempt to help these people, not just lock them away. Obviously quarantine them, but don't act as though they are no longer worthy of empathy.

>Let's murder millions of people then act as though we're the ones with the moral upper ground.
Cunt.

>>10770316
>Your perception of fulfilment does. Your sense of purpose

Don’t have one. If I really had to say I had a “purpose”, It’d be to enjoy being alive and not die because that’s usually painful and indicates the end of enjoying things.

>I can't convince your thinking otherwise. According to you every crime could be justified by ones morals because to you there are no moral facts. If I told you rape is acceptable you couldn't tell me otherwise because this is within my moral convictions.

Yes this is philosophy 101 moral facts don’t exist and are nonsensical. No objective standard exists from which we can infer what we “ought” to do, nor could it because such an idea is nonsense. What is “moral” to people ultimately consists of nothing more than what induces the most emotional pleasure. Most people don’t rape fuckin’ babies because they’re not sociopaths and find such an idea utterly revolting.

>You would attempt to help these people, not just lock them away.

If possible, but until a viable cure exists, anyone attempting to leave must be shot and their remains incinerated. Food and other supplies can be air dropped, but can they leave? No. They must stay, because their eventual deaths and current suffering do not compare to the global catastrophe that would occur if even a single person escaped and spread the infection.

>Cunt

Brilliant rebuttal. Why can you not hold the moral high ground while also murdering millions of “””people”””? People don’t give a shit about Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer or some fucked up pedophile rapist in South America or Russia.

>>10770285
Fuck off hypocrite

>>10770345
Don’t hold any hypocritical positions.

>>10770028
Quick reminder that the refined, cultured and smart sociopath is largely a Hollywood invention; in real life psychopaths are generally of below average intelligence and tend to act more out of instinct than "logic", since emotions and empathy are higher brain functions.

>>10770336
>Don't have one.
Try to fill that hole in your life friend.

>No objective standard exists from which we can infer what we “ought” to do, nor could it because such an idea is nonsense.
Perhaps we need an objective moral compass to which we follow, might I offer (((religion)))?

>Plague scenario
They shouldn't have to feel as though they need to leave in the first place, we're quarantining them, not holding them hostage.

>People don’t give a shit about Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer or some fucked up pedophile rapist in South America or Russia.
I, and many others, have a value for human life higher than the idea of danger based off of their presence. They aren't a plague on a nation.

>>10770028
Human experimentation is wrong and any organization that does it is full of bad people who should be imprisoned, but in some fields of study human experimentation is the best or even the only way to discover new knowledge. Therefore, human experimentation is bad but somebody has to bite the bullet and go for it so we can learn from those experiments before shutting them down.
Psychology needs more totally unethical fucked up human experimentation to probe at deeper questions that are otherwise not able to be probed at.

>>10770365
>delusions of grandeur
Another trait proven social/cultural.

>>10770381
>Try to fill that hole in your life friend.

Don’t have one, but if I find one I’ll make sure to fill it with cement or something.

>Perhaps we need an objective moral compass to which we follow

Religion isn’t an objective moral compass. Objective morals aren’t possible, and such a religion would only conceivably interest me if it’s moral proclamations matched identically the sentiments I already hold. If this goes some way towards making everyone else hold identical moral sentiments to me, then cool.

>They shouldn't have to feel as though they need to leave in the first place

Yes, there “ought” not to be diseases in my opinion, but nevertheless diseases do exist, and people would naturally try to get away from the disease if they’re aware of it. The issue being that some may be infected without being aware or be aware they’re diseased and try to leave anyway.

>we're quarantining them, not holding them hostage.

No practical difference exists in this context.

>I, and many others, have a value for human life higher than the idea of danger based off of their presence.

Good for you. This makes you evil as far as I’m concerned.

>They aren't a plague on a nation.

Yes they are. They fill our prisons, rape women and children, and rely on retards like you to defend them from being gassed.

>>10770365
>in real life psychopaths are
Okay that's very nice but psychopathy and sociopathy are distinct conditions so I don't know why you're trying to dispel a sociopath stereotype by listing facts about real world psychopaths instead of talking about real world sociopaths

>>10770398
Stop pretending that you need sociopathic reasoning to beat sociopaths. It's wrong, and makes your brainleticism painful to watch.

>>10770419
>Stop pretending that you need sociopathic reasoning to beat sociopaths.

Sociopathic reasoning is devoid of moral sentiment, so I am not using it. Sociopaths are “beaten” when they are dead or locked away, where they can not affect others.

>It's wrong

Moral truths don’t exist.

>and makes your brainleticism painful to watch.

Not an argument.

>>10770438
>Moral truths
No, tactics.

Ad hominem is entirely valid as arguments go.

>>10770445
>No, tactics.

They’re not “sociopathic tactics” so your statement is incorrect.

>Ad hominem is entirely valid as arguments go.

No.

>>10770448
If ad hominem is not a valid argument strategy then you have no business killing sociopaths on the basis of arguments about their character.

>>10770450
>If ad hominem is not a valid argument strategy then you have no business killing sociopaths on the basis of arguments about their character.

You have no idea what ad hominem is.

>>10770464
By that logic my logic is valid.

>>10770028
I agree with this and I don't think it's sociopathic. I recognize that nobody has inherent value and that that's a meme. When violence and war come people disregard those memes to survive. We live in luxury and can affort ethics.

I start out by asking the myself, what is common humanity? Because that's usually what other people turn to. It's some handwavey definition that's roughly like emotional experience / rational thought (pattern recognition). I then draw the line that all animals have that, in one way or another. That all life is sentient, even plants, but in a different way. Their cognition is distributed. Biology doesn't really care how or why we feel, but that we reproduce. In that case, is memes are the reason for your death, were they good memes? Then I put a pragmatic framework on a biological bedrock. Everything else is hypocritical with the false face of 'empathy' and 'caring'.

I don't think it's perfect solution but it works pretty well for me, because it gives me plenty of flexibility in structured society, but also very good for chaos.

Do human experimentation, do animal experimentation, harvest animals, abort humans, do harm to others.

>>10770148
>>10770041
This. Any high/decent functioning sociopath would understand that human experimentation is a terrible idea. Since it reduces justification for people to avoid harming eachother and creates a disordered society. Any low functioning sociopath would likely be in jail by the time they can post on /sci/. Not to mention, a sociopath would have no concern whatsoever if they are one or not. There is almost no chance op is a sociopath. He's just edgy and stupid.

>>10770028
As others have stated you are not a sociopath. Sociopaths can understand whether something is wrong or not. The main difference is, it is a learned understanding, and they don't have an empathetic connection - due to not being able to produce mirror neurons. Why do edgy underage posters always think it is cool to pretend to be a sociopath or a psychopath, when they have zero knowledge about what they actually are. You realize that sociopaths and psychopaths are both born with brains that were not properly developed? It is essentially a form of disability.

everyone come into this thread and mind fuck this fedota tiping faggot

>>10770947
>Any high/decent functioning sociopath would understand that human experimentation is a terrible idea
A sociopath only "understands" this as long as it would be detrimental to his own plans and ideas. Once any chance of punishment is gone, he would happily support human experimentation as long as this wasn't carried out on him.
>they don't have an empathetic connection - due to not being able to produce mirror neurons.
sloppy science

Some things are WRONG. Period. If you don't understand something so simple you have no place in society.

>>10770147
>>10770159
>HERP DERP HOOMAN HURT BAD ANIMel HURT GOOD
And then you continue talking about how we should all be empathetic. You should be empathetic towards all, not just humans. While animals don't experience life the same way, they by no means like pain or want to die. I would gladly have you in a lab instead you absolute cock sucking faggot.

>>10771071
The arguments are retarded. It's probable that he's simply baiting. Most people aren't empathetic. If they were, slavery, genocides, wars etc. wouldn't be a thing but they still are.

>>10770404
>psychopathy and sociopathy are distinct conditions
They're not. They're not even "conditions", they just stem from what laymen know about antisocial personality disorder.

>dude just abandon morality

>>10771041
Okay, so sociopaths would support human experimentation if they didnt live in and werent affected by any kind of society at all. Nice observation dude.

>>10770028

basically you be tellin me dat we be livin in a society?

>>10771086
>Most people aren't empathetic. If they were, slavery, genocides, wars etc. wouldn't be a thing but they still are.

That’s a non sequitor. These things occur because social conditioning and emotions like anger can nullify empathy.

>>10771367
A bear is empathic towards its cubs, and it will maul you to death to protect them. Empathy protects an in-group. Leftists are not humans are should be shot on sights. Minorities too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYmarGO5jM

>>10770028

>>10771387
>A bear is empathic towards its cubs, and it will maul you to death to protect them. Empathy protects an in-group.

That’s great dude. My ingroup is bigger than yours.

>Leftists are not humans are should be shot on sights. Minorities too.

Please relocate to your containment board.

>>10770028
80 IQ - simply does what society tells him
120 IQ - *tips fedora* wah kills animals is cruel wah I'm a vegan
160IQ - agrees with OP

This is the only answer

>>10771418
>Smart people are all sociopaths just believe me dude

>>10771421
>implying smart people take moral views as absolute

Rookie mistake, friend

>>10771448
>implying smart people take moral views as absolute

No, no I’m not.

>>10771463
Your thought process is so cute

>>10771474
Thanks!

>>10771448
They do, actually.
Not because of morals but because they are aware of a little something called public backlash

>>10770165
>Prove personalities exist and explain why I should care about them whatsoever, then prove they’re unique to humans. Should be an easy burden of proof to meet.

>>10770041
First answer best answer, OP is retarded for tackling such a complex matter in.auch simplistic terms

>>10771698
>Prove personalities exist and explain why I should care about them whatsoever

Who the fuck defines “souls” as just an individual’s personality? If that’s all souls are, then animals have souls because they have personalities. What the hell is your point, and why have I never heard in my life this definition of “soul”? I though a “soul” was supposed to be some mystical non-material “””thing””” that constitutes the self and can exist without the brain.

because medicine and bioscience are ultimately about helping people, hurting people in the pursuit of a larger goal is inexcusable especially when nazi germany was the foremost practitioner of this methodology

/sci/ence is not /pol/ ok

>>10770028
>Do others think purely rationally like I do
>

>>10770028
OP, I'll be honest with you: human experimentation is "wrong" because it sets a precedent, one whose existence threatens the fabric of society. If people learn that they could be grabbed off the street and subjected to unspeakable tortures, support for science would collapse, and intellectuals would start getting lynched and shit for supporting it. This would create a racial divide between the working class and scientists, which is not a smart long-term strategy. This is why humans are instinctively opposed to such a strategy, which in turn is why it is considered "wrong". When in doubt, morality will always be the smart option.
You can, however, reap the benefits of human experimentation without paying the cost, and that is by conducting it in absolute secrecy. This is why you'll see people pushing the lie of human experimentation being "useless" or "barbaric", and claiming that research conducted by the likes of Mengele or Unit 731 was motivated by sadistic cruelty and had no rigor, even though that makes no logical sense. They don't want the public to even consider the possibility that they saw value in such research, much less the possibility that their very own government is continuing such research to this day.

>>10770028
>>10771448
Kill yourself dumb fedora.

>>10770041
fpbp

>>10770055
But what if by experimenting with someone we find a cure to a disease? The hypothetical well-being of society would outweigh the emotional implications of doing it.

>>10770041
He's probably just a fedora.

>>10771704
>I though a “soul” was supposed to be some mystical non-material “””thing””” that constitutes the self and can exist without the brain.
That's a retarded definition, who would believe that? Even third graders know patterns can't exist outside of a medium. Souls are abstractions that represent the quality of being uniquely someone or something. Personality, values, history, value, and anything else that can be used to uniquely identify are all part of the soul. That's it. Saying souls exist independently of humans and human ways of thinking is like saying color exists independently of light and vision.

>>10771762
I mean sure, you can consider ill-defined things like personality and value to be "mystical", due to them being ill-defined yet well-understood, and of course they're non-material ,because they're not a physical property, but saying that they can exist separate of what they're associated with is nonsense. Spiritual and conceptual phenomena exist within physical, material reality, not independent of it.

>>10771734
If society ever finds out how you cured that disease, you sure as hell can bet the costs of finding it will outweigh the benefits. Extre legislative tape for all mecial research, moral panic and hysteria, riots against people using the medicince, etc. Our current system of sacrificing chinese prisoners to elder gods works fine as it is. They're old-hat professionals, leave the human experimentation to them.

>>10771762
>That's a retarded definition, who would believe that?

Are you just...not exposed to Christians and new age people? They literally think there’s some kind of “something” that can hang around as a ghost when you die or fly into some other dimension to hang out with God and other dead people. It’s absolutely astounding and is the majority belief here in the U.S.

>>10770165
Identity is the secular soul.
History is the secular afterlife.
Reputation is the secular karma.
Currency is secular gratitude.
Government is the secular pantheon.
Materialism is the secular religion.
Entertainment is the secular culture.
The internet is the secular astral plane.
All are mutable. All can be controlled. All can be manipulated.
I could go on and on. There are metaphors for everything everywhere, learning how to see the parallels is an invaluable skill.

>>10771797
>They literally think there’s some kind of “something” that can hang around as a ghost when you die
But there is, anon. It's called "your memory". When you die, people remember you, and that memory, that legacy, is the "something" that's left behind. If you were a good person, they'll remember you fondly(ie. you go to heaven), but if you were a bad person, they'll remember you negatively(ie. you go to hell). The afterlife is a simplistic metaphor for this collective memory, and the more significant your deeds in life, the higher or lower in "heaven" or "hell" you go. Likewise, if people miss you, they'll think about you often, which in effect means your memory will continue to live on in their minds. Ghosts are likewise metaphors for the memory of the deceased whose deaths have not yet been accepted by the living. Someone who constantly ruminates and thinks about a dead person is being "haunted" by the dead person's "ghost" (AKA their memories of the deceased), and if a dead person is strongly associated with a certain location, then naturally people will remember that person when they visit the location.(ie. They "see" the "ghost" when they visit the location, which means that the ghost is "haunting" the location)

It's all really metaphorical and abstract, which is why simple-minded people argue about whether or not ghosts are "real"(whatever that means), completely missing the point in the process.

How the fuck did Max Born conclude that the probability of finding a particle in certain state, time and position is equal to the wave function multiplied by its complex conjugate?

>>10770028
It's mostly for social cohesion honestly and if you actually want or need to experiment on humans you just need a moderate number of funds and go to a poor and worthless third-world country and it'll be relatively simple even if you have to disguise it as some sort of medical charity.

>>10771708
All science is ultimately about discovering greater truth the morality of it plays no actual role in it just the humans who practice it can act in a moral manner if they wish

>>10770055
I think there's plenty to be learned about morphogens and developmental biology in general (and how to apply that knowledge to organ growth) that can't be done just using flies, but maybe you're more knowledgeable about this subject than I am.

>>10770445
>>10770438
>>10770448


someone said moral facts dont exist?

>>10773689
Why would you ever think they do?

>>10770041
fpbp, don’t forget to sage this shitty thread.

>>10773706
read kant. The categorical imperative is derived from the pure reason itself. Its built off of the categories which determine the form of thought and perception themselves. Not being ethical (in the kantian sense) is as irrational as not wanting to get wet, but stepping outside in the rain in summer wear.

read the 1st critique you fucking brainlet

>>10774266
if you want to be a smartass at least be it properly. Morality is in his second critique, not first

>>10770147
Wrong. It is completely useless, especially given modern technology, and often produces false results (as in, results that do not apply to humans). It continues to exist solely because of bureaucracy.

>>10775711
>bro, lets test out drugs on humans yo

>>10775711
In modern times animal experimentation is even more important with better understanding and perfecting things such as xenotransplantation basic pharmacology testing which is extremely important given that we cannot immediately test new drugs on humans without at least using a similar biological analog to a human to test it on as the value of whatever analog we use is infinitely less than an animal

>>10775727
To addon to that honestly anything that will be used on humans goes through animal testing to verify some of it's effects and see if it has any strong negatives in the human analog used we even have new reasons for using animals coming up such as verification of the functions of human genes such as what the chinese did with https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613277/chinese-scientists-have-put-human-brain-genes-in-monkeysand-yes-they-may-be-smarter/

bumping lol

Something is only ever "unethical" if it makes you feel bad. That's why we are fine with killing trees en masse (because they cannot communicate their suffering + make us feel bad) until we learn about the problems deforestation causes