Pox Americana Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I suppose. I mean, yeah, it's there, but it REALLY becomes obvious when you actually see it. That's great acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 LF and Varys don't exist on the show. Snidely Whiplash and Fat Aang exist. One is chaos, one is order. Whereas in the books, LF and Varys both want chaos for different reasons. Varys wants a mess for his cloth dragon to clean up and LF wants to take advantage of bad situations where and when he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Book-LF channels that too. There's a reason a lot of people call him Pedofinger. I would, too, except it derails threads, and it's not like Littlefinger is a flattering nickname anyway. Well it derails threads because under "pedophilia" almost all characters in the books are. Examples Any person who has ever lusted after Dany or thought she was sexy. So 99% of people who interact with her. Half the court of King's Landing for staring at Sansa's chest when her breasts are coming in. Rhaegar Targaryen They're all "pedophiles" but only LF gets the moniker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Well it derails threads because under "pedophilia" almost all characters in the books are. Examples Any person who has ever lusted after Dany or thought she was sexy. So 99% of people who interact with her. Half the court of King's Landing for staring at Sansa's chest when her breasts are coming in. Rhaegar Targaryen They're all "pedophiles" but only LF gets the moniker. Only one asked to marry Sansa when she was 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Only one asked to marry Sansa when she was 12. One actually married Sansa when she was 12...and if he wasn't so self loathing (thankfully) would have done her then and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 One actually married Sansa when she was 12...and if he wasn't so self loathing (thankfully) would have done her then and there. Oh don't worry, I give Tyrion no slack there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Oh don't worry, I give Tyrion no slack there either. Neither do I. It's just that we don't call Khal Pedo, or The Last Pedo, or Tyrion Lannister "The Pedo," or Daario Pedohaaris, Ramsay Pedsnow, The Hounding for Little Birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 This opening post seems to be mostly differentiating between a psychopath and a sociopath. There is not difference. Sociopaths are psychopaths. And psychopaths are sociopaths. Sociopaths is just one of those terms once used as a label to indicate psychopaths, but has long since been dropped as a term. The only labels left are anti-social personality disorder or psychopathy. All psychopaths also have anti-social personality disorder, but not all those with anti-social personality disorder would pass the psychopath mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It's all nice little story put together by criminal psychologists to enforce strict societal norms, it's outdated and misunderstood, and subject of some very heated arguments in academic circles. Until you lived with one first hand. Then it's not just some story, but a nightmare you survived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It might be an outsider's naive misconception, but I think only few wolves from Wall Street are actually murderers. Nor is every psychopath a murderer. The majority of psychopaths are not murderers and probably will never commit murer. But their lack of empathy, conscious, remorse and guilt, combined with entitlement and love for games, and regarding everything in a win-lose perspective makes them very capable to murder someone without afterthought. Most don't, because it's messy and the risk of being caught. They mess up the lives of other people in other ways: taking away their innosense, embezzling their money, driving a partner to suicide, turning someone confident into a ghost of their former self, having two people fight over them, bullying, framing other people for their mistakes... Paul Babiak and others have recently done investigation after "corporate psychopaths": psychopaths who seem to function in society without resorting to petty crime, and even manage to run a business. The normal average over a total population is 1%. Investigation of traits in management of corporation and finance centers shows around 4% and higher. (from 1/100 to 1/25). The reason for this is very simple: psychopaths love control and power and all the superficial stuff that comes with it - the mask (money, cars, watches, suits,...), and businesses think that a ruthless shark who doesn't care about how buying and dismantling companies will affect the workers there is quite handy to make money for them. That is... until they discover the psychopath also stole money from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I think it is important to try and imagine how your ethical values would change, if the world around you changed, whilst being aware that if the real world around you remains safe, that it is only your imagination and you will live your life as a moral person that does not hurt other human beings. They don't change, because ethics and values depend on the amount of empathy you have. If you want to know what's universally right or wrong: imagine what a normal, average empathic human being would cringe at hearing or watching: rape, torture, killing pets and other animals, killing children and babies. Siddharta lived in a time that was rife of war and violence and caste system of some people being the outcasts and untouchables by birth, and yet he managed to pass on his idea of harming none, the eightfold path, and buddhism. Same goes for Jesus of Nasareth, and plenty of other prophets throughout history. By your argument these people would have been totally unable to conceive of such moralities because of necessity. Hogwash. But it's definitely what the psychopaths in the world would want you to believe: that everything is but perspective and relative, that environment can turn you into an evil being, that stupid/drunk people are asking to be robbed and raped. But what do they know about morals anyway and how they are formed? They don't have empathy to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pox Americana Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 @LordStoneheart: I don't disagree about the show. I think Varys's motivations will become more apparent as certain plots move forward though. I mean, to be fair, we don't even truly know the extant of his involvement in the books yet. There are a lot of words being thrown around in this thread that are pretty easy to misdefine. Pedophilia, for example, is very specific. It specifically refers to girls who are prepubescent, so the cutoff is like 11-12. Think Arya. I really don't think an attraction to Sansa falls under that definition. We know she's physically advanced for her age and get a pretty graphic description of her coming into adulthood. That doesn't mean the attraction isn't any less creepy, just not pedophilia. Sociopathy and Psychopathy are hard to nail down because the definitions have varied so much over time, and the condition(s) themselves are so broad. If one had to look at it in the context of their modern usage, you could see a line drawn between the two depending on how the condition manifests. Psychopaths, in some sense, are born that way. The occurrence rate is something like 4% on the modern spectrums, and it's an actual inability of the brain to do certain processes. Sociopathy seems to be an environmentally acquired analogue acquired through one's development. A personality trait rather than a physical one. Of course nothing in human development is that black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 There are a lot of words being thrown around in this thread that are pretty easy to misdefine. Pedophilia, for example, is very specific. It specifically refers to girls who are prepubescent, so the cutoff is like 11-12. Think Arya. I really don't think an attraction to Sansa falls under that definition. We know she's physically advanced for her age and get a pretty graphic description of her coming into adulthood. That doesn't mean the attraction isn't any less creepy, just not pedophilia. It's called ephebophilia. What Elvis was into and when you say underage how old are we talking R. Kelly. Sandusky was the pedophile. Some have tried to say Raff wasn't because Arya was the only example but IRL the it was only that one time excuse wouldn't fly. He raped a 13 year old but that wasn't pedophilia but still a sex crime IRL. ETA: Although Arya might have technically started puberty by growing in ADWD I don't think they go by that IRL. Physically she looks like a child and hasn't gotten her period. She is still hairless I think which is what pedos like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 They don't change, because ethics and values depend on the amount of empathy you have. If you want to know what's universally right or wrong: imagine what a normal, average empathic human being would cringe at hearing or watching: rape, torture, killing pets and other animals, killing children and babies. Empathy can change, I believe, based on your environment. Your empathy can become desensitized. There is no such thing as an average empathetic human being. It all leads into nature vs nuture and what are termed 'forbidden' psychological experiments. We don't know for certain what the outcome would be if we grabbed person X as a newborn, replicated person X and put them 3 distinct environments - 1 in an environment devoid of all sensory input, 1 in fearful and violent environment and 1 in a moral nurturing environment. I'd put money on the person turning out different in each instance, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Neither do I. It's just that we don't call Khal Pedo, or The Last Pedo, or Tyrion Lannister "The Pedo," or Daario Pedohaaris, Ramsay Pedsnow, The Hounding for Little Birds. He also made Jeyne a sex slave and seems to have promised Lyn Corbray "boys," so perhaps we could meet in the middle and say he's a pedophile by proxy. (Just realized that if any of you don't agree that he is evil based on the statement above, there might be no convincing you. :P) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Empathy can change, I believe, based on your environment. Your empathy can become desensitized. There is no such thing as an average human being. It can be desensitized through lying at yourself in order to exclude people from being human and feeling pain (or lying that animals don't feel pain). The fact you need to lie about it to yourself shows that normally you'd automatically feel empathy. There is an average, normal human being. This means that the "normal" person can feel certain things, scores between 0-4 on the PCL-R test for psychopathy (50% of the population) and is not stuck in some pathological mode, but flexible. Sure, they can be down, they can be angry, they can be cold and unforgiven at times, they can feel their fingers itch and tempted to lash out, they can desire revenge, but they don't stay stuck in it either, and they don't systematically use people as tools. Would an average empathic human being torture a cat or dog when they recognize animals can feel pain? Nope. Would an average empathic person pinch in a woman's skirt at work? Nope. Would an average empathic person cheat on their partner with multiple others for decades? Nope. Would an average empathic person parasite on others and let them take care of all the bills? Nope. Would an average empathic person steal thousands or millions from a person they claim to love? Nope. Would an average empathic person kidnap or pin lies to girls and sell them into sex trade? Nope. Would an average empathic person be able to alter their outer personna depending on who they are targeting for years? Nope. And if they did, they'd be racked with guilt and nightmares for the rest of their lives. That is why morals in the end are pretty much universal, and black and white. Anyone who says differently has something to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 You are viewing human beings in very subjective absolutes - if it makes you comfortable to do so - fine, stay comfortable. Here is why Little Finger is not evil - because evil human beings do not exist (only evil characters exist in storys and propaganda). If you are discussing Little Finger as a character in a fairy tale, then fine, he can be an evil character. If you are discussing him relative to real human beings, then the word evil should not be applied. In reality, there are just human beings, with minds that slide on empathetic (and other) scales (back and forth) over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 He also made Jeyne a sex slave and seems to have promised Lyn Corbray "boys," so perhaps we could meet in the middle and say he's a pedophile by proxy. (Just realized that if any of you don't agree that he is evil based on the statement above, there might be no convincing you. :P) I won't say he isn't "evil." But turning her into a prostitute and giving "boys" to Corbray is a despicable act, but not pedophilia... Khal Pedo turned thousands of women and boys into sex slaves. The Last Pedo Rhaegar helped start a massive war that killed thousands of innocent people Tyrion has slept with how many prostitutes? Including "18 year old" Shae who was raped by her own dad. Why are none of these guys put in the same category as a rape victim like Baelish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 You are viewing human beings in very subjective absolutes - if it makes you comfortable to do so - fine, stay comfortable. Here is why Little Finger is not evil - because evil human beings do not exist. There are just human beings, with minds that slide on empathetic scales (back and forth) over time. I agree completely. No humans are evil. That's just silly, fairy tale talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I agree completely. No humans are evil. That's just silly, fairy tale talk. It's just simplistic and comfortable for you to paint them as evil - I haven't read about all of them but I know some were much more complicated then a simple definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.