Quote:
Originally Posted by evergrowing
Psychopaths still have cognitive abilities that differentiate them from animals who merely act on instinct, just as much as non-disordered personalities do. As you yourself mentioned, you can still think through that which angers and hurt you will likewise hurt and upset another human being, even if you do not feel it, and therefore remain responsible for your behaviour and actions irregardless whether or not you have lower impulse control, and can be held accountable for it, legally or functionally by any human being whom boundaries you may infringe.
|
I wouldn't say animals merely act on instinct, but sure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by evergrowing
True. So, can for example a person who disrespects the boundaries of others, after they have been clearly expressed, for their own entertainment, wishing to debate those boundaries and blaming them for these boundaries, irregardless of their pathology, be ousted and rejected by the very people whose boundaries were disrespected, especially when they can logically deduce they may be causing pain?
|
I'm going to rephrase the statement to try to get a better grasp of it's meaning... If I'm off the mark, please indicate so...
Quote:
|
True, a person can be judged by his or her actions. So can a person, who, for their own entertainment, disrespects the boundaries of others and wishes to debate those boundaries after those boundaries have been clearly expressed, be ousted and rejected by the very people whose boundaries were disrespected, especially when the offender can logically deduce they may be causing pain?
|
Well, you see, that depends on the situation.
If the boundaries were clearly expressed and the defendant had intent to disrespect those boundaries even after they were clearly stated, sure. But, if the parties involved "expressed their boundaries" by shamelessly insulting and demeaning the defendant, not to mention implying that the defendant should kill himself and that he "sucked d***", it isn't difficult to see how such "expressions" might be misconstrued as personal attacks.
Furthermore, if the original source material, written false claims that openly attacked a disorder with which the defendant was inflicted, not only provoked the defendant but defamed his character and caused distress in his daily life, is that not an unethical breach of boundaries? Does the defendant not have a right to defend himself against such accusations?