Right behind gay footballers

This thread has taken a nose dive in the intelligent debate stakes. Was wondering when it would.

Comparing a gay relationship with paedophila and psychotic episodes?

The reason is discrimination of an act thats perfectly natural in relationships, 10% of the world are gay according to studies and is prevalent in most species. To then use the "natural" card to use against paedophilia is an amazingly stupid comment with absolutely no baring on this thread or topic.

I think i'm having a little trouble with how you worded that one dude,
but from what I think you're getting at;
Yes, both are naturally induced into the individual, but psychopathy is seen a mental illness
(I'de like to add here, that I have not read into this - that is an assumption of mine)
But its an abnormality in the brain that means that one person can basically go out and harm a member of the public because of this anomaly. This being said, there are treatments available (not always successful from what I can gather) from therapists, but it is a recognised issue that people are trying to solve.

Being gay is none of these things, it is just a natural, non harmful, sexual attraction to the same gender

(Hope that made sense)

My point is psychopaths are a natural creation. We see their brain structure as abnormal because we like to diagnose things that are different. Who's to say we're not the abnormal ones and they're entirely normal? Who's to say we aren't just or normal natural creations with a different make up genetically or neurologically? We call diseases we don't know cancers. There are thousands of cancers out there and a lot of them are treatable, a lot of them aren't. We like to label things.

When people say 'gays are natural' its annoying because that is not a strong or valid argument. The argument is to do with living in a civilised world and equality and the morals and ways of being we have set. Like you said, most gay people don't harm people whereas psychopaths do. Its nothing to do with nature, everything to do with civilisation and rights.

This thread has taken a nose dive in the intelligent debate stakes. Was wondering when it would.

Comparing a gay relationship with paedophila and psychotic episodes?

The reason is discrimination of an act thats perfectly natural in relationships, 10% of the world are gay according to studies and is prevalent in most species. To then use the "natural" card to use against paedophilia is an amazingly stupid comment with absolutely no baring on this thread or topic.

NO! The 1% of species left on earth have only survived because there has NEVER been any homosexual intercourse within those animals!

Darwin was wrong!


....................apparently

I think i'm having a little trouble with how you worded that one dude,
but from what I think you're getting at;
Yes, both are naturally induced into the individual, but psychopathy is seen a mental illness
(I'de like to add here, that I have not read into this - that is an assumption of mine)
But its an abnormality in the brain that means that one person can basically go out and harm a member of the public because of this anomaly. This being said, there are treatments available (not always successful from what I can gather) from therapists, but it is a recognised issue that people are trying to solve.

Being gay is none of these things, it is just a natural, non harmful, sexual attraction to the same gender

(Hope that made sense)

My point is psychopaths are a natural creation. We see their brain structure as abnormal because we like to diagnose things that are different. Who's to say we're not the abnormal ones and they're entirely normal? Who's to say we aren't just or normal natural creations with a different make up genetically or neurologically? We call diseases we don't know cancers. There are thousands of cancers out there and a lot of them are treatable, a lot of them aren't. We like to label things.

When people say 'gays are natural' its annoying because that is not a strong or valid argument. The argument is to do with living in a civilised world and equality and the morals and ways of being we have set. Like you said, most gay people don't harm people whereas psychopaths do. Its nothing to do with nature, everything to do with civilisation and rights.

I see where you're going, but homosexuality IS natural, as it is part of someone's genetic make up,

when you speak about the civilised society, that isn't encouraging said behaviour directly, its the people accepting it.
Gay people aren't gay by choice, they are naturally attracted to a person of the same gender. That is why it is natural.

Nature vs Nurture mate.

Nature is the homosexuality
Nurture is societies acceptance of it

I think i'm having a little trouble with how you worded that one dude,
but from what I think you're getting at;
Yes, both are naturally induced into the individual, but psychopathy is seen a mental illness
(I'de like to add here, that I have not read into this - that is an assumption of mine)
But its an abnormality in the brain that means that one person can basically go out and harm a member of the public because of this anomaly. This being said, there are treatments available (not always successful from what I can gather) from therapists, but it is a recognised issue that people are trying to solve.

Being gay is none of these things, it is just a natural, non harmful, sexual attraction to the same gender

(Hope that made sense)

My point is psychopaths are a natural creation. We see their brain structure as abnormal because we like to diagnose things that are different. Who's to say we're not the abnormal ones and they're entirely normal? Who's to say we aren't just or normal natural creations with a different make up genetically or neurologically? We call diseases we don't know cancers. There are thousands of cancers out there and a lot of them are treatable, a lot of them aren't. We like to label things.

When people say 'gays are natural' its annoying because that is not a strong or valid argument. The argument is to do with living in a civilised world and equality and the morals and ways of being we have set. Like you said, most gay people don't harm people whereas psychopaths do. Its nothing to do with nature, everything to do with civilisation and rights.

JB i think for debates sake you are playing devils advocate and taking it on a ridiculous path of extreme black and white. The other day Barry Chuckle asked if you trust tan, and if you do then you must trust everything he says - you quite rightly said you can trust someone subjectively using intelligence. That logic applies here.

This thread has taken a nose dive in the intelligent debate stakes. Was wondering when it would.

Comparing a gay relationship with paedophila and psychotic episodes?

The reason is discrimination of an act thats perfectly natural in relationships, 10% of the world are gay according to studies and is prevalent in most species. To then use the "natural" card to use against paedophilia is an amazingly stupid comment with absolutely no baring on this thread or topic.

Just because you don't understand the complexity of a point made doesn't make it wrong. No one said that it was as bad as or anything like that.

The point being is that people are using the natural card to justify homosexuality when that is wrong. It is also wrong to use it to justify heterosexuality. There are many things that are natural that are good and bad. Whether they are natural or not has no prevalence on whether they are good for our society or bad for our society. Cars are not natural but they are of benefit to us as a society and in fact a hindrance to natures ecosystem.

People try and use the natural card as an easy defence of something. Its an idiotic defence that holds no true value because as already pointed out, just because something is natural it doesn't make it good or right. The problem is, when you put out a shit reason as such someone with a more prudent way of thinking will destroy it with ease.

Both psychopathy and homosexuality are natural? One is frowned upon. The other is now generally accepted. Its not nature that depicts that but the evolvement of civilisation, rights and morals. Thats the reason others should be treated with respect, not just because they are natural.

I see where you're going, but homosexuality IS natural, as it is part of someone's genetic make up,

when you speak about the civilised society, that isn't encouraging said behaviour directly, its the people accepting it.
Gay people aren't gay by choice, they are naturally attracted to a person of the same gender. That is why it is natural.

Nature vs Nurture mate.

Nature is the homosexuality
Nurture is societies acceptance of it

You're still not understanding the point made. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL AS IS PSYCHOPATHY. The point being is nature is not a true reason to say its okay. Is PSYCHOPATHY okay? no, its not. Is being gay okay? To most in society it is.

Why? Because of laws, morals and advances of civilisation. Its man made rules, some written like laws and rights, others unwritten like morals nurtured within us, that allow us to depict what natural things are good and what are bad. This allows most to depict that homosexuality is acceptable and psychopathy is not. However, both are entirely natural. To argue otherwise is absurd.

When I was in school we were told god created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

This thread has taken a nose dive in the intelligent debate stakes. Was wondering when it would.

Comparing a gay relationship with paedophila and psychotic episodes?

The reason is discrimination of an act thats perfectly natural in relationships, 10% of the world are gay according to studies and is prevalent in most species. To then use the "natural" card to use against paedophilia is an amazingly stupid comment with absolutely no baring on this thread or topic.

Just because you don't understand the complexity of a point made doesn't make it wrong. No one said that it was as bad as or anything like that.

The point being is that people are using the natural card to justify homosexuality when that is wrong. It is also wrong to use it to justify heterosexuality. There are many things that are natural that are good and bad. Whether they are natural or not has no prevalence on whether they are good for our society or bad for our society. Cars are not natural but they are of benefit to us as a society and in fact a hindrance to natures ecosystem.

People try and use the natural card as an easy defence of something. Its an idiotic defence that holds no true value because as already pointed out, just because something is natural it doesn't make it good or right. The problem is, when you put out a shit reason as such someone with a more prudent way of thinking will destroy it with ease.

Both psychopathy and homosexuality are natural? One is frowned upon. The other is now generally accepted. Its not nature that depicts that but the evolvement of civilisation, rights and morals. Thats the reason others should be treated with respect, not just because they are natural.

I understand it perfectly.

The main argument against homosexuality is because its "not natural", "not right", "god didnt make us that way" etc the point that its perfectly normal and natural negates that leaving not a lot else apart from prejudice.

Take away the natural argument against rape and paedophilia and you still have a list as long as peter crouch as to why it is bad.

The natural stance is more to defend the fact its seen as un-natural rather than a reason to accept it in itself as when people agree its natural then there isnt anything left other than peoples pre perceived dispositions.

I like the devils advocate angle, always have, but in this instance its a silly route.

JB i think for debates sake you are playing devils advocate and taking it on a ridiculous path of extreme black and white. The other day Barry Chuckle asked if you trust tan, and if you do then you must trust everything he says - you quite rightly said you can trust someone subjectively using intelligence. That logic applies here.

Of course I am. They are still not grasping the point though. Both psychopathy and homosexuality are, according to scientists, extremely natural. Therefore, its easy to see that nature brings both bad and good to the world. Something being natural is not a good reason to say homosexuality is fine.

Homosexuality is not fine because its natural. Homosexuality is regarded as fine because it complies with our rules set through being civilised humans - laws, rights and morals.

Now if someone said 'homosexuality is fine because we should treat others as we treat ourselves because of the world we live with rights and the law' then thats a fair argument.

I see where you're going, but homosexuality IS natural, as it is part of someone's genetic make up,

when you speak about the civilised society, that isn't encouraging said behaviour directly, its the people accepting it.
Gay people aren't gay by choice, they are naturally attracted to a person of the same gender. That is why it is natural.

Nature vs Nurture mate.

Nature is the homosexuality
Nurture is societies acceptance of it

You're still not understanding the point made. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL AS IS PSYCHOPATHY. The point being is nature is not a true reason to say its okay. Is PSYCHOPATHY okay? no, its not. Is being gay okay? To most in society it is.

Why? Because of laws, morals and advances of civilisation. Its man made rules, some written like laws and rights, others unwritten like morals nurtured within us, that allow us to depict what natural things are good and what are bad. This allows most to depict that homosexuality is acceptable and psychopathy is not. However, both are entirely natural. To argue otherwise is absurd.

But saying it is natural DOES make it okay. If it was a choice and unnatural, (even rebellious maybe) then that makes the behaviour detrimental to our race. This is not the case however, people cannot help it, and it is not harmful to others, so all those reasons make it okay.

We are having a good debate here, lets not start accusing eachother of absurdities because we disagree

Both are natural, but as i've stated, Psychopaths are treated on vertain medication and therapy because, even though it is naturally occurring in some people, it's potentially very dangerous.

I feel like we are pretty much going round in circles though

I understand it perfectly.

The main argument against homosexuality is because its "not natural", "not right", "god didnt make us that way" etc the point that its perfectly normal and natural negates that leaving not a lot else apart from prejudice.

Take away the natural argument against rape and paedophilia and you still have a list as long as peter crouch as to why it is bad.

The natural stance is more to defend the fact its seen as un-natural rather than a reason to accept it in itself as when people agree its natural then there isnt anything left other than peoples pre perceived dispositions.

I like the devils advocate angle, always have, but in this instance its a silly route.

Its not a silly route. People should back up their arguments for the correct reasons is the point I am trying to make. Like you have said, the true reasons are the list of other things you said but this list is made up of laws, rights and morals we as a civilised race have created. The argument of it being natural is a false one. The argument that gay people deserve equal rights to others because they comply with the laws and rights we've set in society whereas psychopaths often don't is a valid one and one that holds more credence than simply saying 'homosexuality is natural and therefore should be accepted'.

If people use silly statements to quantify their arguments they should be prepared to defend them on a more widespread basis.

I understand it perfectly.

The main argument against homosexuality is because its "not natural", "not right", "god didnt make us that way" etc the point that its perfectly normal and natural negates that leaving not a lot else apart from prejudice.

Take away the natural argument against rape and paedophilia and you still have a list as long as peter crouch as to why it is bad.

The natural stance is more to defend the fact its seen as un-natural rather than a reason to accept it in itself as when people agree its natural then there isnt anything left other than peoples pre perceived dispositions.

I like the devils advocate angle, always have, but in this instance its a silly route.

Its not a silly route. People should back up their arguments for the correct reasons is the point I am trying to make. Like you have said, the true reasons are the list of other things you said but this list is made up of laws, rights and morals we as a civilised race have created. The argument of it being natural is a false one. The argument that gay people deserve equal rights to others because they comply with the laws and rights we've set in society whereas psychopaths often don't is a valid one and one that holds more credence than simply saying 'homosexuality is natural and therefore should be accepted'.

If people use silly statements to quantify their arguments they should be prepared to defend them on a more widespread basis.

So you're not arguing for or against homosexuality.... But how people form their arguments...


Jeeesus Jimbo

So you're not arguing for or against homosexuality.... But how people form their arguments...

Jeeesus Jimbo

Yes. If an argument is invalid then the person putting forward said idiotic argument should be corrected.

If someone is going to argue they should at least get it right.

Educating the masses since 2012.

So you're not arguing for or against homosexuality.... But how people form their arguments...

Jeeesus Jimbo

Yes. If an argument is invalid then the person putting forward said idiotic argument should be corrected.

If someone is going to argue they should at least get it right.

Educating the masses since 2012.

I still stand by my argument, and believe I backed it up sufficiently! I think we need a few more opinions though because we are never going to find a meeting point on this one!

So you're not arguing for or against homosexuality.... But how people form their arguments...

Jeeesus Jimbo

Yes. If an argument is invalid then the person putting forward said idiotic argument should be corrected.

If someone is going to argue they should at least get it right.

Educating the masses since 2012.

I still stand by my argument, and believe I backed it up sufficiently! I think we need a few more opinions though because we are never going to find a meeting point on this one!

I agree with your argument about morals and rules and homosexuality doesn't harm people whereas psychopathy does. That isn't nature though what's taught us that, we distinguish what is good and bad through laws, morals and rights - the codes by which we live.

The notion that 'homosexuality is ok because its natural' is ridiculous. You could apply the same logic to try and justify plenty of other things good and bad. Until you start to use more solid information to back up your argument then it doesn't hold any credence whatsoever.

I understand it perfectly.

The main argument against homosexuality is because its "not natural", "not right", "god didnt make us that way" etc the point that its perfectly normal and natural negates that leaving not a lot else apart from prejudice.

Take away the natural argument against rape and paedophilia and you still have a list as long as peter crouch as to why it is bad.

The natural stance is more to defend the fact its seen as un-natural rather than a reason to accept it in itself as when people agree its natural then there isnt anything left other than peoples pre perceived dispositions.

I like the devils advocate angle, always have, but in this instance its a silly route.

I
Its not a silly route. People should back up their arguments for the correct reasons is the point I am trying to make. Like you have said, the true reasons are the list of other things you said but this list is made up of laws, rights and morals we as a civilised race have created. The argument of it being natural is a false one. The argument that gay people deserve equal rights to others because they comply with the laws and rights we've set in society whereas psychopaths often don't is a valid one and one that holds more credence than simply saying 'homosexuality is natural and therefore should be accepted'.

If people use silly statements to quantify their arguments they should be prepared to defend them on a more widespread basis.

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

So you're not arguing for or against homosexuality.... But how people form their arguments...

Jeeesus Jimbo

Yes. If an argument is invalid then the person putting forward said idiotic argument should be corrected.

If someone is going to argue they should at least get it right.

Educating the masses since 2012.

I still stand by my argument, and believe I backed it up sufficiently! I think we need a few more opinions though because we are never going to find a meeting point on this one!

I agree with your argument about morals and rules and homosexuality doesn't harm people whereas psychopathy does. That isn't nature though what's taught us that, we distinguish what is good and bad through laws, morals and rights - the codes by which we live.

The notion that 'homosexuality is ok because its natural' is ridiculous. You could apply the same logic to try and justify plenty of other things good and bad. Until you start to use more solid information to back up your argument then it doesn't hold any credence whatsoever.

I have backed it up....

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

Is it the sole justification though? No. There are many other reasons. Natural on its own is not an argument hence my posts.

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

Is it the sole justification though? No. There are many other reasons. Natural on its own is not an argument hence my posts.

For a justification there has to be a grievance. The only grievance ive heard is the "un natural" argument. Its perfectly natural as pointed out.

If more arguments are put forward against it then we can maybe explore them, however the overwhelming stance against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. Hence the reason why the justification that it clearly is natural, couldnt be more appropriate.

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

Is it the sole justification though? No. There are many other reasons. Natural on its own is not an argument hence my posts.

For a justification there has to be a grievance. The only grievance ive heard is the "un natural" argument. Its perfectly natural as pointed out.

If more arguments are put forward against it then we can maybe explore them, however the overwhelming stance against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. Hence the reason why the justification that it clearly is natural, couldnt be more appropriate.

I disagree with that approach. I say you argue with everything and hammer their weak opinion into oblivion. You could wait for more arguments to unfold to counter them but why waste time when you can just destroy their arguments articulately with no issue? You're just delaying the inevitable.

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

Is it the sole justification though? No. There are many other reasons. Natural on its own is not an argument hence my posts.

For a justification there has to be a grievance. The only grievance ive heard is the "un natural" argument. Its perfectly natural as pointed out.

If more arguments are put forward against it then we can maybe explore them, however the overwhelming stance against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. Hence the reason why the justification that it clearly is natural, couldnt be more appropriate.

I disagree with that approach. I say you argue with everything and hammer their weak opinion into oblivion. You could wait for more arguments to unfold to counter them but why waste time when you can just destroy their arguments articulately with no issue? You're just delaying the inevitable.

There isnt much justification for it though, its just humanity - simple as that.

Its like saying give a reason to allow men to marry women, you can only really respond to why people think it wouldnt be acceptable rather than giving the obvious reasons for it. The only reason it seems to not be acceptable is because it isnt natural, well it is.

Religion is another example. But in my opinion religion is nonsense, but respect others that believe so could see the angle there.

Its a perfectly valid use of the natural argument as one of the main if not, only, argument against it - is that it is unnatural.

Surely this is obvious?

Is it the sole justification though? No. There are many other reasons. Natural on its own is not an argument hence my posts.

For a justification there has to be a grievance. The only grievance ive heard is the "un natural" argument. Its perfectly natural as pointed out.

If more arguments are put forward against it then we can maybe explore them, however the overwhelming stance against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. Hence the reason why the justification that it clearly is natural, couldnt be more appropriate.

I disagree with that approach. I say you argue with everything and hammer their weak opinion into oblivion. You could wait for more arguments to unfold to counter them but why waste time when you can just destroy their arguments articulately with no issue? You're just delaying the inevitable.

But all you seem to have done is open up a thesaurus and make the same points over and over, I've referred to mental Illness, Darwinian evolution and education to back up my arguments.

You have just used the same post over and over and made no real point other than the fact you believe nobody "articulates their arguments" and you don't like how they presented them

I really can't find a real argument other than you don't believe "natural" can be used to describe homosexual behaviour

You backed it up with nothing

I play for a football team called "Cardiff Dragons" .. That may stir a few on here in itself ... It's a football team founded in 2008 that play in a league which supports the minorities of people who feel like they aren't welcome at other regular football sides. E.g "gay, transgender etc.

I'm completely straight but chose play for this side because everyone is the same. And don't believe that anyone should be singled out for who they are there are a couple of others the same.

http://www.cardiffdragonsfc.co.uk

Anyone can play. Gay/straight/male/female of any ability.

Want to know any details send me a PM if you fancy coming down to give it a try

We play sides up and down the country on Sundays, the teams in our division are: Birmingham Blaze, London Leftfooters, Newcastle and Wolverhampton to give an idea of the teams we play

We also won a friendly against Bristol 3-1 last weekend who are a division above us.

Bit of a car crash of a thread this one but I am a firm believer what goes on between two consenting adults is none of my business. What I don't understand is these gay footballers (Some in the PL) who aren't coming out. The first PL footballer to come out in the modern era will earn a massive amount from endorsements and interviews. He will be seen as a pioneer and it may help his career as clubs will want to sign him for marketing opportunities. He will not get a tyrant of abuse from the fans and no more abuse than black players get now.

As for the Brighton poster is your scumbag of a town which spawned our PC culture and the HQ for the lefty lunatics and do gooders which are slowly killing this once proud nation. A truly vile place is Brighton.

Finally, Polo has it spot on. To teach children as young as THREE years old anything of a sexual nature is wrong, some people are pushing for kids to be taught about hetro and homo sexual behaviours on a weekly basis. I find it baffling and uncomfortable and wouldn't want some patronising bint poisoning my childs brain.

I dont think anyone has suggested teaching gay sex to 3 year olds in fairness

When children are taught about sex education at age 15 or whatever it is these days then it should cover gay sex also, otherwise we are denying 10% of the pupils proper sexual education that is specific to them. As has been stated and proven, it is a natural occurring thing in the animal kingdom so seems a little odd to leave it out and assume that nobody is gay.

I think anyone classing that as poisoning a childs brain belongs on the stage of their local amateur dramatics to be blunt.

When children are taught about sex education at age 15 or whatever it is these days then it should cover gay sex also

No we shouldn't. Children in schools should not be told about the ins and outs of such things. They should be told how to put a condom on, preferably by an aesthetic female teacher and they should be taught about the reproduction system.

If you want your 15 year old coming home to tell you how his teacher taught him about lubricating his arse hole for anal sex then thats your prerogative but I doubt most parents want their children being taught that sort of stuff.

It should focus on condoms, other forms of contraception and the reproduction system.

im sorry psychopaths are born to kill where do you get that from

http://www.medicaldaily.com/cold-hearte ... ess-240366
http://www.united-academics.org/magazin ... ct-brains/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23431793
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6198704.stm

There's plenty more out there if you are willing to do research and if you go on Reddit and do a deep search you'll find a thread on the subject where scientists talk about such things etc.

Its quite obvious some are born to kill because thats nature and other animals are the same. That was part of human instinct before civilisation and is still a part of it now. In a world with no laws, morals and structure there would be chaos and psychopaths and sociopaths would thrive in that world. Not all psychopaths are killers and some people you know may be psychopaths and sociopaths and you don't even know it.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/44423 ... sociopaths

Psychopaths and sociopaths fit in to every day to day life like everyone else. They create an act, a facade, to fit in. Its not true emotion but what they've learnt through life to get by and come across 'normal'.

so your first link doesnt mention anything about psychopaths being natural killers just there lack of empathy with there actions, plus the case study was taken from already violent offenders so your point is improven.

your second link is the same study and again doesnt mention natural instinct to kill only in the title which is their to shock.

your third link doesnt mention a natural instinct to kill either just states psychopaths do not empathise with people (which we know anyway) also the idea you can turn empathy on is not shocking as in training for the military especially for infantry soldiers they train you to turn empathy off.

your fourth link is probably the best explanation that they have no fear and can easily carry out actions, none of that states that psychopaths are naturally born killers they just dont show empathy for people, remorse for their actions they have the ability to justify their actions most children under the age of 10 can be considered psychopaths because they have yet to develop their moral code in its entirety.

your 5th link in the ten jobs which will attract sociopaths neither mentions hitman or any job which involves killing

So I would like you to explain how psychopaths or sociopaths are naturally born killers?

When children are taught about sex education at age 15 or whatever it is these days then it should cover gay sex also

No we shouldn't. Children in schools should not be told about the ins and outs of such things. They should be told how to put a condom on, preferably by an aesthetic female teacher and they should be taught about the reproduction system.

If you want your 15 year old coming home to tell you how his teacher taught him about lubricating his arse hole for anal sex then thats your prerogative but I doubt most parents want their children being taught that sort of stuff.

It should focus on condoms, other forms of contraception and the reproduction system.

To think that learning about homosexuals in school involves how they have sex is madness

So I would like you to explain how psychopaths or sociopaths are naturally born killers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... pists.html

I'll take the advice of a scientist and specialist in his field over yours thanks.

"He said not all monsters are born and that many are made worse by their environments on their roads to evil."

Fair point but that still means a percentage are. Im not saying its right or a justification for their actions as its not in a civilised world but its the truth. Deny it all you like. The human race just like others in the animal kingdom has those who are predators of their own.

Its been proven time and time again by scientists from the US, Germany and some of our own that the neurological make up of psychopaths is different to those deemed normal. It makes them predisposed to environmental factors.