'SOULLESS HUMANS?'
That point of view is not cool!
everyone has a soul.
some people are dorment.
if you are some big scary guy, they sense your brokenness and shy away from you.
they are not soulless, they are asleep.
the ones you think are soulless are not awake in the sense that Q means. they have not experienced 'the great awakening' yet.
if you don't 'see' something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. It's dormant.
and no, it's not 'confirmed'
'no emotions' means no trust, not no soul.
listen, the 'definition' of a 'psychopath' seems to define an expected 'outcome' of 'behavior' that never shows up in most of the people who 'take the tests'.
someone who is untrustworthy or 'undercover' and doesn't show emotions is what you say a 'psychopath' is, and that they do all this horrible stuff. But most of them don't do that horrible stuff. They just don't share their feelings with man-eaters and preditory 'head-doctors'.
if all of that is true, it would be a much smaller percentage of people than those who are 'found' from 'psychitrists' 'tests'.
Yes, I did rad 'People of the Lie'. and 'yes' there are bad people who do bad things.
the idea that we can 'know' them before they are all grown up and be sure that they would do all this evil . . . is bunk.
that's why I object to the 'no soul' statement.
another point: for many their 'soul garden' is a 'secret garden' and they are very intelligent and would never trust doctors or psychitrists to 'really know them' and thus wouldn't trust a test.
but you are correct that for the case fo personal observation the trait of 'emotionless' bad behavior and no empathy . . . does make the observed . . . un unlikely buddy.
they look human, but they are not really?
If so, how can you 'tell' with a test. You'd be able to 'see it' in them, but you'd have to give them the benifit of the doubt in the mean time.
Meaning that descrimination against them would be a trap set for you to fall into.
If they aren't human, but just look that way, then I don't know about 'a soul'.
but if they are born of a woman and part of the group and they take a test that says 'emotionless' and thus no soul, and suddenly they end up at a 'camp' or whatever . . . it's a dangerous idea this 'no soul' bullshit.
human's always have a soul.
but it may also be that these soulless creatures can 'look' human.
and when they do we must give them all the same rights as everyone else or else we are prayed upon by litigious vipers.
peanuts grow underground.
someone dug it up and gave it eyes and a hat?
It's a braindead personification of a legume and it's made by hacks who have a marketting contract and they hired some advertisers who gave them this as an ad campaign, and it's in the pipeline so . . . we have to deal with it even though Kobe is out of the equation.
"if you have a teat milk it"
if the client wants to spend stupid money to make a discusting ad campaign, then the admen will take the money and spend it, and sprinkle jobs out there in the creative space of artists, etc.
Very stupid ad campaign that is probably geared at children.
well that's just mean.
What is funny is that the discussion is about people like you . . . who are quick to be mean without cause and how we need to not make a 'diagnosis' based upon bullshit, like 'psychiatric tests'.
why did you decide to attack me? is it that you want us to imagine that you fit the 'definition' of the soulless wraithes (which are mostly imagined?)
fish eye lenes make shadows that are not parallel.