Common math shows that less immigrants means less deportation because it's bound to the number of illegal immigrants present. More illegal immigrants means more deportation

That's just not true.

Restrictive immigration laws lead to more deportation. There's no mathematical necessity that deportation should correlate with the presence of illegal immigrants.

Democrats want to pass all these fucking laws yet the current ones are not being enforced effectively

And yet Obama has presided over one of the largest peacetime outflows of people in America's history.

If you're here illegally then get the fuck out and wait your turn like my grandmother, aunt, and every other legal immigrant has done

Or we could actually improve the immigration system instead of resorting to childish "it isn't fair" rhetoric.

As if the state of Mexican prisons is any sort of reasonable comparison.

Piracy should be subject to the punishment of fines, which is then passed on to the content creators. The fines should also be heavier than the highest price of the material pirated.

There are Alexander Hamilton's Federalists, or Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans?

The Federalists:Often supported the idea of creating a mercantile nation deeply involved in world trade, as well as turning the U.S. into a manufacturing powerhouse. Although, the trade didn't come without a degree of protectionism, and Hamilton favoured using tariffs to spur manufacturing growth. The Federalists also argued for the creation of a national debt, as well as a national bank. They also imposed an excise tax on whiskey.

Federalists generally supported a strong federal government capable of building infrastructure and maintaining this development, taking an "implied powers" approach to the Constitution which allowed elasticity. They were suspicious of mob rule, which has often led to criticisms of elitism.

The Federalists also supported greater ties to Great Britain, and desired to establish a strong navy and army.

The Democratic-Republicans: Supported the idea of a localist, agrarian economy un-involved with international trade. They also believed in small-scale local government to compliment the economic structure and strongly preserve civil liberties, and avoid the problems associated with large, centralised government.

They took a line of Strict Construction in regards to the Constitution, and criticised the Federalists ambitions to establish a national debt and bank as impermissible.

The DRs supported closer ties to the French.

I'd have been a Federalist, I think.

I'd rather just make immmigration easier and provide a stable path to residency for those already in the country.

With all due respect, why would you openly disclose such information?

I know you have a right to do what you want with said information and being open about it to the right people certainly helps, but no matter what psychological or physical state I was in I wouldn't be so forthwith with that info, let alone making it freely availables to the likes of us.

Spoiler

I suppose it might come down to your impulsiveness as you mentioned, but fuck what do I know, I'm not a psychologist

A mixture of impulsiveness and narcissism.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 18, 2014, 04:46:38 PM

From what I can tell they seem like a hindrance.

Not always. If they motivate you and give you confidence, then they really help you out in life. Though you probably already know that.

Oh, sure, but I'm talking more about interpersonal emotions like love and attachment.

Things like ambition and pride are fine.

You don't think capitalism rewards ruthlessness?

No, that's what I'm saying, it's surviving in spite of society, not because of it.

It comes from a fluke, or a niche, or a blind-spot in "the tribe's" moral reasoning and emotional response. The way CEOs get away with this is by exploiting such situations, and psychopaths can only get away with stuff like that because they're <1pc of the population.

If you tweaked some of the variables, and had child labour in the middle of London, excessive pollution and ruthless CEOs, they'd probably face some sort of social backlash. The fact that this ruthlessness tends to be comparatively diffuse and removed from people's situations is the reason their emotional response isn't the same as it would be in a more concentrated community.

Humans show signs of self-domestication, and that's because the formation of moral communities was paramount to our survival. We would kill people who violated the codes of these moral communities, and psychopaths (among other mentally ill people) would've been straight-up killed if they acted out. You can't  found a community of psychopaths, because their success is quite literally predicated on the exploitation of the non-psychopathic.

I find myself questioning the naturalistic fallacy on these grounds.

Mere coincidence. Rape is also fairly natural.

Think of it like a hierarchy, with more sophisticated emotions catering to more sophisticated social structures.

you seemed pretty rused

If I was so easily insulted, I wouldn't have the capacity to commit quite blatantly antisocial things.

I was just confused why somebody as, seemingly, rational as yourself would make such a banal remark. But, as it turns out, you're le ebin rusemaster

you're acting as if i expected this to go another way.

No, I'm acting as if you should've expected it to go any way.

Which is, y'know, what people normally do when they ask a question.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 18, 2014, 04:15:41 PM

Quote from: RC5908 on November 18, 2014, 04:12:28 PM

doesn't make it any less fucked up

I didn't say you'd find it any less fucked up. I'd just have thought that, coming into a discussion about psychological disorders, you'd have expected some sort of level of fucked-upedness as to find commenting on it asinine.

i did expect that answer. why would i ask the question if i expected you to say no?

I didn't say that. I'm saying when you found yourself in a situation where that was an appropriate question, you probably should've been aware enough of the possibilities and the context of the discussion to, on some level, expect what the answer could've been. Knowing a person is potentially a psychopath, and then acting in some way offended when they say they could kill a person is like being disgusted when you ask a homosexual if he'd ever have a cock in his ass.

I can come to the logical conclusion that psychopathy is probably the most effective evolutionary mindset

Eh, not necessarily.

The neurological and emotional deficits of psychopathy can lead to pretty poor life choices, and indeed some characteristics are correlated with higher suicide risk and lower socioeconomic status. From a purely genetic standpoint, it's beneficial and you can see that in its survival.

However, once you start getting into group selection and the moral community aspect of sociology, psychopathy really does fall-down. Essentially, there's a reason your hardware is empathetic.

What kind of rage we talking?

As in wanting to hit somebody for telling you to get dressed.