Does being obnoxious make you guilty?

Kepharel wrote:Caveat:
 
For all you skim readers, fundamentalist preachers of guilt, and reactionaries of all shades, may I say, once again that I BELIEVE in the McCann’s guilt over the disappearance of their eldest daughter, that she died either as a direct result of something they had done to her or,  at the very least covering up in her death caused as a result of their neglect.
 
OK, having got that out of the way, one quick diversion on why I am writing this. I never achieved complete success in my career, despite achieving all that was required of me academically in my career path, neither was it because of any lack of ability in the jobs I held.  Rather, because I could never resist telling my superiors face to face that I disagreed with their decisions, often together with a dissertation on their character flaws and biases.  I was young then and not wise in the ways of the world, and that’s my only defence.
 
Now in my dotage, this perversity which rejects popular opinion by default still burns bright.  I like lost causes.  Fuel to this fire has been added over recent posts with which I have been involved, so despite my initial decision to withdraw from forum discussions I am going to do the opposite and put forward the case that the McCanns just might be INNOCENT (nice provocative word that) of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Together with any other slam dunk certainties that takes my fancy from time to time in the future J
 
Does being obnoxious make you guilty?
 
To call the McCanns psychopaths would undoubtedly draw a warm round of applause throughout this forum, but for the wrong reasons in my opinion. It is to misunderstand what psychopaths are; having said that,  I absolutely do agree that the McCanns are psychopaths.
 
This from the Forbes website:
 
British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths 
 
There are absolutes in psychopathy and the main absolute is a literal absence of empathy. It’s just not there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what grows in the vacant field where that empathy should be is a joy in manipulating people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If you've got a little bit of empathy, you’re kind of not a psychopath.
 
I’m sure there will be nods of agreement at that.
 
And elsewhere
 
One out of every 10 Wall Street employees is a clinical psychopath, the CFA Institute (an investment and financial analysis organization) reports in the latest issue of CFA Magazine. That makes psychopathy 10 times more prevalent among New York’s financial elite than among us plebeians, for which the accepted statistic is a more palatable one in 100.
 
So though not an endearing trait, being a psychopath, at least in business, is an essential requirement.  I am not saying though, that Psychopaths are harmless, and they are well represented in prison populations, but there are psychopaths and there are, well, psychopaths.  Again from the Forbes article:
 
It is a spectrum, but there’s a cut-off point. If you’re going by the Hare checklist [the standard inventory used in law enforcement, devised by leading researcher Robert Hare], where the top score is 40, the average would score a 4 or 5. Somebody you have to be wary of would be in early 20s and a really hard core damaged person, a really dangerous psychopath, would score around a 30. In law the cut-off is 29.
 
So how about the possibility of sexual perversion, say within the Tapas 9? Well, a proven sexual pervert may not be at the top of everyone’s Christmas list, and social class, wealth etc. is no barrier to this particular disorder. E.g. Max Mosely and his Nazi whipping orgies, nor is literary genius as from a selection of James Joyces letters published in 1975 which are far too graphic for a forum such as this but involve his exultation at being able to induce episodes of excessive flatulence from his wife during sexual intercourse.  Though the list goes on, I hope you get the point by now.
 
And what is the point in all of this?  As the title of the post suggests, having the nature and symptoms of being a psychopath and a sexual pervert, as some of the Tapas 9 are almost certain to be, are not in themselves proof that a crime was committed on Madeleine McCann resulting in her death.  When I was young, telling the bad guy was easy.  He wore a black hat and lit his cigarillo by swiping a match on his 7 day old stubble.  To view guilt requires proof and no amount of finger pointing at the shortcomings of the sorry bunch that the 9 are, due to compulsive lying, manipulation through evidence tampering and all the rest of it are going to prove the case.
 
Because we want something to be doesn't necessarily make it so.

1. I agree that comments on this Forum are well considered by the hard core of regular contributors, and because they are regular contributors and there are relatively few of them in comparison with the total membership I think we can call them ‘opinion formers’ and to that extent guide the ethos by which the Forum functions.
   
2. This leads me on to your second point about the tragedy by which this Forum defines itself.  There is a little girl gone missing and the Tapas 9 are proven liars, in addition to which they have tried to manipulate evidence, and even possibly frame individuals to get them off the hook of their dilemma.  What I am suggesting is that in their bids for self preservation at all costs, rather than exonerate themselves by their lies and innuendo they have tightened the noose of guilt ever tighter around their necks.  This, however, while it might be proof of their complete stupidity, and a shining endorsement of their deeply flawed characters, it is not proof of their guilt.
   
3. I don’t think I have used the phrase ‘excessive antagonism’ , but would make the point that the Forum ethos that places them in the firing line of guilt in the death of Madeleine can easily be misinterpreted by certain visitors and fringe members (lurkers etc if you will) as proof absolute of guilt when that just might not be the case. While you may call their characters into disrepute, if there is one scintilla of doubt then the guilty verdict will have to wait. Though obviously this is a personal opinion and not a fact.  Hence my original premise.
   
4. Sally 66’s question is not one I can answer having no expertise at all in this field…I’m an accountant by profession J J J.  If I had to guess, I would have thought a score of either of the McCanns or Tapas putting them in a ‘dangerous’ category would have manifested itself much earlier in their lives and proved a barrier to their professional success and not the boon it has been…but hey! What do I know.
   

Kepharel wrote:[...] If I had to guess, I would have thought a score of either of the McCanns or Tapas putting them in a ‘dangerous’ category would have manifested itself much earlier in their lives and proved a barrier to their professional success and not the boon it has been…but hey! What do I know.

Kepharel wrote:Hya Plebgate
 
I’ll try to respond to your points, so in no particular order:
 

1. I agree that comments on this Forum are well considered by the hard core of regular contributors, and because they are regular contributors and there are relatively few of them in comparison with the total membership I think we can call them ‘opinion formers’ and to that extent guide the ethos by which the Forum functions.
   
2. This leads me on to your second point about the tragedy by which this Forum defines itself.  There is a little girl gone missing and the Tapas 9 are proven liars, in addition to which they have tried to manipulate evidence, and even possibly frame individuals to get them off the hook of their dilemma.  What I am suggesting is that in their bids for self preservation at all costs, rather than exonerate themselves by their lies and innuendo they have tightened the noose of guilt ever tighter around their necks.  This, however, while it might be proof of their complete stupidity, and a shining endorsement of their deeply flawed characters, it is not proof of their guilt.
   
3. I don’t think I have used the phrase ‘excessive antagonism’ , but would make the point that the Forum ethos that places them in the firing line of guilt in the death of Madeleine can easily be misinterpreted by certain visitors and fringe members (lurkers etc if you will) as proof absolute of guilt when that just might not be the case. While you may call their characters into disrepute, if there is one scintilla of doubt then the guilty verdict will have to wait. Though obviously this is a personal opinion and not a fact.  Hence my original premise.
   
4. Sally 66’s question is not one I can answer having no expertise at all in this field…I’m an accountant by profession J J J.  If I had to guess, I would have thought a score of either of the McCanns or Tapas putting them in a ‘dangerous’ category would have manifested itself much earlier in their lives and proved a barrier to their professional success and not the boon it has been…but hey! What do I know.
   

lj wrote:When parents tried to get rid of one of their children, it does not make them guilty of murder. It does however give one piece of the puzzle when it comes to the question: were they involved in her disappearance?

It does not by itself prove guilt when parents refuse to answer questions in the investigation in the disappearance of their daughter. It does throw a suspicion on them.

When parents lie during the investigation into the disappearance of their child, it does not make them guilty, but surely it throws a suspicion on them.

When parents are psychopaths it does not make them guilty, but it fits the picture of parents who are guilty in the disappearance of their child.

Now is obnoxious the same as psychopath? Since you did such extensive research you can answer the question yourself, can't you?

I don't have the numbers, but I can assure you that working in the medical field does not prove you are NOT a psychopath. On the contrary, you will find a high number of them, especially under those who wanna climb the ladder.

As Gerry would say: you have to look at the bigger picture.

------------------------------

Great post, lj  

PeterMac wrote:

unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, distasteful, offensive, objectionable, unsavory, unpalatable, off-putting, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, revolting, repulsive, repellent, repugnant, disgusting, odious, vile, foul, abhorrent, loathsome, nauseating, sickening, hateful, insufferable, intolerable, detestable, abominable, despicable, contemptible, horrible, horrid, ghastly, gross, putrid, yucky, godawful, beastly, skanky; noisome.  annoying, tiresome, irritating; overbearing, bumptious; unpleasant, nasty; informal bratty, pesky.

That should cover it !

Kepharel wrote:Caveat:
 
For all you skim readers, fundamentalist preachers of guilt, and reactionaries of all shades, may I say, once again that I BELIEVE in the McCann’s guilt over the disappearance of their eldest daughter, that she died either as a direct result of something they had done to her or,  at the very least covering up in her death caused as a result of their neglect.
 
OK, having got that out of the way, one quick diversion on why I am writing this. I never achieved complete success in my career, despite achieving all that was required of me academically in my career path, neither was it because of any lack of ability in the jobs I held.  Rather, because I could never resist telling my superiors face to face that I disagreed with their decisions, often together with a dissertation on their character flaws and biases.  I was young then and not wise in the ways of the world, and that’s my only defence.
 
Now in my dotage, this perversity which rejects popular opinion by default still burns bright.  I like lost causes.  Fuel to this fire has been added over recent posts with which I have been involved, so despite my initial decision to withdraw from forum discussions I am going to do the opposite and put forward the case that the McCanns just might be INNOCENT (nice provocative word that) of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Together with any other slam dunk certainties that takes my fancy from time to time in the future J
 
Does being obnoxious make you guilty?
 
To call the McCanns psychopaths would undoubtedly draw a warm round of applause throughout this forum, but for the wrong reasons in my opinion. It is to misunderstand what psychopaths are; having said that,  I absolutely do agree that the McCanns are psychopaths.
 
This from the Forbes website:
 
British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths 
 
There are absolutes in psychopathy and the main absolute is a literal absence of empathy. It’s just not there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what grows in the vacant field where that empathy should be is a joy in manipulating people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If you've got a little bit of empathy, you’re kind of not a psychopath.
 
I’m sure there will be nods of agreement at that.
 
And elsewhere
 
One out of every 10 Wall Street employees is a clinical psychopath, the CFA Institute (an investment and financial analysis organization) reports in the latest issue of CFA Magazine. That makes psychopathy 10 times more prevalent among New York’s financial elite than among us plebeians, for which the accepted statistic is a more palatable one in 100.
 
So though not an endearing trait, being a psychopath, at least in business, is an essential requirement.  I am not saying though, that Psychopaths are harmless, and they are well represented in prison populations, but there are psychopaths and there are, well, psychopaths.  Again from the Forbes article:
 
It is a spectrum, but there’s a cut-off point. If you’re going by the Hare checklist [the standard inventory used in law enforcement, devised by leading researcher Robert Hare], where the top score is 40, the average would score a 4 or 5. Somebody you have to be wary of would be in early 20s and a really hard core damaged person, a really dangerous psychopath, would score around a 30. In law the cut-off is 29.
 
So how about the possibility of sexual perversion, say within the Tapas 9? Well, a proven sexual pervert may not be at the top of everyone’s Christmas list, and social class, wealth etc. is no barrier to this particular disorder. E.g. Max Mosely and his Nazi whipping orgies, nor is literary genius as from a selection of James Joyces letters published in 1975 which are far too graphic for a forum such as this but involve his exultation at being able to induce episodes of excessive flatulence from his wife during sexual intercourse.  Though the list goes on, I hope you get the point by now.
 
And what is the point in all of this?  As the title of the post suggests, having the nature and symptoms of being a psychopath and a sexual pervert, as some of the Tapas 9 are almost certain to be, are not in themselves proof that a crime was committed on Madeleine McCann resulting in her death.  When I was young, telling the bad guy was easy.  He wore a black hat and lit his cigarillo by swiping a match on his 7 day old stubble.  To view guilt requires proof and no amount of finger pointing at the shortcomings of the sorry bunch that the 9 are, due to compulsive lying, manipulation through evidence tampering and all the rest of it are going to prove the case.
 
Because we want something to be doesn't necessarily make it so.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I always think of Jeremy Vine and his bitch queen from hell guest Nina Myscow when I hear the word obnoxious! One or both of them used it to describe people who doubted the sainted couple.

I think that Kepharel is saying that someone might be a dreadful person with no saving graces whatever but it doesn't mean that they are guilty of anything illegal.

Yes I will agree with that.

There is however a lot more to go on when it comes to suspecting the McCanns than that they are a thoroughly unpleasant pair of individuals.

Kepharel wrote:Hya Aquila,

So why obnoxious?  Well, i did say that research as shown that psychopaths have a complete lack of empathy.  It is the one universal trait that must be present.  Take the post of Prime Minister for example.  While I'm not saying all Prime Ministers are 'dangerous' psychopaths, or even psychopaths at all in some cases, they have to demonstrate the trait of 'lack of empathy'.  A Prime Minister has to get along with people he hates personally, sometimes with very good reason, for the sake of his own political career and the country too. Call this capacity to back slap, one of manipulation of that individual. Manipulation too in offering promises tomorrow to the awkward squad in his party through a three line whip as another example. And what about when a cabinet reshuffle is required.  he must be able to sack friends and promote enemies both for his political career and the countries good.  being able to do this requires a lack of empathy..classic psychopathic trait.  All I'm saying is that to be able to do this and sleep at night is not an endearing trait, and certainly not something that average Joe Public could do.

The same goes with sexual perversion.  We have to accept that this character flaw is not necessarily a bar to literary genius, or power and privilege, as I tried to suggest in my post.  We accept the 'obnoxious peccadilloes' of James Joyce because he is a literary genius.  So there you have it, is being obnoxious a sign of guilt, or in other words can we restrain ourselves from damning someone because of our repugnance in the personal flawed traits of that individual.