Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Have you lost any debates or discussions here?

Not that I can think of, no. I usually only take a hard stance when I feel my argument is overdetermined or quite obvious. Sometimes I concede that the other's logic is sound within their own premise though.

This topic stands as a testament towards that, similarly to how you couldn't escape "Gun Control" in the past.

The Gun Control thread is actually a pretty apt comparison. Not in the sense that the primary reason I stay now or stayed then was due to being trapped or triggered, like you seem to believe, but because it too came down to our diverging premises. You and I end up with that problem frequently, as you know. You get frustrated that I get stuck and won't move, while I similarly feel you move too much and should stay put.

You're otherwise the one who came back insisting this insane charade go on, I'm just like "Here we go again" while compulsively responding to you, my own flaw I'm having to work on through you. 

Your implication here seems a tad revisionist. Legga has been poking me about this topic for over a month now, all over the forum.

Well yeah, he won, he's earned it. 

Is him brandishing your loss scorning your pride? You can't just watch someone gloat over their well deserved victory? I don't see this as any different from our room to brag about winning in the [ S E I G E ] topic. 

It must be all about winning for you, which in itself is one of the root causes for your losing.

Most of your posts now are just wild assumptions about why I do things, assumptions you stick to despite the reasonable explanations I've given you that contradict them.

My point was you made it out to sound like I was the instigator of sorts while you and Legga were just innocent bystanders. He has brought this topic up several times and only now am I responding. He wrote a serious post and I understood that as an invitation to respond seriously in kind. You read much more into this than is actually there. I would simply enjoy continuing this topic in a serious manner and I thought you guys would be up for it. If I hadn't thought that I wouldn't have replied.

If Syst came back and responded to the Siege thread after being poked for a month, would you also go "you're the one who came back insisting this insane charade go on while I'm just like "here we go again""?

21st move of the goalpost.

I don't take issue with the idea that I lack some knowledge of SC. I've been been inactive for some three years and only come back every now and then for brief periods. I also don't take issue with the idea that people can try to find the best evidence available to them. It's the other claims you've made which I take issue with.

Like, for example, that I need to present Inquirer evidence to you, which is met when one demonstrates that a person speaks Swedish, has an extensive knowledge of the Swedish culture, and so on. Or that I am an idiot for `not providing any evidence` which you later clarified to mean Inquirer evidence. Or your several other demands for Inquirer evidence. I also take issue with the claim that there can't be a much more stringent criteria for evidence than Inquirer evidence that isn't impossible to attain.

I've already made a list of specific claims that you've been forced to contradict, but you refused to address any of them in any detail. It's not like this is new to you; I've been saying the same thing pretty much since page 10. I don't know why you keep coming up with new claims that were never discussed within this topic. I mean, I don't know how else to put this. I could try to explain it mathematically, maybe that will be easier to understand.

Let's take an example: If you make claims A, B, C. I may not contest A, but I take issue with B and C. Defending A does not alleviate the issues I have with B and C. Does this help to clarify?

Instead, you can admit that you were wrong in your B and C claims, and ask me if I take issue with your other claim A.

I admit I have not followed the gun topic that Turncoat mentions very closely. However, it's a bit like when you claimed that your argument, all along, had been `if guns do not exist, there is no gun crime.` People don't necessarily take issue with this claim. The issue is all the other claims you made before you moved the goalpost.

"I did define "Inquirer evidence" earlier in the thread and I stand by that."

Is the statement `everyone should provide the best evidence available to them` the same as `for every claim that a person is Swedish, it must be demonstrated that he/she speaks Swedish, has an extensive knowledge of the Swedish culture, has claimed to be Swedish consistently, and so on`?

If these two statements are not the same, and both describe Inquirer evidence (best evidence available vs. evidence that meets a standard of stringency), then I'm puzzled as to how you can say you haven't re-defined Inquirer evidence after the fact (well, actually I'm not puzzled at all, I think it'd be perfectly understandable if you were saving face over losing a debate).

Since you're whining about me making winning bumps for this topic: I should remind you that it is precisely what you swore you would do to me when you still thought you were winning: `I'll regularly bump this thread so members of SC will never forget your true colors.`

These are your words. I enjoy feeding them back to you now, and I feel it is my obligation to take over your duty of bumping this topic.

Inquirer said: 

If Syst came back and responded to the Siege thread after being poked for a month, would you also go "you're the one who came back insisting this insane charade go on while I'm just like "here we go again""?

No, because he straight up ran away from the topic twice, and the flaws in his reasoning are not yours. I'd be surprised if he did honestly, but I'd invite his return by comparison to... whatever this is. 

Turncoat said:

It's as if the idea of losing to Legga is too insane to comprehend, so you're stuck in a long lasting loop instead of acquiring the keys to escape this prison.

Legga strikes me as a small guy. I'm not all that strong, but I'll be glad to fight him Rules: No real sharp objects.

Sensitive_Soul said: 

Legga strikes me as a small guy. I'm not all that strong, but I'll be glad to fight him Rules: No real sharp objects.

Sensy!!! It's nice to see you.

And very convenient time that you show up now of all times. How come whenever your names comes up, you suddenly appear out of thin air? You still haven't established that you're not fake sensy nor explained why Inquirer didn't point out the fact that there was a `fake sensy` around despite allegedly having your contact info.

I reject your challenge. There is no honor in it. I already won the duel, I don't feel the need to beat down all your alternative personalities as well.

When my name comes up? It has not, to my knowledge. You're making things up. No one talks about me when I'm gone.

I don't know why Inky did not invite me here. I do not know why he didn't point out the first Sensy here was not me, which he was aware of. Ask him? He plays games. Games can be fun.

Me, I don't play elaborate games. You just have to accept that.

There is no winning or losing here, there is just me cracking your stupid skull like an egg. Too bad I'm not Inky or I would find you.

Sensitive_Soul said: 

When my name comes up? It has not, to my knowledge. You're making things up. No one talks about me when I'm gone.

I don't know why Inky did not invite me here. I do not know why he didn't point out the first Sensy here was not me, which he was aware of. Ask him? He plays games. Games can be fun.

Me, I don't play elaborate games. You just have to accept that.

There is no winning or losing here, there is just me cracking your stupid skull like an egg. Too bad I'm not Inky or I would find you.

Very convincing. You came up in the context of Inquirer's latest move to `challenge` me to a duel.

Inquirer said: 

Legga said: 

 Misinterpret all you want. I'm done.

I'll go adore someone who deserves it, like little boy Bohemian Rhapsody over there.

We're through Inq, you and I. It's over. I'm breaking up with you. You should have just accepted that you're full of shit and eat your fucking Swedish surstromming.

You do that. I on the other think I'll regularly bump this thread so members of SC will never forget your true colors.

This is just my annual victory bump after being declared the winner of this debate.