Sociopath Community

Xena said: 

I mean, do you expect me to behave like you do when TPG asks you about that deeply personal thing he spams the forum with when he gets bored?

Does it look difficult to do or something? 

That's not what I do. Whatever you and TPG are doing with that memory is not my business.

Why not invite the discussion so that the topics can be laid to rest, rather than avoiding it to the point of perpetuating memes through your avoidance? 

I bother with "for the sake of discussion", and I'd say there's been more to gain from it than the rebuking you practice. I find it eye-opening through the variety of perspectives rather than limiting over it's crude freedoms. 

But it's yet another example of the disordered way people go on, here.

Pigeonholing all under one lump sum labeled "disordered" does a disservice for the variety within it. 

Why not embrace what makes us different rather than assume conspiracy? 

And that is not how I talk to people who go on about what would have been a mind shattering event for most ppl like it's a joke.

Dark comedy is as effective as your dissonance from the drama. If people can laugh about it, it's because they're otherwise disconnected from the weight it truly carries. 

I could also claim you do the same in your own way, often trivializing other's pain as if it could just be walked off. 

Ppl who make jokes about that sort of thing also disgust me.

Uhhh... 

Xena said: 

Like I said, I'm pissed off, I'm slumming, and I don't want intellectual discourse.

Why not? There's plenty of people who find catharsis when angry over a good argument. 

I wanna scrap with somebody who's too dysfunctional and numb to be hurt by it.

Is that how you rationalize not succeeding at hurting their feelings..? 

And who also mostly deserves the abuse.

Again though you're pre-rationalizing and then lumping people together. 

You've made the mistake more than once of assuming I share the opinions of your opposition merely by the merit of my having not defended you, then by the merit of associating with people "like Jim", then in further discussion it changed to being about how I run a website like this at all. The presumption makes you entitled, giving you room to enable making excuses over your stubbornness otherwise rather than growing from the conflict. 

Do you tell your Mistress to go play chess and study philosophy or w/e?

Are you implying that I don't play chess or study philosophy with my mistress? 

Or do you keep your mouth shut like a good little bitch boi and take what she gives you?

I think you ought to refresh yourself on how Brats work. 

Xena said: 

Alright, Imma make a wee psych observation of my own, here.

It's a common trait of NPD, AsPD, schizophrenia, certain stages in a bipolar cycle, and moderate to severe autism sufferers to conflate things that are nothing alike.

What has taken place here is not conflation, it's been a pointing out the foundational and consistent foundations of all your means of argumentations and then stating that their summation is an ontology. That is what an ontology is, a category that denotes a set of objects and their relations. From there it's easy to compare that category to other categories that share the same objects and relations. When they are equal we can make a truth claim of them being isomorphic. 

 

A woman talks about how wrong it is for a man to rape her friend, And the man says "but what about my fee fees... I can't get laid any other way" MASSIVE CONFLATION ERROR.

See, once again you are conflating that the fundamental error I have made is one of analogy where I conflate "saying rape is wrong" to "I can't have sex" and then categorizing both as incel. 

I have not done this. 

I have stated your means of argumentation in a set of premises, categorized them as Xenas Ontology and then have pointed out which ontologies share those same premises. 

Alice said:

Your ontology:

1. Value Ego above all else

2. Assume opposition

3. Assume fallibility of opposition

3. Assume fallibility is derived from the opposition

4. If fallibility is not explicitly expressed by opposition assume it implicitly

5. No evidence is necessary for oppositions fallibility

Notice here I mention nothing you've noted me mentioning. I have not equivalated complaining about rape or whatever else with the typical comments of incel culture. 

People who suffer from these disorders make this mistake frequently. You seem to do it more than most, Alice. Not sure if you're Trumpsplaining, or if you actually believe what you just said, but it just slipped into an all time low of tryinta say that farting in an elevator is an equivalent indiscretion to burning a guy's house down with him and his entire family inside it.

They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Telling somebody I thought they were smarter than that is not the same as literally stating that I will show up at her home in the middle of the night, and the next time she wakes up, it will be to her pets' entrails hanging from the wall and me tearing her gf's guts out.

The other night you explicitly stated you don't know propositional logic and that seems to be the reason you cannot see that what I've been discussing is the logical structure of your arguments and not their content. The nugget above is an example that makes that clear to me.

That's what WW said to me.

I mean, srsly, what would you do if I said that to you?

 What I always do, ignore their irrationality instead of becoming irrational and them attacking them for their irrationality. 

Xena said:

I mean, do you expect me to behave like you do when TPG asks you about that deeply personal thing he spams the forum with when he gets bored?

That's not what I do. Whatever you and TPG are doing with that memory is not my business.

But it's yet another example of the disordered way people go on, here. And that is not how I talk to people who go on about what would have been a mind shattering event for most ppl like it's a joke. Ppl who make jokes about that sort of thing also disgust me.

And frankly, the way you talk to that guy looks odd to me, Alice.

 TPG is my best friend :) 

Fuck off TC lol

As for you, Alice, there's a big difference between irrational and morally bankrupt.

Blanc is often irrational, but still expresses kindness and care for other humans.

TPG and WW think rape is funny.

And that is disgusting.

Xena said: 

As for you, Alice, there's a big difference between irrational and morally bankrupt.

Blanc is often irrational, but still expresses kindness and care for other humans.

 

TPG and WW think rape is funny.

And that is disgusting.

 It's not funny, it's justice. It's a deterrant to your bigotry. Maybe if you and youe female relatives were raped and tortured, you wouldn't be as much of a racist cunt.

Xena said: 

As for you, Alice, there's a big difference between irrational and morally bankrupt.

Blanc is often irrational, but still expresses kindness and care for other humans.

 

TPG and WW think rape is funny.

And that is disgusting.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Xena said: 

Alright, Imma make a wee psych observation of my own, here.

It's a common trait of NPD, AsPD, schizophrenia, certain stages in a bipolar cycle, and moderate to severe autism sufferers to conflate things that are nothing alike.

What has taken place here is not conflation, it's been a pointing out the foundational and consistent foundations of all your means of argumentations and then stating that their summation is an ontology. 

Smh. There is no ontology in my SC arguments.

I. Am. A. Mirror.

That is all. I reflect back what these assholes say bc Idgaf about offering a proper argument to their tu quoque bullshit.

So I throw back more of the same.

If you're seeing an ontology (tho I would liken it to a dirty joke long before I call it smthg so flattering as a metanarrative lol) it's THEIR set of ritualized statements, not mine.

I used to post Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First" when we got to this point in the discussion lol

A woman talks about how wrong it is for a man to rape her friend, And the man says "but what about my fee fees... I can't get laid any other way" MASSIVE CONFLATION ERROR.

See, once again you are conflating that the fundamental error I have made is one of analogy where I conflate "saying rape is wrong" to "I can't have sex" and then categorizing both as incel. 

Nope. See below.

I have not done this. 

I have stated your means of argumentation in a set of premises, categorized them as Xenas Ontology and then have pointed out which ontologies share those same premises. 

Alice said:

Your ontology:

1. Value Ego above all else

2. Assume opposition

3. Assume fallibility of opposition

3. Assume fallibility is derived from the opposition

4. If fallibility is not explicitly expressed by opposition assume it implicitly

5. No evidence is necessary for oppositions fallibility

Notice here I mention nothing you've noted me mentioning. I have not equivalated complaining about rape or whatever else with the typical comments of incel culture. 

People who suffer from these disorders make this mistake frequently. You seem to do it more than most, Alice. Not sure if you're Trumpsplaining, or if you actually believe what you just said, but it just slipped into an all time low of tryinta say that farting in an elevator is an equivalent indiscretion to burning a guy's house down with him and his entire family inside it.

They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Telling somebody I thought they were smarter than that is not the same as literally stating that I will show up at her home in the middle of the night, and the next time she wakes up, it will be to her pets' entrails hanging from the wall and me tearing her gf's guts out.

The other night you explicitly stated you don't know propositional logic and that seems to be the reason you cannot see that what I've been discussing is the logical structure of your arguments and not their content. The nugget above is an example that makes that clear to me.

K.

Just bc bats and butterflies have wings doesn't mean they're structurally the same as birds  :D

You're still missing smthg, and I'm not willing to spend the time to split hairs in like manner bc I've always hated this convoluted argument style.

Also, the argument doesn't mean as much to me as it seems to mean to you, so I'm not going to spend hours trying to prove to you that what I said about the way these assholes talk about rape was a moral argument, not the Frankenstein cut and paste you seem to be working on.

So go and find some good psych, soc and anthro theorists, and use their tools for this.

Because what you're doing is akin to using a zamboni to ice a cake.

Hint: what you're calling "the ego" is actually called "the id" in the original school of thought where it was first imagined.

That's what WW said to me.

I mean, srsly, what would you do if I said that to you?

 What I always do, ignore their irrationality instead of becoming irrational and them attacking them for their irrationality. 

Xena said:

I mean, do you expect me to behave like you do when TPG asks you about that deeply personal thing he spams the forum with when he gets bored?

No, it seems irrational behavior is attractive to you and you basically admit this given you not only react but state the necessity to act. (I do not mean that you like explicitly but that behavior gets your attention and makes you act in kind). This has largely been the point, you are ontologically similar to what you admit to disgust - not in content but in logic. 

No where am I attempting to correct behavior, merely deconstruct and understand it. 

 

 Fair enough.

If you only want to understand, but insist on 'understanding' that apples are oranges, I can continue ignoring you, thx  :D

Like I said, there's a huge difference between irrational, whichever degrees of factually incorrect, and morally reprehensible.

Only the latter needs immediate correcting in my world.

Cavalier said: 

Xena said: 

As for you, Alice, there's a big difference between irrational and morally bankrupt.

Blanc is often irrational, but still expresses kindness and care for other humans.

 

TPG and WW think rape is funny.

And that is disgusting.

 It's not funny, it's justice. It's a deterrant to your bigotry. Maybe if you and youe female relatives were raped and tortured, you wouldn't be as much of a racist cunt.

Nope. I still don't believe you're Chinese.

It's not racist to say that.

And who fucking cares, anyway?

The things you're saying are far worse. So go fuck yourself.

Justice would be for me to lobotomize you with a screwdriver, and then drive it all the way through the back of your brain, until it sticks your face to your computer monitor, asshole.

i've always been intrigued by people's tendency to double down when mass-confronted instead of introspecting on whatever it is they're being criticised for 

surely on some level xena's penny must have dropped