Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

ddddddld said: 

I tend to like the more progressive states. 

 is that because you feel more comfortable in places where people think like you? 

Not really, but they offer more choices and have more of a proclivity towards the arts. 

 more choices for what? what kind of art do you enjoy?

More than any specific art I appreciate the freedom art brings when allowed to fluorish. It offers more variety when our baseline designs are otherwise so drab. 

The aesthetics of housing developments has more to do with wealth than art. 'Great' architecture is usually connected to wealth, the egos of the rich and privileged long to be seen as unique and part of an exclusive club.

some of the most inspiring/powerful art lives on the street, free to all who can see it

There are some small travel logs that I've kept here https://sociopathcommunity.com/Forum/Topic/24990/2/vacation .

The midwest is pretty awesome. I usually prioritize people, food, and experiences over art/museum/attractions. If that's your thing, traveling the Midwest can be fun. Everyone is incredibly hospitable.

If you visit Texas, I recommend visiting a cowboy bar if you are a people person. You will be very popular.

AppleGenius said: 

ddddddld said: 

lmao the fuck is wrong with you?

Is this a rhetorical question or are you looking for an answer?

you're so socially impaired you can't even have a discussion here.

I've had several discussions here. I'm happy to provide you with links to various topics to back it up.

You endlessly debate debating, derailing conversation, thinking you're clever and 'winning' when you're just dull. you remind me of a client I had.

I think characterizing me as 'dull' is very appropriate. However, I do not understand your allergy to debate. Debating can be a fun way to pass the time and allows for a chance for people to poke holes in philosophy, ideas, and methodology. I disagree with your characterization of debate being about winning or being clever. I prefer to think of my more intellectual discussions as a way to pass the time. I'm usually quite happy when I'm wrong, and bored when I'm not.

I bet you are a lonely narcissist  

I am quite lonely, yes.

 sorry to hear you're lonely but not surprised, my dude. perhaps try debating actual topics versus reverting to methodology, bit of a one-trick pony. I have faith you can grow.

Turncoat said: 

It's generally a leftist state, but that doesn't mean that it otherwise just gets to do whatever it wants. 

 

 why would it mean that? doesn't CA have some of the toughest regulations in your country?

ddddddld said: 

sorry to hear you're lonely but not surprised, my dude. perhaps try debating actual topics versus reverting to methodology, bit of a one-trick pony. I have faith you can grow.

That's fine.

I'm not really understanding why you're so salty, even after my response. Nevertheless, I'm on good terms with Spatial, even if we view some things differently. He's kindly extended to me the courtesy to stop the discussion, for any reason, and I've extended the same courtesy to him. I think that's fair. Your spiteful comments about my loneliness or character aren't particularly useful or insightful here. They make you look small, especially after I respond to you with humor and give you the travel recommendation that you asked for.

AppleGenius said: 

ddddddld said: 

sorry to hear you're lonely but not surprised, my dude. perhaps try debating actual topics versus reverting to methodology, bit of a one-trick pony. I have faith you can grow.

That's fine.

I'm not really understanding why you're so salty, even after my response. Nevertheless, I'm on good terms with Spatial, even if we view some things differently. He's kindly extended to me the courtesy to stop the discussion, for any reason, and I've extended the same courtesy to him. I think that's fair.

wow, you seem genuinely hurt. I'm not being salty or spiteful, just pointing out your habit of derailing discussion by focusing on debate methodology versus the topic at hand, which could be interesting. your perception this isn't insightful to your character has more to do your resistance to be personally insightful. Do you think you have no room to grow from other's feedback?

Your spiteful comments about my loneliness or character aren't particularly useful or insightful here. They make you look small, especially after I respond to you with humor and give you the travel recommendation that you asked for.

Alright, let's start over. Are you really in Ohio? Where did you visit? What have you experienced beyond good diner breakfasts?

AppleGenius said: 

I appreciate your answers, but I'm not very clear on whether or not you agree/disagree with my characterization, how many of LiYang's claims you have investigated, and whether or not you would be willing to debate under those conditions you outlined.

I don't keep track of how many posts LiYang writes, or how many of thrm I agree with, nor do I claim to back everything he writes.

I'm opposed to taking the vaccine without LiYang, some people are. When LiYang brings headlines or some data, I don't bend backwards to investigate it, and if anything I'm more critical of his endless whistle blowing.

Why does it matter what I think of what LiYang ? 

As for if I'm willing to debate, again, at your request I already started again in my previous post, repeating my claims. If you're going to debate, just do it.

All of your answers only indirectly address the question. E.g., answering "If I now debated your stance on weed with the conditions that you outlined, would you agree to debate me?" with "Isn't that what already happened?" isn't providing sufficient clarity and is not actually answering the question. 

Seems like you only read the first sentence of my response to your question. I restated my claims to clarify my stance on the matter. If you're waiting for permission to continue I'll say okay, though I figured it was obvious.

Should I restate my claims again, or do you have a reply ?

I understand the need to elaborate and to address what you think I'm perhaps asking, but you got most of it wrong, and through needing to interpret what might or might not be going on in my mind, the conversation moves frustratingly slowly, as I'm left without clarity on your actual stance.

At any rate, I appreciate the conversation. I'll be moving on now :)

 Okie dokie.

ddddddld said: 

wow, you seem genuinely hurt.

That isn't what I'm feeling. I'm mostly amused, if you can believe that.

I'm not being salty or spiteful, just pointing out your habit of derailing discussion by focusing on debate methodology

Can you point to a concrete example and explain why this is an issue? So that I may learn from your feedback, that is.

versus the topic at hand, which could be interesting. your perception this isn't insightful to your character has more to do your resistance to be personally insightful.

I don't understand what that means.

Do you think you have no room to grow from other's feedback?

I do think I have room to grow from others' feedback.

Alright, let's start over. Are you really in Ohio? Where did you visit? What have you experienced beyond good diner breakfasts?

I met your mom and fucked her, experiencing her hot pussy. That's what I was referring to when I said that the 2000 kcal diner breakfast was delicious.

I'm no longer in Ohio, but I was. I am somewhere else now. Besides diner breakfasts, I was visiting VR games, had dinners with locals, visited a pretty neat cavern area for a day which felt like an adventure, went hiking and was scared of an eagle attack, cooked at this guy's place who hosted me, and overall just hiked around and enjoyed amazing food and interactions. Now going to a beach tomorrow. Do you prefer to look at things or do things when you're on vacation?

I'm opposed to taking the vaccine without LiYang, some people are. When LiYang brings headlines or some data, I don't bend backwards to investigate it, and if anything I'm more critical of his endless whistle blowing.

Fair enough.

Why does it matter what I think of what LiYang ? 

In my opinion, LiYang is representative of a person that lacks credibility as he only gathers evidence to support his foregone conclusions, so I was curious if you would extend the same courtesy to other people as you expect in return. Hence, if you investigate LiYang's claims, as you expect others to investigate yours, I believe you are being consistent. If you do not investigate LiYang's claims but still discredit his claims, then you would be inconsistent. However, it seems that you mostly agree with him. I've personally started ignoring him because, in my opinion, he is clearly biased towards certain conclusions. However, unlike you, he also has a bad habit of switching topic and ignoring people when they present conflicting evidence, at least in my humble opinion.

As for if I'm willing to debate, again, at your request I already started again in my previous post, repeating my claims. If you're going to debate, just do it.

I primarily asked because I believe there is a flaw in your epistemology, and were you to debate me under the conditions you listed, I'd take advantage of that. I wasn't expecting you to say yes, but instead expected you to admit that credibility does play a role in how likely you are to partake in a debate or investigate claims, so I guess you do genuinely believe there are no methodological flaws in your epistemology.

How would you respond if I told you that there is a secret society consisting of wealthy people who promotes the weed industry, which tried to keep weed legal and ban the oil industry although they knew full well that weed wouldn't work as well as fuel as traditional diesel would, thus fueling a global economical crisis? What if I, furthermore, told you that they tried to assassinate several politicians, who became aware of their schemes, in 1920s, and since then the society has been reguriating propaganda to try to get a foothold to poison humanity, but they've kept this information hush-hush throughout the 20th/21st century?

Seems like you only read the first sentence of my response to your question. I restated my claims to clarify my stance on the matter. If you're waiting for permission to continue I'll say okay, though I figured it was obvious.

Should I restate my claims again, or do you have a reply ?

There's no need, and yes, I got my response now.

Okie dokie.

Thanks.

AppleGenius said: 

In my opinion, LiYang is representative of a person that lacks credibility as he only gathers evidence to support his foregone conclusions, so I was curious if you would extend the same courtesy to other people as you expect in return. Hence, if you investigate LiYang's claims, as you expect others to investigate yours, I believe you are being consistent. If you do not investigate LiYang's claims but still discredit his claims, then you would be inconsistent. However, it seems that you mostly agree with him. I've personally started ignoring him because, in my opinion, he is clearly biased towards certain conclusions. However, unlike you, he also has a bad habit of switching topic and ignoring people when they present conflicting evidence, at least in my humble opinion.

And you call yourself a scientist. A scientist with no data is just a religious charlatan, lol.

It's called a data backed hypothesis. Maybe you should re-educate yourself on what real science is.

How ironic that science has turned to consensus based money religion where the peer group is everything. Bunch of flat earthers with their heads in the sand and their hands out begging for money. lol