Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

 Helping people is pretty evil because people are inherently evil.

Yes.

 I'd say SM is more evil than Ted Bundy because SM would want an SA victim to give birth, while Ted Bundy didn't let them give birth. 

Ofc you categorize Jada as against you so you must deny his intellectual differences that might prove someone who is smart can disagree with you. You are vehemently against policies that help people live, and claim to be pro-life, and yes abortion availability is also a policy that helps people live, including the medical help options that cannot be available otherwise.

It is NOT justified to end already present sentient life, from a negative-utilitarian based anti-natalist perspective. Promortalists usually wind up committing massacres or in mental wards for a reason. Also it is not justified to end the life of a fetus either as the fetus will feel pain and suffer. It should never begin to grow in the first place and is caused by human negligence or irresponsibility, some delusional notion of egoistic sadism to continue the suffering entropy of sentience, etc. The same way it is not justified to continue killing chickens in factory farms for their fetuses for human sensation "taste."
Thoughts on people eating cats and dogs?
Because I want to know if i should stop being vegan and if you actually have a valid argument
Maybe you will change my mind
I would like to change my mind if I am wrong about something

I do not want to change your mind about being vegan but I fucking hate vegans cause they make everything about being vegan. They will not admit that vegan natalists disprove that antinatalism (and therefor the sparing of further slaughter and Moksha) does not equal veganism.

I tried to go vegan but I'm too skinny and I had weird pains right after I tried it that went away when I went back to meat and diary. Also nobody I know respects that diet. 

Tony's posts are not all that difficult to translate, actually (unless they're about crypto and investments.)

His opinions about people are standard for a MGTOW.

lol anyway... MGTOWs are mostly damaged and socially awkward men, ranging in severity from mildly autistic up to deranged narcopaths.

They have difficulty with their relationships with women. Their misogynistic philosophies align sharply with incels and PUAs, with slightly different expected outcomes. Which is kinda funny, cuz...definition of insanity and all that. 😋 I guess it's more about commiserating with other damaged bros and forming lynch mobs or witch pyres or whatever.

Throw in a dash of Machiavelli, and your standard tRumper humper talking points, and you can pretty much break any one of Tony's opinions on any subject down to some sort of a pissing contest with fewer than a dozen goals at its core.

From there, you can usually boil it down further to one or 2.

And that's how I get through Tony's spaghetti. Boomer reference: He's Archie Bunker.

Jada said: 

Tony's posts are not all that difficult to translate, actually (unless they're about crypto and investments.)

Some not, others more so.

His opinions about people are standard for a MGTOW.

That's a new word added to my vocabulary.

lol anyway... MGTOWs are mostly damaged and socially awkward men, ranging in severity from mildly autistic up to deranged narcopaths.

Spatial doesnt strike me as socially awkward, he does come across as deeply hurt.

They have difficulty with their relationships with women. Their misogynistic philosophies align sharply with incels and PUAs, with slightly different expected outcomes. Which is kinda funny, cuz...definition of insanity and all that. 😋 I guess it's more about commiserating with other damaged bros and forming lynch mobs or witch pyres or whatever.

Throw in a dash of Machiavelli, and your standard tRumper humper talking points, and you can pretty much break any one of Tony's opinions on any subject down to some sort of a pissing contest with fewer than a dozen goals at its core.

From there, you can usually boil it down further to one or 2.

I've also noticed that the theme in what Spatial says is narrow. It's either porn, redpill, manosphere, ai, spirituality or money. Anything I'm missing?

And that's how I get through Tony's spaghetti. Boomer reference: He's Archie Bunker.

You did a better job than I did, though I dont hold a very negative view of Spatial. I think on the inside he's not a bad person.

He's adopted a controversial attitude because people feed that part of him imo so that's the only role he knows how to adopt. But despite the way he apparently looks down on people he doesnt look down on them enough not to respond. Despite how controversial his views I'd say he's still a net positive.

So I ask myself, what would Meathead say? And Edith? 😉

lol a couple more controversial than Joker and Harley Quinn. 

Your avoidance of the subject shows, something, changed.

Boredom and anxiety. I said what I needed to say and there was no new material. I'd entertain the topic if I thought it would lead to somewhere new where I could learn, experience, and grow. Instead, I see that path being pretty stale and me being diminished as a person at the end of it.

No dude this has always been him, all that's changed is who he debates.

It was once Ed, now it's us.

Interesting take. I remember things differently. I remember he was whacky in the past and then I thought he was the sanest person here, and now I think he's... Set in his opinion. I dont think theres a better way to describe it.

Jada said: 

Oh I never said they were "inferior", that was the buzzword Xena stuffed in your head in this very thread, and now you're using it as a talking point to argue with me. You're programmable.

...As in I can't figure out if I'm a good person? That's because my Bayesian data is incomplete so the evidence is inconclusive.

I'd argue that epistemologically it has little to do with self awareness and more to do with your ability to gather and synthesize ideas. My argument is that I lack the data to synthesize the ideas conclusively.

If you're thinking of it in terms of your favorite large language models then you could write:

P(word|prompt; training data)

How well you can synthesize the words from the training data is a function of how powerful the AI model is but ultimately if your training data is lacking you will not reach the correct vocabulary. That's why AI must reach robotics to evolve from a highly trained monkey into skynet. 

Jada said: 

 

Why can't a hyper self aware person not determine their own moral standing, or know if they're a good person ?

Because the data on what is a good person is inconclusive.

 Genomics companies will use Beysian tactics to predict your behaviours and potential flesh evolutions as your body decays and classify you as an unfit trogolodyte and put you under house arrest for not being genetically compliant enough to use the public transport systems just because you harassed the wrong guy on rednote or something and your polygenic risk score got hacked by the deep state (which was just some losers corrupt NLP application trained to flag anything ever written by Uyghurs as dispreferential) which the company turned out to be in control of the entire time so the algorithm was already set up to be against you from the start and the company's policy required complete genomic analysis to even sign up for to lower polygenic risk factor scores among the userbase to keep the website's algorithm free from subhumans polluting it with their inferior social credit convergence. 

Jada said: 

He's one of the easier ones to understand even when the rhetoric is nearly batshit, and I genuinely appreciate that about him. I come away smarter rather than dumber from each of our exchanges, finding tons of room to research things and reference former arguments based on my experiences with him.

I hope he and I never stop arguing honestly, I think it makes both of us into better people by the end of it.

 Do you think he sees it that way?

He finds appreciation in the arguments just as I do, it's why he comes back to it until exhausted of the urge. 

Then he returns once more. 

At any rate, I appreciate that your relationship is not as sour as it was a year ago.

People have been using that word like a hundred times on here and you do a fair amount of social media dives, don't lie.

This shit started in the early 2000s.

mGTOW?

Its a new one for me. I only knew PUAs and then masculinism or whatever that male version of feminism is.

I personally love women, so Id never consider myself a misogynist. Most of my research group is women. They're great.

I don't believe you, specifically over being ignorant to a word as readily available on the internet as 'water'. 

I understand ignorance of their themes, but you witness social media and even reference it. It'd take willful ignorance to not see it, and we both know based on your history you're smarter than that. 

Your avoidance of the subject shows, something, changed.

Boredom and anxiety. I said what I needed to say and there was no new material. I'd entertain the topic if I thought it would lead to somewhere new where I could learn, experience, and grow. Instead, I see that path being pretty stale and me being diminished as a person at the end of it.

Anxiety? 

You're WINNING!

What is there to fear? Why not redundantly state it boldly to someone enough times to erode their defenses? 

No dude this has always been him, all that's changed is who he debates.

It was once Ed, now it's us.

Interesting take. I remember things differently. I remember he was whacky in the past and then I thought he was the sanest person here, and now I think he's... Set in his opinion. I dont think theres a better way to describe it.

Ignore your thoughts, as I have even my own. 

Look at the words, he's consistent. It's one of his strongest qualities.