Can't seem to get past your first sentences.
Probably because the first sentences already expose how illogical your argument is.
Nah. They're always the same. Your arguments are a strategy. No substance. Your plan is deny, rewrite, repeat. It's a skin on a single frame.
It's ironic that you call me prideful when this started with you asserting an unsubstantiated pattern as a "law." I challenged the logic of that claim, and instead of establishing why it's actually a law, you've increasingly shifted toward describing my character and supposed strategy.
That's also why I think saying you're projecting has some merit. You tend to use insults and threats strategically, so you seem to interpret my refusal to do that as some kind of strategy of my own.
I can get some satisfaction from seeing someone contradict themselves or fail to reason properly, but I hold that impulse back. I'd rather delay the gratification and keep my reasoning intact. That's one of the practical rewards of paying attention to logic and fallacies. An insult might feel better immediately, but a stronger argument is more useful.
last edit on
8/11/2026 11:24:45 AM
Nah. They're always the same. Your arguments are a strategy. No substance. Your plan is deny, rewrite, repeat. It's a skin on a single frame.
It's ironic that you call me prideful when this started with you asserting an unsubstantiated pattern as a "law." I challenged the logic of that claim, and instead of establishing why it's actually a law, you've increasingly shifted toward describing my character and supposed strategy.
Lie. It started on page 2. You just wanted to argue.
You're really dunce and I gave you too much attention, it's impacting my workflow.
Lie. It started on page 2. You just wanted to argue.
You're really dunce and I gave you too much attention, it's impacting my workflow.
No, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. When I said "this started with you," I was obviously referring to the specific argument I was addressing: your page 8 claim that this is a "law."
Bringing up page 2 doesn't refute anything I've said about your page 8 claim. Nor does saying I "just wanted to argue." That's an assertion about my motive, not an argument against my reasoning.
If you think my criticism of your "law" claim is wrong, address that criticism directly. Otherwise, you're just shifting the subject.
Spatial Mind said:It's a good thing you don't believe in procreation, your kid would be so fucked.
Everyone is fucked by time, circumstance, suffering, and eventually death. It's easy to scoff at death abstractly, but accepting the reality of those constraints is another matter. People are constantly affected by circumstances outside their control, and understanding that requires at least some cognitive empathy.
From my perspective, this is also part of why I don't see childlessness as something negative. If I'm trying to break free of samsara, then not creating another person means I'm not bringing someone else into the cycle of suffering, attachment, and death. Whatever else you think of that philosophy, a hypothetical child isn't being deprived of a life by not existing. They're simply never subjected to the suffering and death that would necessarily come with existing.
And no, that's not the same as being suicidal, regardless of how often you use that as an attack. Choosing not to create someone who would inevitably face suffering and death is fundamentally different from wanting to end your own existing life. My position is about not imposing existence on someone who never asked for it.
last edit on
8/11/2026 12:21:08 PM