Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Maninist said: 

I did multiple times since 2012. Even in 2026. I'm God fearing. You're making it about other things. Trying to justify attacking me. Honestly you never had a good reason to.

Repeating that you have followed this policy since 2012 does not prove it, and being “God fearing” is irrelevant.

It's common knowledge.

The only person I ever attacked, is Legga. 

I was criticizing your ideas, not inventing a personal reason to attack you.

Tbh. You never attacked any of my ideas before.

You have also initiated hostility and threatened me before.

 lol. Why ?

Maninist said:

 It's common knowledge. The only person I ever attacked, is Legga. Tbh. You never attacked any of my ideas before. lol. Why ?

“Common knowledge” is not evidence, and admitting that you attacked Legga already disproves the absolute claim that you never strike first. I have repeatedly criticized your ideas about birth, violence, hierarchy, religion, and suffering. You keep recasting disagreement as a personal attack because that is easier than answering the criticism. As for why you threatened me, that is for you to explain. The fact that you now ask “why?” does not erase that you initiated it.

Tbh. The burden of proof is on you.

I'm SC's most beloved.

Maninist said: 

Tbh. The burden of proof is on you.

I'm SC's most beloved.

Saying you are “SC’s most beloved” is irrelevant and does not prove anything about your conduct. Popularity is not evidence, and even a popular person can lie, threaten others, or contradict themselves.

You don't know much

Maninist said: 

You don't know much

 “You don’t know much” still does not support your claim. It is another vague dismissal in place of evidence. Explain what I supposedly got wrong and show how your popularity proves anything about whether you initiate hostility.

Imagine being "the most beloved" of "Sociopath Community". 

Weird goal. 

Dragoonback said: 

Maninist said: 

You don't know much

 “You don’t know much” still does not support your claim. It is another vague dismissal in place of evidence.

You're the vague dismissal king as seen in this thread.

And it's true you don't know much, that's obvious.

I already know what you're gonna say or do, which is what you've been doing the whole time here.

Hypocrisy at it's finest when you're only output is dismissing what you can't even begin fence with.

Explain what I supposedly got wrong and show how your popularity proves anything about whether you initiate hostility.

 I've done that multiple times in here.

Common knowledge is enough. Not for you, but for the rest. I'm fine with this and unwilling to adjust my position to accommodate a less desirable stance.

Common knowledge doesn't work for you while you'll only accept fiction. It's why you request evidence for every simple detail on record.

Knowledge is power. Don't see the point in proving it while it's historically accurate on the forum while your take on it varies. 

You can dismiss it as insufficient all you want, history won't change and it accomodates my claims. Oh yes, I believe so, and I'm not the one digging my own grave here.

.

.

.

Slightly curious what exactly happens when an LLM is forced to argue on behalf of stupidity, seems like it keeps asking for evidence but I can't perform the experiment myself. Ai to me is only for doing good things.

Maninist said: 

You're the vague dismissal king as seen in this thread. And it's true you don't know much, that's obvious. I already know what you're gonna say or do, which is what you've been doing the whole time here. Hypocrisy at it's finest when you're only output is dismissing what you can't even begin fence with. I've done that multiple times in here. Common knowledge is enough. Not for you, but for the rest. I'm fine with this and unwilling to adjust my position to accommodate a less desirable stance. Common knowledge doesn't work for you while you'll only accept fiction. It's why you request evidence for every simple detail on record. Knowledge is power. Don't see the point in proving it while it's historically accurate on the forum while your take on it varies. You can dismiss it as insufficient all you want, history won't change and it accomodates my claims. Oh yes, I believe so, and I'm not the one digging my own grave here. Slightly curious what exactly happens when an LLM is forced to argue on behalf of stupidity, seems like it keeps asking for evidence but I can't perform the experiment myself. Ai to me is only for doing good things.

Calling something “common knowledge” does not make it evidence, especially when the claim concerns your own conduct. You have not shown how popularity proves that you never initiate hostility, nor identified the supposed history that supports you. You keep saying you already explained it instead of pointing to the explanation. Requesting evidence is not dismissing what I cannot understand. It is asking you to support a claim you chose to make. “Everyone knows,” “history agrees with me,” and calling me stupid are not substitutes for examples or a consistent chronology. The LLM remark is another distraction. Whether I use AI has no bearing on whether your claim is true. You are avoiding the burden of supporting your position, then treating the request for support as proof of inferiority. Specify the claims, provide the relevant examples, and explain how they support your conclusion. Otherwise, this is just another attempt to replace an argument with insults, projection, and vague appeals to “common knowledge.”

Dragoonback said: 

 

*satan speaking in dead jeep battery langauge*

oops i sat on satans glasses repeatedly on a loop