Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

Public domain data: Publishing details that were already legally accessible in public records or voluntarily posted on public social media profiles. Lack of specific statute: Many jurisdictions do not have a dedicated criminal charge explicitly named "doxxing," meaning prosecutors must rely on general laws covering mischief, harassment, or uttering threats. Dude posted the picture himself. I did not need his consent to save it.

I don't even remember where I originally posted that image. It may have been a DM or a temporary upload rather than something I left publicly accessible. So you're treating “you posted it yourself” as though you've established that it was permanently public, when you haven't. And even if it was publicly posted, publicly accessible does not mean public domain.

More importantly, this is exactly why I have reason to keep further personal information away from you. You retained an old image I don't even remember publicly leaving up, have repeatedly brought it up for years, use it as an ad hominem, and now insist that I have no right to object because I supposedly “posted it.” Your response to my concern is itself evidence that I have a rational reason to be cautious about what information I give you.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Public domain data: Publishing details that were already legally accessible in public records or voluntarily posted on public social media profiles. Lack of specific statute: Many jurisdictions do not have a dedicated criminal charge explicitly named "doxxing," meaning prosecutors must rely on general laws covering mischief, harassment, or uttering threats. Dude posted the picture himself. I did not need his consent to save it.

I don't even remember where I originally posted that image. It may have been a DM or a temporary upload rather than something I left publicly accessible. So you're treating “you posted it yourself” as though you've established that it was permanently public, when you haven't. And even if it was publicly posted, publicly accessible does not mean public domain.

It was posted here. It wasn't DM'd to me, nor did anyone else share it with me. You shared it. Now I have your image.  

More importantly, this is exactly why I have reason to keep further personal information away from you. You retained an old image I don't even remember publicly leaving up, have repeatedly brought it up for years, use it as an ad hominem, and now insist that I have no right to object because I supposedly “posted it.” Your response to my concern is itself evidence that I have a rational reason to be cautious about what information I give you.

 I don't recall ever making fun of the way you look, I don't like that. Don't think you've been around for years if I had to be honest. 

You did post it. How else would I have it ? lol.

Here's what I know. 

If I started posting your image, people would be disappointed in me. I'm supposed to be the good guy. This is why when I start to get a bit rough, it makes people cringe in ways their own ego takes damage. If I posted your image and started making fun of you, I will take more damage than you. I honestly believe that. And why ? Because I really don't have to do that with you. It's not pretty when I'm the predator.  

Spatial Mind said: 

It was posted here. It wasn't DM'd to me, nor did anyone else share it with me. You shared it. Now I have your image. I don't recall ever making fun of the way you look, I don't like that. Don't think you've been around for years if I had to be honest. You did post it. How else would I have it ? lol. Here's what I know. If I started posting your image, people would be disappointed in me. I'm supposed to be the good guy. This is why when I start to get a bit rough, it makes people cringe in ways their own ego takes damage. If I posted your image and started making fun of you, I will take more damage than you. I honestly believe that. And why ? Because I really don't have to do that with you. It's not pretty when I'm the predator.  

Cool i didn’t get diagnosed by an idiot

Theholyspirit said: 

Cool i didn’t get diagnosed by an idiot

You clearly wish to be noticed by a nobody. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Doxxing isn't illegal. Never was. Freedom of speech.

Actually it is illegal depending on details in how it happened and who it's happening to. Check into Cyberstalking laws for starters, but there's other areas it crosses into as well. 

- Public domain data: Publishing details that were already legally accessible in public records or voluntarily posted on public social media profiles.

Literally why Med is legally fucked over it. 

- Lack of specific statute: Many jurisdictions do not have a dedicated criminal charge explicitly named "doxxing," meaning prosecutors must rely on general laws covering mischief, harassment, or uttering threats.

There is a realm of law that cares, but they often can do nothing. 

You really going to tell me no cops came here, and even further that none talked to me or other popular users? Occasionally a concern *brought police attention here*, but they can't do shit. 

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

It was posted here. It wasn't DM'd to me, nor did anyone else share it with me. You shared it. Now I have your image. I don't recall ever making fun of the way you look, I don't like that. Don't think you've been around for years if I had to be honest. You did post it. How else would I have it ? lol. Here's what I know. If I started posting your image, people would be disappointed in me. I'm supposed to be the good guy. This is why when I start to get a bit rough, it makes people cringe in ways their own ego takes damage. If I posted your image and started making fun of you, I will take more damage than you. I honestly believe that. And why ? Because I really don't have to do that with you. It's not pretty when I'm the predator.  

You're also mocking me for claiming that I never posted the image, which isn't what I said. I said I don't remember where I originally posted it and that it may have been a temporary upload on the forums or something similar. Those are completely different claims.

“You did post it. How else would I have it? lol” doesn't address what I actually said. I'm not disputing that you obtained it from something I posted. I'm pointing out that you haven't established the context in which I posted it, and that posting something somewhere once doesn't amount to perpetual consent for you to retain it, repeatedly bring it up, or use it against me. Publicly accessible also does not mean public domain.

You're also factually wrong about how long I've been around. We've been interacting for years, and there are previous instances of you making comments about my appearance. So “I don't think you've been around for years” and “I don't recall ever making fun of the way you look” don't match the history of our interactions. Given how often you mock, insult, and belittle people yourself, it's also not particularly convincing to suddenly claim you don't remember doing this to me. You may not remember those exchanges, but that doesn't make my account false.

And your last paragraph is actually more revealing than you seem to realize. You aren't simply saying, “I respect people's boundaries.” You're framing the issue as being the “good guy” versus becoming the “predator,” and talking about who would take more “damage” if you posted my image. That's a status and self-image calculation. You're essentially admitting that part of your restraint comes from what doing it would do to your own reputation and identity.

That also makes your claim that I'm falsely calling you “untrustworthy” harder to sustain. Your own description, your handling of my image, and your retaliatory comments about potentially posting my information all give me more reason to be cautious about what information I give you.

You're the one who claimed I post people's personal information. As if that's what I do. Everything between myself and others 1 on 1 is confidential. If you want to say I post people's personal information, I can give you an actual reason to say such a thing.

Feel free to enlighten me and say what personal information of anyone I've posted anytime now.    

You're still narrowing my claim into something I didn't say. I never said you doxxed me, nor did I say that merely having my image proves you dox people. I said you have a pattern of bringing up and retaining personal information about people, which gives me reason to be cautious about what I share with you.

And "everything between myself and others 1 on 1 is confidential" is something you're asserting about yourself, not evidence that it is true. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you keep extensive information and images about members and openly talk about having them. That's exactly why I don't see "trust me, I'm trustworthy" as an adequate response.

As for the image, saying I posted it explains how you got it. It doesn't answer why you've repeatedly brought it up or used it against me, nor does it establish that I consented to you retaining it indefinitely.

If you want to claim I've falsely accused you of sharing personal information, then give me an actual reason to believe you're trustworthy with it. Simply asking me to produce an example of you doxxing someone doesn't establish that. I never made that narrower claim in the first place.

Dragoonback said: 

You're still narrowing my claim into something I didn't say. I never said you doxxed me, nor did I say that merely having my image proves you dox people. I said you have a pattern of bringing up and retaining personal information about people, which gives me reason to be cautious about what I share with you.

On Page 1 you stated and I quote: "you throw out other people's personal information"

We're on page 6 and you've never given me any examples of whose information i've thrown out. 

And "everything between myself and others 1 on 1 is confidential" is something you're asserting about yourself, not evidence that it is true.

I appreciate this image.

You're always demanding evidence. By policy I cannot show you proof This is the part where you'll belittle evidence and complain about no proof. Proof would violate my policy. Aside from this proving anything to you makes for an underwhelming reward.

Other accounts has a few members not showing here. Discord is action packed. I got quite a few images here alone 

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you keep extensive information and images about members and openly talk about having them. That's exactly why I don't see "trust me, I'm trustworthy" as an adequate response.

I advertise my honor as a way of welcoming anyone to say anything to me, and why ? I want to look back and see that I'm cool. I wouldn't want the whole place hating on me either, I'm very intelligent and don't mind if God is watching.

I've gotten to see images of members no one has seen before mostly on discord but I got some here too. Now I did lose 2 bitches so not everything is dandy but I post nothing without their consent, The rest aren't as fragile.

There was a time the members were more open to posting their images in the pages, and I created a "GTA San Fran" by modifying a the GTA poster with the cop arresting a broad and turned them into 2 members. I wouldn't post it now, times are different, everyone wants to hide so I wouldn't post it now. 

As for the image, saying I posted it explains how you got it. It doesn't answer why you've repeatedly brought it up or used it against me, nor does it establish that I consented to you retaining it indefinitely.

Well this time you said I throw out people's information and the fist thing I said was I never doxxed you. I'm not the type of man to post someone's face and make fun of it. 

That time you got violent and said you'd fuck me up, that was the 2nd time I commented on your boyish appearance. Yeah you said in a fight you'd lay on your back and kick if I come near, and I was thinking damn. I can't that, the guilt. No this guy is kidding, in person it's at least be like a speedy trembling rabbit in my grip.

If you want to claim I've falsely accused you of sharing personal information, then give me an actual reason to believe you're trustworthy with it. Simply asking me to produce an example of you doxxing someone doesn't establish that. I never made that narrower claim in the first place.

You said something, I ask about it, you backpedal, I quote you. 

Your reasoning is clearly motivated. Motivated Reasoning. Lack of Self Reflection most likely is a component that keeps you motivated. Poor reasoning skills. That's 2 of the 3 symptoms of the low intelligence, and why intelligence is not enough, simultaneously. It's more like "when it's not enough"

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Makes a Good Reasoner

- Intellectual humility: Admitting limits and knowing when evidence is weak.

- Active open-mindedness: Actively looking for proof that proves your favorite ideas wrong.

- Desire for truth: Wanting the right answer more than wanting to win an argument.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Intellectual Humility, knowing when Evidence is weak. You never do, even now I present strong evidence as always. 

Active open-mindedness, you're really short this. You leave no open book to what comes across as conspiracy theories especially when you're presented with evidence that complements my teachings. A doubtful mind is a closed one. And open mind will entertain various angles without bias and see the truth with a sharper intuition making the subject prone to seeing the truth unfold more keenly.

Open mindedness is neither hostile nor cynical. It doesn't come charging in for an argument as you do without a reasonable spark to set your motivated reasoning to be set in motion. In place of this just doubt and more doubt with a grim outlook.

Desire for Truth. You're unable to recognize the truth you find ugly, while maintaining an ugly posture to things like Trump, and conservative people probably Christians. It's as bad racism, and you are racist, not that I care, but you hate a lot which is why you flee from the light.    

You're quoting my original wording correctly, but you're still treating "throw out people's personal information" as synonymous with "doxx people." I never made the latter claim. If you think the former is false, then address the actual claim rather than repeatedly substituting a narrower one and asking me for examples of doxxing. You also actually threatened to post my personal information after I raised the concern. You said you could "make your case a self fulfilling prophecy" and told me to let you know when to post my personal information. So this isn't merely a hypothetical concern about what you might do. You explicitly introduced retaliatory disclosure of my information into the discussion yourself.

The screenshot doesn't establish what you think it establishes either. It shows that you have a large amount of information and private conversations involving members. Your statement that you don't disclose that information is an assertion about your own behavior, not independent evidence that you don't. I'm not asking you to violate anyone's confidentiality to prove anything. I'm saying that your possession of extensive personal information, your repeated discussion of it, your continued retention of my old image, and your explicit threat to retaliate by posting my information give me a reasonable basis to be cautious about what I share with you.

Your definition of open-mindedness is backwards. Being open-minded doesn't mean being receptive to claims without skepticism. Skepticism is part of open-minded reasoning because it allows you to distinguish plausible explanations from unsupported ones. A mind that refuses to entertain skepticism because it wants to remain "open" can actually become more closed to correcting its own assumptions. You're already using skepticism yourself, so the issue isn't whether skepticism is good or bad. The issue is that you seem to apply it selectively. You demand evidence when challenging someone else's claim, while making unsupported claims yourself when they help you ridicule or humiliate the person. "Small hands, final verdict" is an obvious example. You then treated my objection to that as evidence of poor reasoning rather than addressing the evidentiary distinction I was making.

So no, having a doubtful mind isn't inherently being closed-minded. Skepticism can be precisely what allows someone to remain open to multiple explanations without accepting them indiscriminately. What is closed-minded is deciding that your preferred interpretation is true and then treating skepticism toward it as evidence of stupidity, bad faith, or psychological deficiency. That's essentially what you're doing here. You aren't demonstrating that my reasoning is motivated merely by labeling it "motivated reasoning." If you think my reasoning is wrong, identify the specific inference that's invalid.

And the irony is that you're now using the same skepticism you claim I lack to promote your own unsupported psychological conclusions about me. You call me motivated, lacking self-reflection, low intelligence, cynical, and unable to recognize truth because I don't accept your premises. That's not evidence of those traits. It's just another set of assertions about my psychology. You are perfectly capable of being skeptical, but you seem particularly willing to suspend that skepticism when doing so gives you an opportunity to characterize someone else negatively or position yourself as the person who can see through them. That isn't the open-mindedness you're describing. It's skepticism being applied selectively as a rhetorical weapon.