Sociopath Community

"At best I belittle what you are inside" pretty much concedes the point. You're not merely giving neutral feedback; you're explicitly judging and belittling my character, calling me weak and spoiled, and treating disagreement with you as a defect in me. "Reparations" is another distortion because I'm not asking you for compensation, I'm explaining why your behavior gives me reason not to trust you. Sincerity doesn't make your judgments objective or exempt them from criticism.

Then you end by advocating beating children, which fits the broader pattern I've been criticizing: when people challenge your reasoning or behave contrary to your expectations, you repeatedly appeal to punishment, humiliation, domination, and suffering rather than actually addressing the criticism. I can't know your private motivations, but your arguments consistently prioritize control, status, judgment, and inflicting misery over offering any productive way forward. Calling that "genuine" doesn't make the reasoning sound or make the framework constructive.

In my house growing up, my Father only had to speak once. As it turns out, the world loves me. 

Honestly speaking, I legit never had a tantrum in my entire life.  

.

.

.

Supernanny is juicy.

Spatial Mind said: 

 

In my house growing up, my Father only had to speak once. As it turns out, the world loves me. 

Honestly speaking, I legit never had a tantrum in my entire life.  

Supernanny is juicy.

You literally just threw a huge tantrum over me saying I don't trust you with more personal information, after you've kept my image for years, repeatedly used it to insult me, repeatedly conflated my criticism that you throw people's information around with the narrower claim that you dox people, and then repeatedly threatened to expose my information in retaliation. Yet you keep insisting that other people are the ones having tantrums. You also constantly rely on fallacies and status judgments while fetishizing other people and treating violence and assault as entertainment, so claiming you've "never had a tantrum" doesn't really say much about how you behave now.

tbh, I was catering to your tantrum. Your claim that I throw out your information is "YOUR" complaint. not mine. A false one at that.

What I was doing is picking you apart, and i've done so successfully this week.

Are my opinions about your appearance true or not ? 

If anything, I've consistently picked apart your arguments rather than merely "picking you apart." I've criticized the contradictions in your positions, such as advocating that people in poverty should reproduce while simultaneously defending systems that preserve extreme wealth inequality and unproductive accumulation of wealth. You keep reframing criticism of your arguments as a personal "tantrum" while responding with insults about my appearance, intelligence, and character. Whether your opinions about my appearance are factually accurate is largely irrelevant to the argument, because repeatedly bringing them up as insults doesn't make them substantive criticism.

Dragoonback said: 

If anything, I've consistently picked apart your arguments rather than merely "picking you apart."

I don't make arguments. 

I've criticized the contradictions in your positions, such as advocating that people in poverty should reproduce while simultaneously defending systems that preserve extreme wealth inequality and unproductive accumulation of wealth.

I've NEVER, suggested people in poverty should reproduce. 

Why the fuck would I suggest people who cannot afford to have a children have them ?

You keep reframing criticism of your arguments as a personal "tantrum" while responding with insults about my appearance, intelligence, and character. Whether your opinions about my appearance are factually accurate is largely irrelevant to the argument, because repeatedly bringing them up as insults doesn't make them substantive criticism.

Your credibility is almost non existent at this point. I don't even know what you wrote in that paragraph I stopped reading from the 2nd line. 

And no it's not ignorance, I'm just able to see what you're about, I can't fix it and I don't want it either. 

Thanks though. 

If you don't make arguments, then there's nothing for you to "pick apart" in the first place, and your repeated claims about my reasoning being wrong become difficult to reconcile with that. As for poverty and reproduction, I wasn't claiming you literally said "poor people should have children"; I was pointing to the implications of your positions, particularly your opposition to abortion, which necessarily limits people's ability to decide whether to continue a pregnancy regardless of their financial circumstances. If you think that's an unfair characterization, then explain the distinction instead of simply declaring me dishonest.

And saying you stopped reading because my credibility is "almost nonexistent" isn't a rebuttal to anything I wrote. It's another dismissal based on your judgment of me rather than an examination of the argument. You keep insisting you're merely "seeing what I'm about," while repeatedly reducing disagreement to weakness, tantrums, defects, or things wrong with me. That's not successfully picking apart my reasoning. It's avoiding the reasoning and substituting your judgment of the person making it.

You both should try understanding each other instead of talking at one another and being combative. The former will not get you anywhere and is a complete waste of time 

Slay said: 

You both should try understanding each other instead of talking at one another and being combative. The former will not get you anywhere and is a complete waste of time 

 I used to do that with him and it's how I handle him most of the time. 

There's no middle ground when it comes to that guy. 

Slay said: 

You both should try understanding each other instead of talking at one another and being combative. The former will not get you anywhere and is a complete waste of time 

Honestly I make a lot of logical points that he chooses to ignore, and then he resorts back to condescending remarks/insults. It's also the way he does it so that way he doesn't look as aggressive/more aggressive than the other party, even when that is what he is actually being. It's also just tacit and fallacious ways to attack and discredit the other party while trying to make himself look non-aggressive.