Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

And what happened after that Legga? Who got the last laugh again?

Trust me, it isn't small of me. Just knowledge. 

 Isn't small of you yet you're calling someone cringe in 2026 and talking about the last laugh. 

 There are good reasons for that. You won't recall those reasons while they're in your face. 

.

It all came together in a way that makes me think it's divine timing and wouldn't have happened if Legga never wanted to compare status with me that time. 

It's something between Legga and I, which is why he just got choked out for real in this thread, hence his edited/muted post 21 minutes after it was created.  

The reasons are because you are an unreasonable sadist. That's why you come up with endless personal attacks, because I don't agree with you that people should make themselves vulnerable and do things that make no sense while you'd watch them deprived and then judge them for it.

Even if any of your meaningless judgmental insults were true, it wouldn't matter because I don't have kids. I have no obligation to perpetuate myself or subject another person to existence and to people who think like you. You can judge me all you want, but your judgments don't alter the underlying reality that people are subject to causality, scarcity, suffering, and eventually death regardless of whatever hierarchy you try to impose on them.

Logic and entropy don't care about your status games, and eventually your judgments become just as irrelevant as everyone else's.

Dragoonback said: 

The reasons are because you are an unreasonable sadist.

Incorrect. The answer is right in front of you on these very pages.  

Spatial Mind said: 

Incorrect. The answer is right in front of you on these very pages.  

 Then explain it.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Incorrect. The answer is right in front of you on these very pages.  

 Then explain it.

 If you'd like to know for yourself, you must first recognize why I say things when I do. 

You don't do that. Instead you'll argue conclusions you couldn't bet your life on when really, you're unsure.

You're too motivated.  

That's not an explanation. You said my characterization of you was incorrect because "the answer is right in front of you on these very pages." I asked you to explain what evidence you're referring to, and instead you told me that I have to understand why you say things.

I don't need to psychoanalyze you to evaluate your arguments. If the evidence is supposedly "right in front of me," then point to it and explain how it establishes that I'm wrong.

And saying I "argue conclusions I couldn't bet my life on when really, I'm unsure" doesn't change that. Being uncertain is not a reason to stop questioning a conclusion. In fact, recognizing uncertainty is one of the reasons to question it.

You're effectively saying, "I'm right, and if you understood me properly you'd know why I'm right." That's not demonstrating your conclusion. It's making my failure to accept your conclusion into evidence that I don't understand you.

Dragoonback said: 

That's not an explanation. You said my characterization of you was incorrect because "the answer is right in front of you on these very pages." I asked you to explain what evidence you're referring to, and instead you told me that I have to understand why you say things.

Boo hoo.

Do you realize how you sound. Sounds like your stomping your feet making demands back there.

I don't need to psychoanalyze you to evaluate your arguments. If the evidence is supposedly "right in front of me," then point to it and explain how it establishes that I'm wrong.

Anyone can establish it. I want observers to witness your lack of sense. It's true.

All you need to do is "see why" I said what I said. What is the cause of that ?

You can't do it can you ?

And saying I "argue conclusions I couldn't bet my life on when really, I'm unsure" doesn't change that. Being uncertain is not a reason to stop questioning a conclusion. In fact, recognizing uncertainty is one of the reasons to question it.

Then prove that I'm, as you say, an unreasonable sadist.

But really, there is a reason as to why I said what I said, and it's not as simple as your assumptions. 

What you're actually doing is applying double standard. 

You're effectively saying, "I'm right, and if you understood me properly you'd know why I'm right." That's not demonstrating your conclusion. It's making my failure to accept your conclusion into evidence that I don't understand you.

 All you gotta do is go back, and see what I responded to, and then you'll see why I said what I said. 

It has nothing to do with being sadistic. You'll argue your assumption to be true, but really it's not. 

I am right. 

"Boo hoo" and the comments about me "stomping my feet" are exactly the kind of personal framing I'm talking about. I'm asking you to substantiate a claim you made, and instead you're trying to characterize the act of asking for evidence as emotional or unreasonable.

You keep saying "all you have to do is see why I said what I said," but understanding why you said something isn't the same as establishing that what you said is true. I can understand the reasoning behind someone's position perfectly and still find the reasoning invalid.

You also just shifted the burden back onto me. You said my characterization of you as an unreasonable sadist was incorrect, so I asked you to explain why. Now you're saying I have to prove your position wrong while simultaneously refusing to actually give the explanation you're claiming is "right in front of me."

If your argument is that I misinterpreted something you said, then identify the specific statement and explain the interpretation I'm missing. "Go back and see why I said it" isn't an argument.

And "I am right" isn't evidence that you're right. If the reason is genuinely obvious, explaining it should be easier than repeatedly telling me that I should already understand it.

Dragoonback said: 

"Boo hoo" and the comments about me "stomping my feet" are exactly the kind of personal framing I'm talking about. I'm asking you to substantiate a claim you made, and instead you're trying to characterize the act of asking for evidence as emotional or unreasonable.

Yes.

That's my reaction to false accusations followed by.... 

"That's not an explanation. You said my characterization of you was incorrect because "the answer is right in front of you on these very pages." I asked you to explain what evidence you're referring to, and instead you told me that I have to understand why you say things."

Don't get mad at me if I'm asking you to check again and tell me what's really happening here. 

I shouldn't have to do all the thinking for you. 

You keep saying "all you have to do is see why I said what I said," but understanding why you said something isn't the same as establishing that what you said is true. I can understand the reasoning behind someone's position perfectly and still find the reasoning invalid.

But I said is proven on the previous page.

There's a cause to the effect you're ignoring, hence your double standard.

You also just shifted the burden back onto me. You said my characterization of you as an unreasonable sadist was incorrect, so I asked you to explain why. Now you're saying I have to prove your position wrong while simultaneously refusing to actually give the explanation you're claiming is "right in front of me."

There was no burden on me to begin with, I'm not the accuser.

From the time you accuse someone, you need to state why. I simply denied it and told you to look again. 

Now you may want me to jump up and think for you, but I don't think I will. Instead you should figure it out. And as usual no one will agree with you. Legga's opinion is different than yours, and I was talking to Legga to begin with.

If your argument is that I misinterpreted something you said, then identify the specific statement and explain the interpretation I'm missing. "Go back and see why I said it" isn't an argument.

And "I am right" isn't evidence that you're right. If the reason is genuinely obvious, explaining it should be easier than repeatedly telling me that I should already understand it.

 I'm satisfied and justified in my claim. 

I will entertain you if you can collect 3 signatures, otherwise I'm not going to waste time talking about the current conversation is unfolding. In practice arguing about the argument is stupid and when I look back at our interactions, that's all I see. 

You're free to have your opinion, as I am mine. My claim is, I am NOT sadistic. Yes I "might" laugh when I see unfortunate circumstances , but only when people bring it upon themselves. Doesn't mean I want people to suffer, and my message to them is stop being a fool. 

I also think you're mad cause i'm actually good for you. You just need to listen but instead you resist change and get worse. I should ignore you. 

You're still confusing two different things: proving a claim about your internal motives and explaining why your behavior reasonably leads someone to characterize you a certain way.

I can't prove that you are psychologically a sadist, just as you can't prove that I have motivated reasoning simply by declaring that I do. But I can point to your behavior and explain why I characterized it that way. You openly acknowledge that you may laugh at people's misfortune when you believe they brought it upon themselves, and you repeatedly respond to people you disagree with through ridicule, humiliation, and personal attacks. That's the basis for my characterization.

You keep saying there is some obvious "cause" on the previous page that supposedly proves I'm wrong, but you still haven't actually stated it. "Go back and see why I said it" isn't an explanation. If the relevant evidence is so obvious, quoting the relevant part would take considerably less effort than repeatedly telling me I should figure it out.

And saying "I'm satisfied and justified in my claim" doesn't make the claim justified. That's just an assertion about your own confidence.

The three-signature thing is also exactly the sort of status framing I've been talking about. I'm not required to collect three people who agree with me before I'm allowed to question your argument. Truth isn't determined by a popularity contest.

You also say arguing about the argument is stupid while continuing to argue about the argument. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but then simply stop responding. You don't need to declare that you've won and that nobody agrees with me.

And "I'm actually good for you, you just need to listen" is probably the clearest example of the hierarchy I'm talking about. You're positioning yourself as someone who knows what is good for me and framing my disagreement as evidence that I'm "resisting change" and "getting worse." That's not an objective assessment of my reasoning. It's a paternalistic judgment about my character.

You don't have to accept my characterization of you as a sadist. But denying it doesn't require me to pretend that your behavior gives me no reason whatsoever to make that characterization.