Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Incorrect. What's going on here is we know something you don't. We're carrying on forward with conversation and you're out of the loop. It may come to you as a surprise, but it wasn't I who made Bill Clinton. 

You're saying I'm “out of the loop,” but then you don't actually explain what I'm supposedly missing.
 

 That's right.

I'm moving forward not backward. I'm not the one vilifying Clinton here, this is common knowledge. No need to move backward and talk about What he did and what he's known for just because there are people who have no idea. 

Spatial Mind said: 

That's right. I'm moving forward not backward. I'm not the one vilifying Clinton here, this is common knowledge. No need to move backward and talk about What he did and what he's known for just because there are people who have no idea. 

You're still not addressing what I asked. I wasn't asking you to “move backward” and explain everything Clinton has done. I was asking about the standard you're using when you call him a villain while separating out the “good” parts of him. Once you introduce that distinction, it's reasonable to ask whether you apply the same standard consistently to other people. Saying it's “common knowledge” that Clinton is a villain doesn't answer that.

Yes.

Spatial Mind said: 

Yes.

Then what is the standard? You said Clinton is a villain while also saying the good parts of him remain intact. I'm asking what distinguishes someone who has done serious wrong from someone you still consider acceptable despite similar wrongdoing. If you can't state the standard or apply it consistently, then “he's a villain” is just a label rather than an argument.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Yes.

Then what is the standard?

The same.

You said Clinton is a villain while also saying the good parts of him remain intact. I'm asking what distinguishes someone who has done serious wrong from someone you still consider acceptable despite similar wrongdoing. If you can't state the standard or apply it consistently, then “he's a villain” is just a label rather than an argument.

 Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they're stripped of their merit or talents. 

Take Eminem for example. He comes across as a political puppet on a string. His politics are driven by hatred. He's still a great rapper, that I can never take away from him. Even if he turned into public enemy #1 and blew up half the globe, no denying he'd still be a good rapper.

The 2nd post I wrote here is sound, and it's a reply to Nathan's remark on Clinton. Seems like you never read it, but I'm not simply making up him being a villian. 

If you know you know.