Sociopath Community

You're proving my point by treating "vanity" as though the label itself settles the argument. I don't think vanity or courage are inherently real qualities in the way you're presenting them. They're romanticist, idealist labels imposed on ordinary behavior and then treated as virtues or defects.

Caring about your appearance, abilities, or achievements isn't inherently any more irrational than caring about anything else. You'd have to explain why those particular concerns are supposedly excessive rather than simply attaching the word "vanity" to them.

And there's another irony here: you regularly emphasize your own intellect and make judgments about other people's intelligence, then present those judgments as merely "observations of truth." That's the same kind of moralized social judgment you're accusing me of making, except you've treated your own judgments as objective facts.

As for AI, it isn't some "someone else" whose convictions I'm adopting. I'm still deciding what I believe, what I reject, and what I post. If you think I've adopted a position merely because an AI produced it, point to one. Otherwise you're just making another assumption about my motives and calling it an observation.

Dragoonback said: 

You're proving my point by treating "vanity" as though the label itself settles the argument.

You're just saying that.

I've not proven that vanity is a social construct or simply a label. My argument is that it's a real thing. Your doubt isn't proof.

I don't think vanity or courage are inherently real qualities in the way you're presenting them. They're romanticist, idealist labels imposed on ordinary behavior and then treated as virtues or defects.

Of course you don't think so. 

You also overuse the world "inherent". That causes you to trip around in the dark cause everything has to be inherent for you to accept it. Otherwise you'll break it off as a concept, or you'll use the word to ignore true meaning. 

Courage isn't inherent, therefore you'll have a problem. What I said doesn't argue that it is inherent, you put that word there due to your motivated reasoning, which in my opinion would bring me shame if I approached things your way.

And "I know why you do it," "it makes me smile," and "you're flustered" are all personal judgments about me, not arguments against what I actually said. You're turning disagreement into a story about my motives and personality again.

But it's true. You argued that "If people don't agree with Spatial he gets mad !"

That's untrue. And there you are. Now you'll backtrack how I presented it, but how I presented it is actually fine. You just don't like it, it offends you. I never knew it would offend you but I see now, cause you're calling it a personal attack. That's very self absorbed behavior, you're not the only one and I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Legga. 

AI also isn't some "someone else" whose convictions I'm adopting. I'm the one deciding what I believe, what I reject, and what I post. Using a tool doesn't transfer my agency to it.

Artificial intelligence, is without a doubt an intelligence. How you use it is all dandy, but without it, you could employ someone to edit your text and go ahead and shout "It's all me" just the same. Their conviction is still what makes you shine. Legga thinks it's a lovely idea. 

Legga is a man of vanity, and what I wrote, and what I just posted is for him. The definition also describes him. Dead ass he simply MUST be seen as the biggest and brightest of us all, but in doing so, nope. It doesn't work too well. 

No one can really beat Ai. It's the ultimate masking if you want to use it to give your social interactions a beauty filter and make yourself seem more intelligent. Ai isn't just another tool in an age where a company could use one to be your manager and higher and fire, negotiate deals through the phone and so on. That shit is happening. No this is not just another tool. 

If you want to argue that caring about appearance, abilities, or achievements is inherently excessive or irrational, explain why. Quoting a definition of "vanity" doesn't establish that.

 lol "Inherently" again. Such narrow minded gibberish. No I don't want to argue if it's inherent. 

What I presented remains the same. It's those traits in excess. Stay on track.  

Then we're actually getting closer to the point. If your claim is simply that there is a word for excessive concern with appearance, ability, or achievement, I don't dispute that the word exists. My objection is to treating "vanity" as though it explains why that concern is irrational or bad.

You still haven't established why caring a lot about those things is inherently a problem. People care excessively about all sorts of things. Calling one of those forms of concern "vanity" doesn't provide a reason to condemn it.

And AI being an intelligence doesn't mean it has some personal conviction that I'm borrowing. You're conflating intelligence with agency, intention, and belief. I'm not saying the AI independently believes my argument and therefore I do too. I'm using it to examine and formulate arguments, then deciding what I actually accept.

The same applies to your "beauty filter" analogy. If I edit my writing to remove hostility and make the reasoning clearer, that doesn't make the resulting argument less mine. You can dislike the method, but that isn't an argument against the reasoning.

And I think your repeated claims about me being flustered, self-absorbed, vain, or motivated by some need to disagree are exactly what I'm talking about. You keep presenting judgments about my motives as "observations of truth." That's not objectivity. It's still interpretation, and calling it observation doesn't make it one.