Sociopath Community

aubrieta said: 

here TC, let me educate you, you pseudointellectual

 Bump

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said:  

lol tehe:3 trueeeee but I used to be more functional than you are currently so I have room to talk.

I don't think it works like that. 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat, how did you let this complete loser live with you for so long and put up with his constant Strawmanning?

Where'd he use that fallacy? 

It seems more to be like the result of his formed opinion over you overtime instead of purely an archetypal amalgam of ideas. He's falls into strawman arguments sometimes, but where is he aiming to impose how a group behaves onto you or otherwise misrepresent your point purposely? 

 Just because I think it is pussy for people to not take the full dose or fully trip doesnt mean that I dont understand why they do, and that some people like being "sort of" high without going fully deep into a trip

What do you figure their reasons are? 

I never ever said that he made that up and imposed it as something I believed

Then he wasn't strawmaning, right? 

Yes he was, putting words and opinions and beliefs in someone else's mouth is Strawmanning.

Not quite... 

You dont understand the rules of logic as well as you like to put on, pseudointellectual 

You could always try looking it up to be sure. 

Strawmanning in essence is assuming the argument for your opponent, usually based on larger bodies of ideas instead of focusing more on the individual. 

I'd say you're looking for the term "Ad Hominem", as he's trying to use what he believes to be your failings to take you less seriously. 

Ahahahahaha No, you're wrong and I just proved you wrong kek, you're a pseudointellectual 

 

P.s. I did debate in highschool and its all been coming back to me lately;)

 oh sure there was some Ad homineming in there as well, but I was pointing out and the most annoyed with his use of Strawmanning

Just because he uses other logical fallacies doesnt mean those were the ones I was annoyed with the most ^.^

aubrieta said: 

aubrieta said: 

here TC, let me educate you, you pseudointellectual

 Bump

 double bump because I'm right and youre wrong;)

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

 

lol tehe:3 trueeeee but I used to be more functional than you are currently so I have room to talk.

I don't think it works like that. 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat, how did you let this complete loser live with you for so long and put up with his constant Strawmanning?

Where'd he use that fallacy? 

 Yeah it does and figure it out for yourself

A history in lucidity doesn't mean that they are a more credible source unless you're a time traveler. 

Check out some PTSD cases. 

 Yeah it does

How does this apply in relation to disorders such as Schizophrenia, Alzheimers, and Dementia, to start with some obvious examples? 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said: 

Cain said: 

Lol whatever you dumb little girl 😂

My life is trending up and its not looking like it's about to stop anytime soon. I'm doing so well for myself; that I can't help rub it in your autistic little face. 

I'm a highly functioning stoner , you are a dumb little girl who needs constant help from mommy and daddy while you play on the internet all day. 

lol tehe:3 trueeeee but I used to be more functional than you are currently so I have room to talk.

I don't think it works like that. 

aubrieta said: 

Turncoat, how did you let this complete loser live with you for so long and put up with his constant Strawmanning?

Where'd he use that fallacy? 

It seems more to be like the result of his formed opinion over you overtime instead of purely an archetypal amalgam of ideas. He's falls into strawman arguments sometimes, but where is he aiming to impose how a group behaves onto you or otherwise misrepresent your point purposely? 

 Just because I think it is pussy for people to not take the full dose or fully trip doesnt mean that I dont understand why they do, and that some people like being "sort of" high without going fully deep into a trip

What do you figure their reasons are? 

I never ever said that he made that up and imposed it as something I believed

Then he wasn't strawmaning, right? 

to not be sober, but still be able to function and not have as severe as a comedown

being "half-high" isnt really my thing because I like going to extremes but that doesnt mean I dont understand why others enjoy it.

With some drugs, being "half-high" can show you more than going too far. This is especially true for Psychadelics, where LSD for example can be easier to take at 200 mics than 100 for some people. 

...on second thought, I'd argue that for most drugs. The brain kinda shuts down if you go too far with them, resulting in you walking away with less data for next time. I feel like forgettable drug experiences that aren't used as some form of behaviorist harm reduction are a waste of time. 

Just because I consider Cain a pussy doesnt mean I consider every single person who doesnt do a full dose a pussy, but the reasoning Cain gave for not breaking through so far ever, because he said "yet", reeked of him being a pussy

I'd figure the person who's too quick to claim they had a breakthrough is the one who's weaker. 

TC your arguments are so full of logical fallacies I dont even know where to begin. Smfh

aubrieta said:

I'm glad we're on the same page now: 

Turncoat said:

Strawmanning in essence is assuming the argument for your opponent, usually based on larger bodies of ideas instead of focusing more on the individual.

He is not exaggerating, misrepresenting, or fabricating your arguments to borrow from the above, he's dismissing your case entirely based on your "credentials": 



The main difference that helps here is over if we see him as addressing your arguments or not. (He's not, he's just saying you're too dumb to get things). 

aubrieta said: 

TC your arguments are so full of logical fallacies I dont even know where to begin

Well yeah, you aren't intimately familiar with them. 

That'd be like someone expecting me to argue with someone in Spanish, I'd lose from a lack of familiarity and time spent with it. 

Turncoat said: 

aubrieta said:

I'm glad we're on the same page now: 

Turncoat said:

Strawmanning in essence is assuming the argument for your opponent, usually based on larger bodies of ideas instead of focusing more on the individual.

He is not exaggerating, misrepresenting, or fabricating your arguments to borrow from the above, he's dismissing your case entirely based on your "credentials": 



The main difference that helps here is over if we see him as addressing your arguments or not. (He's not, he's just saying you're too dumb to get things). 

 He did both, and I was more annoyed with the Strawmanning 

He made up that I didn't understand why people would micro dose or half-dose, and was attacking that. So it was both Strawman AND ad hom, but I was more annoyed with the Strawmanning which is why I pointed it out

And again, just because his arguments contained more than one logical fallacy doesnt mean that they didn't contain the one I was pointing out?? The fuck TC

Are you really not able to grasp this??

Go back and read the post where I first mentioned the word Strawmanning, and compare it to the explanation of Strawmanning you just posted -.- 

Jesus, TC