Sociopath Community

Inquirer stated: source post

To be honest, if you were actually interested in 'closing' this debate you have had multiple chances to clear things up and be more on point. Instead you prolong it. What I see are combative people unwilling to stop arguing.

I think what Ed's getting at is that you make it sound as if there's more to this than just exaggerated flattery. Is there?

And regarding him treating you as one package... You are not identical, but you argue in sync and your arguments flow together in a very seamless manner. So I don't think treating you as a package is a strange way to go about it.

Thing is, I think I made myself clear right at the beginning.  I said outright that Haart and I have no problems and that I don't hold it against her.  I also said that my calling her a bullshitter was specifically regarding the list, and nothing else.  I even laughed about it with her when she came back, briefly.  Why it is still being treated as the scandal of the century is honestly beyond me.

In regards to your question, Turncoat and I have both stated that we don't think it's some kind of silly conspiracy and that we don't think she's being malicious.  Only that we don't think her flattery is sincere.  I feel I've made my stance on this fairly clear, and frankly I'm not interested in dumbing it down any further to cater to Ed's tendency to twist things into something madly out of proportion.

As for Ed regarding TC and I as a unit, it's seriously hampering the ability to have a real discussion.  It's not just this time, it's come up several times recently.  If Turncoat and I don't entirely agree with eachother, he claims we're contradicting ourselves.  If we do agree, he claims we're merely wingmanning eachother.  So you see it's completely counter-productive to discussion, because he writes off everything we say, based on what the other says.  I even received an angry PM from him at one point, giving me shit for something Turncoat said while I wasn't even online or participating in the thread in question.  He wasn't even acknowledging that I was not Turncoat.  He kept using phrases like "you did this, you said that".  It took me nearly half an hour to bring him to a place of sanity where he could acknowledge that I am not Turncoat and had nothing to do with what was going on.  And now he's not even trying to deny that he's treating us as one person, because it's easier for him.  Certainly you can see how absurd that is?

This just goes to show how many lawyers Hillary has.

TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post

And now he's not even trying to deny that he's treating us as one person, because it's easier for him.  Certainly you can see how absurd that is?

 How come Inky feels the same if it's that ridiculous, then? When you two make the same point I will save my time. When you don't and I do one of you injustice, feel free to point it out. I'm sure you'd have already pointed it out by now more specifically if that had been the case, and you didn't. 

Also, you don't see a problem with making a huge post with pretty colors trying to prove how my arguments don't hold water, and all you can come up with for your side is "we're on SC, ofc she's bullshitting?"

The burden of proof is on you, my friends.

No, your premise. You publicly accused Haart of bullshitting and hypocrisy. If you're going to throw in that saying better use it the way it was intended: 

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

It's innocent until proven guilty. You only wiggle away from trying to prove anything because you have little to show for it. So much for "compulsive arguer", mm? Put more work into it, I am here fucking googling latin phrases, and I don't even like debating with you.

TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post

Only that we don't think her flattery is sincere.

And why is that? The impression I got was that you (both you and TC) had a reason to suspect it to be insincere, since it was your spontaneous response and you seem to have known her best. It does not have to be a conspiracy, or malicious of any kind, and I wouldn't be surprised if Haart lied about a thing or two over the course of her stay, but her character did not strike me as 'full of shit'. Since this is based as much on how you said it as what you said, it's entirely possible that I've misjudged your (both of you) tone of voice. TC has a way of sounding mysterious even when he's being mundane.

Edit: I missed your reply to a chat reading puppet, saw it afterwards. If you don't have a reason for thinking she's insincere then I guess I simply saw something that wasn't there.

TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post

As for Ed regarding TC and I as a unit, it's seriously hampering the ability to have a real discussion.

...

Certainly you can see how absurd that is?

If he's doing all of that then yes, I agree it's hampering you. Both of you. All three of you. (English really lacks a plural form of 'you', by the way)

My take on it was simply that you often appear a unit (by way of using similar and supporting arguments etc.) and so bunching you together for simplicity did seem rather natural.

Perhaps it's because people here are usually pretty mean to each other that haart's ginormous amount of kindness can be taken as sarcasm.

IMO one of the things that make this forum interesting of this forum is its drama.

edited

Maybe if you actually explained WHY you think Haart is bullshitting, ie what motive she has, what she is hoping to gain from it etc, then your argument might make more sense. Just repeating the same old shite over and over doesn't make your stance any stronger XD

Also, holy fucking crap how do you even care about stuff that petty? There's stubborn, there's argumentative, there's childish...and then there's this. 

chat reading puppet stated: source post

Maybe if you actually explained WHY you think Haart is bullshitting, ie what motive she has, what she is hoping to gain from it etc, then your argument might make more sense. Just repeating the same old shite over and over doesn't make your stance any stronger XD

Also, holy fucking crap how do you even care about stuff that petty? There's stubborn, there's argumentative, there's childish...and then there's this. 

 Thing is, I have no idea why she is, and I never claimed to.  I don't need to understand her motives to suspect that she isn't being sincere.  Might I remind you, my original comment was directed at Haart.  It was everyone else in the thread who jumped on it.  It is the rest of you, who seem to wish to convince me that she isn't lying.  The burden of proof is on you, my friends. : P

As for "caring" about it, I believe that's been addressed.  If you mean that I care about Haart being insincere, I've said repeatedly that I don't.  She and I are on quite good terms.  If you mean caring enough about the argument to continue it, Inquirer hit the nail on the head.  I'm a compulsive arguer.  A trait I've admitted to many times on this site, before.  A trait that I share with many people here.  (Including Ed, which is how we get into these rows.)  I'm surprised it's still even being noted, at this point.

Inquirer stated: source post

TC has a way of sounding mysterious even when he's being mundane. 

 I'm mysterious?

TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post

Turncoat stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

TC has a way of sounding mysterious even when he's being mundane. 

 I'm mysterious?

Turncoat stated: source post

 

Inquirer stated: source post

TC has a way of sounding mysterious even when he's being mundane. 

 I'm mysterious?