Psychopaths

[Bella Fortuna]

Great balls of fire, is this shit going on in here too? Won't be visiting this thread again...

[Schneibster]

There is no truth

This is what I was talking about.

It's what you said.

If it goes in YIINII then they are equal; neither is true. If one is true, the other is false, and they're not equal, and it doesn't go in YIINII.

QED.

[Coito ergo sum]

You are claiming bullshit is not lies.

Merely stating bullshit (or, horseshit) doesn't mean one is "lying." That's true.

I never said anyone was lying. I said, "that's a lie."

For the fourth time.

Already addressed this. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying.

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

And if that weren't enough, you're on record saying "lies are not bullshit."

I never said that - can you even fucking read? All lies are bullshit, but not every piece of bullshit is a lie. Your thinking is muddled.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no truth

This is what I was talking about.

It's what you said.

If it goes in YIINII then they are equal; neither is true. If one is true, the other is false, and they're not equal, and it doesn't go in YIINII.

QED.

[Schneibster]

Merely stating bullshit (or, horseshit) doesn't mean one is "lying." That's true.

I never said anyone was lying. I said, "that's a lie."

For the fourth time.

Already addressed this. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying.

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

No, not "here," answer the question. Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

ETA: Not to mention, that's the one where you started to bullshit.

You're trying to tell me what I think. That doesn't strike me as being very bright. First, how the fuck do you know what I think, and second, why the fuck would you claim to know better than I do? Hello?

[Coito ergo sum]

I never said anyone was lying. I said, "that's a lie."

For the fourth time.

Already addressed this. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying.

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

No, not "here," answer the question.

The nerve of you: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1054336 - "answer the question" indeed... I'm waiting.

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

And, I was very clear that if you identify that other person, or that other person is identified, and you point out that that other person was lying (because you have some evidence of their state of mind or intent to deceive), then your accusation would have some merit. Example: John Smith posts here that the Civil War began in 1870. You point out that "Bill Jones" said the same thing and he knew it was false at the time, so Bill Jones is a liar. That would be reasonable. But, you don't do that. Your practice - is to call statements "lies" that have no third party attribution outside of the confines of your own skull. You'll take a statement like "The Civil War Started in 1870" and say it's a lie, but nobody has referred to any third party who said it before with some deceptive intent That's why what you do is so idiotic - you'll call something a lie or more cretinously "first lie" without ever identifying that third party you think is lying. The only persons involved are you and the other person you're responding to.

You have some notion that if you think a statement is false, that all you have to do is imagine that someone else said it before with the deliberate intent to deceive and then it is from that point on always a "lie" no matter who says it and no matter what their intent. You have some weird idea that this constitutes "denouncing" someone and calling them out, and that this is some "reality" that "bites" and we're all expected to "deal" with it.

Moreover, the things you claim are "lies" are very often things that are mere differences of political opinions, different opinions or views on what the facts are, or reliance on different sources, and you leap from there to calling the other side a liar or calling different positions "lies." You portray things as black and white that simply aren't. You portray things as clearly proved that just aren't. You have claimed that there are things that are lies because they are contrary to some "established science" that you learn through the googles. One day you'll figure out why you're off base about that. But, I've tried sufficiently to set you straight, and unfortunately you're just not getting it. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

[Schneibster]

Already addressed this. Something can't be a lie unless someone is lying.

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

No, not "here," answer the question.

The nerve of you: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1054336 - "answer the question" indeed... I'm waiting.

You're gonna wait a long time if you don't answer the question.

And here's two more: how do you claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? And what kind of person would make such a claim? The last is rhetorical; answering it would be insulting.

[hadespussercats]

CES, thank you so much for trying to fight the good fight. I'd draw Schneibster a Venn diagram to illustrate his misunderstanding and what I actually said, but, eh, he'd probably misunderstand that too.

So I'll just use Schneibster's own tactics against him-- with my own twist:

I'm better than you.
Na-na-na-na-boo-boo,
Stick your head in doo-doo.

[Schneibster]

CES, thank you so much for trying to fight the good fight. I'd draw Schneibster a Venn diagram to illustrate his misunderstanding and what I actually said, but, eh, he'd probably misunderstand that too.

So I'll just use Schneibster's own tactics against him-- with my own twist:

I'm better than you.
Na-na-na-na-boo-boo,
Stick your head in doo-doo.

If you were to claim that's not what you meant you might get somewhere.

Of course that would involve admitting fault and you just don't do that, do you?

ETA: And if you find that snarky, I think that's fair for pretending I'm crazy or an idiot because you're too proud to admit you fucked up and move on.

[Svartalf]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Uh? what? most of this thread is TL:DR to me, except for little gems not by the paddlers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why does that have to be the person who said it here?

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

No, not "here," answer the question.

The nerve of you: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1054336 - "answer the question" indeed... I'm waiting.

You're gonna wait a long time if you don't answer the question.

I did answer your question. You didn't answer mine, and mine was posed a long time ago, long before yours. You're evading. You're proving that you aren't discussing anything in good faith.

And here's two more: how do you claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? And what kind of person would make such a claim? The last is rhetorical; answering it would be insulting.

I don't claim to know what you're thinking. You, however, claim to know what other people are thinking when you claim to know that they are "liars" or telling "lies" - you claim to know that they are acting "deliberately" -- thus, you claim to know their intent and knowledge.

What kind of a person would feign outrage at someone "claiming to know what I'm thinking better than I do," when he's been claiming all along to know whether someone has the intent to deceive or are "deliberately" uttering a falsehood. That is what YOU defined a lie as, Da Schneib. Remember? "deliberate" falsehood. So, you call people liars and say they are uttering "lies" when the only way you could possibly know that is to "know what [they're] thinking better than [they] do."

Now I've answered both your questions. Answer mine, if you have a shred of integrity left in you.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, thank you so much for trying to fight the good fight. I'd draw Schneibster a Venn diagram to illustrate his misunderstanding and what I actually said, but, eh, he'd probably misunderstand that too.

So I'll just use Schneibster's own tactics against him-- with my own twist:

I'm better than you.
Na-na-na-na-boo-boo,
Stick your head in doo-doo.

If you were to claim that's not what you meant you might get somewhere.

Of course that would involve admitting fault and you just don't do that, do you?

ETA: And if you find that snarky, I think that's fair for pretending I'm crazy or an idiot because you're too proud to admit you fucked up and move on.

Nobody needs to pretend...

[Schneibster]

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1054316

No, not "here," answer the question.

The nerve of you: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1054336 - "answer the question" indeed... I'm waiting.

You're gonna wait a long time if you don't answer the question.

I did answer your question.

No, you didn't. You made up a bunch of bullshit to try to create a theory out of whole cloth that nobody is allowed to examine the underpinnings of because if they do, they find out you didn't answer the question.

Answer the question: Why does me saying "that's a lie" mean I'm calling the person who said it a liar? They might be my friend, and I might be advising them of something they don't know.

That would be the non-paranoid assumption, anyway. Did you know paranoia is psychotic if it goes far enough? Of course, psychosis is not psychopathy; in fact psychopathy rules out more than a minor psychotic delusion, such as believing God tells you stuff. You know, stuff you can still get elected President if you believe.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[maiforpeace]

I don't think he even understands something simple like 'maiforpeace is not sharing with him anymore'. I am done trying to communicate seriously with him. Many want no more to do with him because of the way he communicates.

It must be all of us.

Schneibster wouldn't go through all of this if he wasn't keen on communicating his POV...he wants badly to be heard. I think everybody has been fair and patient trying to do so, how are we all failing so miserably? I'm being totally sincere and honest when I say this too. Maybe someone other than those of us who are having trouble might shed some light on this?
I know we all think we are being just as reasonable and rational as I know Shneibster thinks he is...which I guess just adds to the frustration for us all.