NeoVolt said: ]Since judging an idea based on the reputation of the poster, or by the intent of the poster (self-flattery or whatever), both represent logical fallacies and have no relevance to whether the idea is a good one or not. Had katsucats objected to the idea itself, I would have been happy to engage in a discussion with him. And if you read my first replies, I ask for clarification and even prompt for objections to the idea presented by OP. I automatically offer respect to people willing to engage in rational discourse. And I tend to automatically assume that people want to engage. He isn't discussing anything, he just felt the need to state the irony. Which in this case, is OP complimenting himself over a behavior that is widely known as shitty. (Explained in previous post.) However, it quickly became clear what katsucats intent was. Ending with his bringing up a past relationship of OP. At this point I concluded that he had no intention to engage in rational discourse. Since something like that is intellectually bankrupt. It all amounts to a personal attack. I think it's abundantly clear he didn't come here to discourse because that isn't the only thing you can do in a thread, he commented on the situation and gave his opinion, OP considered himself to be a professional troll, something he think is distasteful and lifeless. There are nothing remotely intellectual about what he posted other than opinion, to evaluate it based on this standard you are listing is just strange and unnecessary. This kind of moral relativism is self-contradictory. In this context, I find your position to be the one based on unqualified semantics. You are using a label of "troll" (self-applied being irrelevant) to justify personal attacks, while never qualifying any specific troll qualities of the OP. And even if you did qualify traits based on past posts, they don't apply here, in this context. AND even if they did, it would still be hypocritical to use them to justify personal attacks against the OP. Why would it be hypocritical to do so? OP has admitted to be a troll even in this thread. Justifying personal attacks? How did that happened? All I saw was revealing one to be a troll and a minor insult attached to that, and he simply stated the truth of the matter, again, it would be self-flattery for a chef in his restaurant to praise his own food anonymously. All the user revealed was that OP was a troll, and he is praising trolls but have not revealed in OP statement that he, in fact, is one, and a professional one at that, therefore it is ironic and funny. How is this being stretched out into a fallacy in an intellectual discourse when he so clearly never even discussed anything that was said than to post the screenshots that revealed OP to be a troll and mock him for it? |
NeoVolt said: Either you've made a faulty conclusion about me being a troll, or it could be reasonably construed that anything I posted was a symbol for open-mindedness, or the framework in the OP is obviously unsound without pedantically going through the motions. Whether I'm a troll or not, if you're not ready to except the latter, thank you very much. I guess being open minded is a compliment as any other.Going by my former definition, and in line with the generally accepted definition, in the context of this thread, katsucats is the "troll." |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
LogicalInjustice said: Making up definitions according to your own experiences isn't going to change the facts of what types of trolls there are and what trolls actually are. So being on an anime forum specifically acting out Excalibur in all senses of the way, would be a type of trolling. If he did this somewhere where no one watched anime or people overall didn't know who the fuck he was, that would indeed be shitposting and failing at trolling. I missed your post. How sure are we that 9 out of 10 times we come across a 'troll' (according to the popular definition -- not my definition), he/she isn't just someone with a different perspective? I've seen people getting pissed off at me, thinking that I was trying to get under their skin when the only thing I was doing was defending my perspective with strong arguments. Was I trolling? How sure are you that this popular definition of trolling isn't just a misattribution of nonexistent intentions? This definition requires you to know the mental state of the other person. Therefore, it's a faulty definition. What I'm doing here is simply shifting the definition of a troll from it being merely defined by a 'subset' of itself to the set that it is. Trolls_Bane said: xEmptiness said: You didn't give justification of why trolling is considered shitty behavior. If you didn't notice, the entire purpose of this thread is to take away that unjustified connotation from trolling and put it where it rightfully belongs. but it doesn't denote the fact that it is also an asshole move that doesn't do anything to help anyone in their pursuit of convincing another person and can be a sign of a person's intellectual dishonesty. Putting your words in bold will not increase their weight. Why doesn't it do anything to help convince someone else? lol A good troll is essentially like a teacher who gives his students a riddle and then says, 'I don't know the solution to it'. And because he claims to not know the solution, students become determined and engage in this activity of discrediting their teacher. Those who can, win in the eye of the teacher. Those who cannot, get taught by the teacher. Those who get frustrated and don't do anything about the problem at hand only get insulted. At the end of the class when nearly everyone has figured out the problem, they all laugh collectively at the teacher. And then the teacher says, 'I knew the solution all along -- I was just testing you'. Then only the teacher laughs. That's the entire process of trolling by my definition. |
TranceJul 3, 2016 2:18 PM
| @Trolls_Bane - You still seem to be arguing from several unqualified assumptions. No criticisms have been levied at OP or the original post except that: 1. OP is a troll AND 2. OP engaged in self-flattery. Without any additional argumentation, both of those are pretty meaningless. Considering criticism 1. -> You've both made criticisms of trolls in general. So I'm assuming the argument is something like: "All trolls(1) are X. OP is a troll(2). Therefore, OP is X" But I think it's very problematic to operate under an unqualified, universal syllogism (All trolls(1) are X) when one of the primary points made in the original post is to re-establish the definition of a troll (i.e. - "troll(1) =/= troll(2)"). Further, we can accept without qualification that there are many different ways in which trolling can be executed. So, no one has yet made any arguments against a) the specific kind of trolling extolled by OP in this thread OR b) previous, specific examples of OP's trolling. So criticism #1 above, remains completely unqualified as of now. Meaning that no negative attributes have specifically assigned to OP or his original post. Considering criticism 2. -> I don't think anyone is arguing with the assertion that OP was self-flattering. What it surprising is that you think it constitutes a valid criticism. As you are defining it, arguing the virtues of your own belief system is self-flattery. Fine, but then we are all guilty of it. Also, the whole notion that we should all be surprised that OP is a troll is kind of ridiculous considering his whole first post was all about the virtues of being a troll. Finally, as I've said several times now, and is logically true: the fact that it was self-flattering has no bearing on the validity or lack thereof of the idea presented. Thus it remains that saying OP was self-flattering is only a statement of fact and not an actual criticism, since no negative properties have been established in this context. katsucats said: Perhaps, but I'm afraid that I only have this context to work with. And in this context:NeoVolt said: Either you've made a faulty conclusion about me being a trollGoing by my former definition, and in line with the generally accepted definition, in the context of this thread, katsucats is the "troll." NeoVolt said: Whatever you call it, these represent (especially the last one) a lack of intellectual integrity. And as far as contributions, all you've really done is confirm OP is a self-proclaimed troll, which seems redundant. And if we don't accept semantic bias (which we shouldn't in this case) it remains irrelevant.-He hasn't contributed anything of value to the topic at hand -He targeted a specific user with personal objections -He's not engaging in rational discourse. And -He even went so far as to jab at a previous relationship (in an attempt to manipulate @xEmptiness's emotions). |
NeoVoltJul 3, 2016 3:00 PM
| @katsucats Your problem is the same as Daconator's. Your utter inability to see things as they are in the moment gives birth to this obstinate tendency of extending invisible lines in the air to contrive narratives, explanations of what someone's behavior could possibly mean in the context of what he/she was two years ago. In all my recent discussions with you, I have observed only a debilitating attitude which is definitely a product of what you think I am rather than who I am. Your reliance on first impressions leads you to erroneously assume that anything of substance that the once-stupid guy says is either parroting someone else's words, or an attempt to be someone else, or simply a product of an intellectual accident. As if it is a matter of course that an author who uses pseudonyms will always produce inferior works to those authors who use their real name; or that the acting freak who comes to you in different dresses, in a different persona, each time is mentally unstable and intellectually incoherent just because he is different (or acting to be). If you find me to be a tougher opponent on each encounter, then I cannot blame you for this insecurity; for that is a perfectly valid reason to fear an opponent. But the way you express this fear makes you look more pathetic than careful. And if you think that you can learn more from a discussion by not taking part in it then I'll have to point out the irony in your own words: that only shows us that discussions to you are mere shit-flinging; instances of enraged emotions which can only be objectively analyzed if you are a bystander. That only shows that in your discussions, instead of objectively analyzing the opponent's arguments, you were driven by your emotions to respond quickly and shrekt the guy. No one can learn any more from watching than he can from actually taking part. Unless of course you don't know how to take part. |
NeoVolt said: All these arbitrary claims of qualification or lack of seems to be your bread and butter. Qualification is in the claims, and you're not an arbiter. If a person states X because Y, then Y is the qualification of X. You don't get to decide whether something is unqualified, or whether we can all accept that something is unqualified. The only unqualified statement here is your accusation of being unqualified.But I think it's very problematic to operate under an unqualified, universal syllogism (All trolls(1) are X) when one of the primary points made in the original post is to re-establish the definition of a troll (i.e. - "troll(1) =/= troll(2)"). Further, we can accept without qualification that there are many different ways in which trolling can be executed. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
NeoVolt said: If you accept the OP, either I'm the paragon of intellectual integrity or I'm not a troll. Furthermore, if you wish to debate the OP, then it's clear this choice cannot be already decided upon. You cannot take two contradictory positions, that I'm not open minded and intellectually above you, who is presumably not a troll, yet give credence to the OP.katsucats said: Perhaps, but I'm afraid that I only have this context to work with. And in this context:Either you've made a faulty conclusion about me being a troll NeoVolt said: Whatever you call it, these represent (especially the last one) a lack of intellectual integrity. And as far as contributions, all you've really done is confirm OP is a self-proclaimed troll, which seems redundant. And if we don't accept semantic bias (which we shouldn't in this case) it remains irrelevant.-He hasn't contributed anything of value to the topic at hand -He targeted a specific user with personal objections -He's not engaging in rational discourse. And -He even went so far as to jab at a previous relationship (in an attempt to manipulate @xEmptiness's emotions). I hazard to say that I've spoken more about the claims in the thread than your entire quote-respond exchanges, because you're intoxicated by extraneous words without expressing much. It's a shame you pretend to need me to expound on everything or reject my claims outright. The truth is one doesn't need to waste his time breaking down unstructured arguments into logical syllogisms if there's apparent problems to begin with. It's like you're searching for a tree in a burnt down forest, and you want everyone to indulge you. P.S. As for Trance, I don't see why I should spend more than a sentence responding to 2 paragraphs saying absolutely nothing, so here's my response: "Fap fap fap..." |
katsucatsJul 3, 2016 3:53 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| P.P.S Before anyone misses the point, let's be very clear that we all recognize what's going on here. Look at the structure of my previous post. Paragraph 1. An argument. In fact, a reiteration of my previous post. No exchange of ideas was necessary in order for me to point out a basic contradiction. Paragraph 2. Personal judgments, no arguments made. You know, just so we don't conflate the two or miss it altogether. It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: You're right that I don't get to arbitrarily decide. That's why I made reasonable arguments which you've conveniently ignored.All these arbitrary claims of qualification or lack of seems to be your bread and butter. Qualification is in the claims, and you're not an arbiter. If a person states X because Y, then Y is the qualification of X. You don't get to decide whether something is unqualified, or whether we can all accept that something is unqualified. The only unqualified statement here is your accusation of being unqualified. @xEmptiness - I'm losing interest because this guy isn't very creative. Same old schtick where they just ignore the same points several times over and repeatedly make the same invalid points themselves. But never fear! I'll just help them along. @katsucats - I've identified four reasonable objections we can make given the original post and the evidence you provided. Can you find them? If you can, then I'll recant any statements I've made calling you a troll or shitposter. I believe in you. We all have the capacity for reason. You can do it! |
NeoVolt said: The OP is not self-flattering if you accept its premise of high-mindedness. It is also questionable whether the OP is a troll given his own definition. It's like you can't decide which definition you want to use so you use both in contradictory circumstances. Perhaps, you're the indecisive type the OP was talking about: Also, the whole notion that we should all be surprised that OP is a troll is kind of ridiculous considering his whole first post was all about the virtues of being a troll. xEmptiness said: The general definition of open-mindedness is an asinine conflation of understanding and indecisiveness. (Although that is an absurd definition to begin with, for reasons too obvious to state. Giving this idea credence is like trying to make a tune out of random noise. If it pleases you to make this kind of a pursuit, then you're welcome, but I think this it exactly the wrong kind of intellectualism that led many Continentalists astray.) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: This is ironic, since my post you quoted never mentions the word troll. So what exactly are you arguing? I guess you didn't read my post, or my previous answer to Trolls_Bane for the point you are making. P.P.S Before anyone misses the point, let's be very clear that we all recognize what's going on here. Look at the structure of my previous post. Paragraph 1. An argument. In fact, a reiteration of my previous post. No exchange of ideas was necessary in order for me to point out a basic contradiction. Paragraph 2. Personal judgments, no arguments made. You know, just so we don't conflate the two or miss it altogether. It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. NeoVolt said: You actually made me laugh. Congrats.No semantics. Doesn't really matter what word we use. The four qualifiers I listed still apply. |
NeoVolt said: Your arguments of traits of a troll using your own conventional definition (ironically contradictory, probably, to the OP), is irrelevant to your accusation of unqualification (qualified to what? your definition?).katsucats said: You're right that I don't get to arbitrarily decide. That's why I made reasonable arguments which you've conveniently ignored. All these arbitrary claims of qualification or lack of seems to be your bread and butter. Qualification is in the claims, and you're not an arbiter. If a person states X because Y, then Y is the qualification of X. You don't get to decide whether something is unqualified, or whether we can all accept that something is unqualified. The only unqualified statement here is your accusation of being unqualified. NeoVolt said: I'm getting bored too. This inability of responding to a query without non-sequiturs, accusing people of being "unqualified", or referring to arguments you've made without specification is what happens when a pseudo-intellectual dons the mask. Actually, it's fair to say I pegged you for who you are the moment I read your first post.@xEmptiness - I'm losing interest because this guy isn't very creative. Same old schtick where they just ignore the same points several times over and repeatedly make the same invalid points themselves. But never fear! I'll just help them along. @katsucats - I've identified four reasonable objections we can make given the original post and the evidence you provided. Can you find them? If you can, then I'll recant any statements I've made calling you a troll or shitposter. I believe in you. We all have the capacity for reason. You can do it! You have several options: 1. Reiterate your 4 claims, then accept that I have risen above your hypocrisy in light of the OP. Although at this point your values of virtue would also be in question. 2. Retract your 4 claims, then accept that I have risen above your hypocrisy in light of the OP, since I am still a troll, but not by reason of your claims. 3. Retract your 4 claims, and accept that you were wrong, that I'm not a troll. 4. Reiterate your 4 claims, and reject the OP. This is so basic. Shall I draw for you a truth table? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I completely rescind my statement that you aren't interesting. This is some awesome and utterly absurd mental gymnastics. Your are simultaneously ignoring the substance of my points, misinterpreting the original post, invalidating Trolls_Bane arguments in support of you, AND contradicting your own evidence. I am speechless. Bravo, sir. Bravo.NeoVolt said: The OP is not self-flattering if you accept its premise of high-mindedness. It is also questionable whether the OP is a troll given his own definition. It's like you can't decide which definition you want to use so you use both in contradictory circumstances. Perhaps, you're the indecisive type the OP was talking about:Also, the whole notion that we should all be surprised that OP is a troll is kind of ridiculous considering his whole first post was all about the virtues of being a troll. |
NeoVolt said: 4 qualifiers for what? Me not being a troll? Congratulations for making your own argument irrelevant. You're like a coward who can't be pinned down to the words he speaks. Your argument is a semantic shift fallacy.katsucats said: This is ironic, since my post you quoted never mentions the word troll. So what exactly are you arguing? I guess you didn't read my post, or my previous answer to Trolls_Bane for the point you are making. P.P.S Before anyone misses the point, let's be very clear that we all recognize what's going on here. Look at the structure of my previous post. Paragraph 1. An argument. In fact, a reiteration of my previous post. No exchange of ideas was necessary in order for me to point out a basic contradiction. Paragraph 2. Personal judgments, no arguments made. You know, just so we don't conflate the two or miss it altogether. It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. NeoVolt said: You actually made me laugh. Congrats.No semantics. Doesn't really matter what word we use. The four qualifiers I listed still apply. 1. He's a troll, defined by X1, X2, X3, X4. 2. Troll is just a label, however he is still X1, X2, X3, X4. 3. Since troll is just a label, we can get rid of this word. 4. Therefore (???) I am not accusing him of a troll but merely X1, X2, X3, X4. ??? 5. X1, X2, X3, X4 is not a troll. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
NeoVolt said: Typical for someone who has run out of things to say and has to resort to ridicule. I'm sad to say that this is below Trance. Perhaps I should've given him 3 sentences, and you 2. :/katsucats said: I completely rescind my statement that you aren't interesting. This is some awesome and utterly absurd mental gymnastics. Your are simultaneously ignoring the substance of my points, misinterpreting the original post, invalidating Trolls_Bane arguments in support of you, AND contradicting your own evidence. I am speechless. Bravo, sir. Bravo.The OP is not self-flattering if you accept its premise of high-mindedness. It is also questionable whether the OP is a troll given his own definition. It's like you can't decide which definition you want to use so you use both in contradictory circumstances. Perhaps, you're the indecisive type the OP was talking about: |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: xEmptiness said: The general definition of open-mindedness is an asinine conflation of understanding and indecisiveness. (Although that is an absurd definition to begin with, for reasons too obvious to state. Giving this idea credence is like trying to make a tune out of random noise. If it pleases you to make this kind of a pursuit, then you're welcome, but I think this it exactly the wrong kind of intellectualism that led many Continentalists astray.) And that is the definition I'm rejecting. katsucats said: It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. |
xEmptiness said: No shit, Sherlock.katsucats said: And that is the definition I'm rejecting.(Although that is an absurd definition to begin with, for reasons too obvious to state. Giving this idea credence is like trying to make a tune out of random noise. If it pleases you to make this kind of a pursuit, then you're welcome, but I think this it exactly the wrong kind of intellectualism that led many Continentalists astray.) This is still true. katsucats said: It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. For clarification: That is not, and cannot be construed as, in any reasonable manner, as the general definition of open-mindedness. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: xEmptiness said: No shit, Sherlock.And that is the definition I'm rejecting. This is still true. katsucats said: It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. You're making an argument against something I was making an argument against? Thank you for supporting me. |
katsucats said: No. my interest is re-piqued. You've made it fun again. Gimme a sec And I'll respond.NeoVolt said: Typical for someone who has run out of things to say and has to resort to ridicule. I'm sad to say that this is below Trance. Perhaps I should've given him 3 sentences, and you 2. :/I completely rescind my statement that you aren't interesting. This is some awesome and utterly absurd mental gymnastics. Your are simultaneously ignoring the substance of my points, misinterpreting the original post, invalidating Trolls_Bane arguments in support of you, AND contradicting your own evidence. I am speechless. Bravo, sir. Bravo. |
xEmptiness said: No, I'm making an argument against your premise and faulty contrivance of a definition. And now I'm making the conclusion that you definitely can't read.You're making an argument against something I was making an argument against? Thank you for supporting me. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: xEmptiness said: No, I'm making an argument against your premise and faulty contrivance of a definition. And now I'm making the conclusion that you definitely can't read.You're making an argument against something I was making an argument against? Thank you for supporting me. And that proves...what? I debunked that definition which didn't exist (I called it the 'general definition' -- should have said 'as it is commonly understood'); therefore, I debunked nothing. Then I gave another definition which wasn't based on the prior debunking. What do you get out of pointing out that I debunked nothing? Because the argument I later made was independent of what I debunked earlier (call the earlier part 'rhetoric'). |
xEmptiness said: I wasn't even talking to you. Go away. Attention whore,.katsucats said: And that proves...what?No, I'm making an argument against your premise and faulty contrivance of a definition. And now I'm making the conclusion that you definitely can't read. I debunked that definition which didn't exist (I called it the 'general definition' -- should have said 'as it is commonly understood'); therefore, I debunked nothing. Then I gave another definition which wasn't based on the prior debunking. What do you get out of pointing out that I debunked nothing? Because the argument I later made was independent of what I debunked earlier (call the earlier part 'rhetoric'). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @katsucats It's okay. I will always call you senpai and keep loving you regardless. If you want it, I can even change my avatar back to Bernkastel again so you can have the satisfaction of seeing Bern bowing down to you. |
| First this one: katsucats said: Negative qualities.4 qualifiers for what? Me not being a troll? Congratulations for making your own argument irrelevant. You're like a coward who can't be pinned down to the words he speaks. Your argument is a semantic shift fallacy. 1. Semantic shift requires changing the meaning you are using for a specific word that has multiple meanings. In this case I have established 4 negative qualities as the meaning of the word "troll." I have said the word is irrelevant, not the meaning. And since my meaning has been clear (X1, X2, X3, X4) which you've so kindly pointed out. You appear to be guilty of equivocation by tying it to the word "troll" in an attempt to argue that I haven't been clear (while simultaneously acknowledging that X1, X2, X3, and X4 has been consistent). 2. As I've said (and argued here), you and Trolls_Bane haven't effectively applied any negative qualities to OP or the original post. While we had seen that you had (X1, X2, X3, X4): NeoVolt said: So we can say that my point was just a simple, relative comparison in the context of this thread between you and OP. Negative Qualities, you=4, OP =0. Though given you're recent posts I may be inclined to reduce that number. But I'm not sure that unintentional contribution counts.-He hasn't contributed anything of value to the topic at hand -He targeted a specific user with personal objections -He's not engaging in rational discourse. And -He even went so far as to jab at a previous relationship (in an attempt to manipulate @xEmptiness's emotions). |
NeoVolt said: First this one: katsucats said: Negative qualities.4 qualifiers for what? Me not being a troll? Congratulations for making your own argument irrelevant. You're like a coward who can't be pinned down to the words he speaks. Your argument is a semantic shift fallacy. 1. Semantic shift requires changing the meaning you are using for a specific word that has multiple meanings. In this case I have established 4 negative qualities as the meaning of the word "troll." I have said the word is irrelevant, not the meaning. And since my meaning has been clear (X1, X2, X3, X4) which you've so kindly pointed out. NeoVolt said: Did you answer your own question then?This is ironic, since my post you quoted never mentions the word troll. So what exactly are you arguing? NeoVolt said: A definition is by definition an equivocation. You defined troll as T1 = {X1, X2, X3, X4}. The internal consistency of T1 hasn't been in question. The external consistency between T1 and T2 = {OP} is questionable. You seem to want to acknowledge both T1 and T2 at the same time while refusing take the consequences that I've pointed you on. Now that you know, by your own admission, what I'm arguing, why don't you start by giving a proper response.You appear to be guilty of equivocation by tying it to the word "troll" in an attempt to argue that I haven't been clear (while simultaneously acknowledging that X1, X2, X3, and X4 has been consistent). NeoVolt said: You are free to apply any negative qualities according whatever value system you hold. It's quite silly to expect us to jump through your hoops when its relation to the topic is questionable. 2. As I've said (and argued here), you and Trolls_Bane haven't effectively applied any negative qualities to OP or the original post. While we had seen that you had (X1, X2, X3, X4): NeoVolt said: So we can say that my point was just a simple, relative comparison in the context of this thread between you and OP. Negative Qualities, you=4, OP =0. Though given you're recent posts I may be inclined to reduce that number. But I'm not sure that unintentional contribution counts.-He hasn't contributed anything of value to the topic at hand -He targeted a specific user with personal objections -He's not engaging in rational discourse. And -He even went so far as to jab at a previous relationship (in an attempt to manipulate @xEmptiness's emotions). If you want to pedantically argue over the categorization of the OP, then you have fun with that exercise. However, while you do that, in interest of "intellectual integrity", you might want to consider some of my criticisms of yourself, especially with regards to your rampant self-contradiction. Note that if we already presume the definition of troll to be T2, then the content of the OP is moot whether OP is a troll or not. I consider this matter settled. If T2 cannot be presumed, then your entire argument is wasted breath. Edit: If both T1 and T2 is presumed, then we are essentially saying that your 4 negative attributes are actually necessary complements to the positive attributes specified in T2, or that they aren't actually negative attributes at all, but positive attributes in disguise. In either case, I would call into question your judgment, and walk away, since you would seem to have boxed yourself into absurdity. For the sake of completion, if neither T1 nor T2 are assumed, then this entire discussion is moot. This is the 3rd time I have reiterated these choices, and I will likely not do so again. |
katsucatsJul 3, 2016 5:15 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Congratulations @xEmptiness. Pretty nice shitstorm you've got here. You must be satisfied. |
Ozul said: Congratulations @xEmptiness. Pretty nice shitstorm you've got here. You must be satisfied. More than satisfied, actually. But I gotta go to sleep. I expect to see some more drama when I'm back. |
Pop quiz NeoVolt. I want you to fill out this table, under consequences, so we know we're on the same page. If one doesn't accept the consequences of his position, then he has no position to begin with. Perhaps the only way to bite the bullet gracefully that I see is to accept that OP is content-wise weak, but acknowledge that you have some unusual way of interpreting the OP to make meaning out of no meaning intended. Also, you should read this scientific article and report back what relevance you think of it with regards to trolling, and your narrow view of it: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf Hint: Are computer-generated quotes really profound? Can a man intentionally speak things that mean less than an unintentional computer, unusual interpretations of the subject notwithstanding? Depending on your answer, I may not be able to help you. :/ Here's a summary of the positions in questions (agree? disagree?):  Cheat sheet: |
katsucatsJul 3, 2016 6:03 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
xEmptiness said: No. It's because of the general stupidity of people. It's not so much about IQ but rather the mindsets people have. The only thing wrong here is 'culture' which we have adopted from God knows who. It isn't Islamic, that's for sure. If I could name it, I'd say it is the culture of stupidity. Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that IQ is heritable, and the Islamic world has practiced cousin marriages for centuries? |
| @katsucats - I see that you're just operating under a misunderstanding. You seem to be assuming that T1 and T2 are mutually exclusive or meant to be equivalent. Since you said: katsucats said: I had assumed you read the previous posts of this thread. At some point in a discussion with OP, I established that we needed clarification on the use of the word "troll." So OP clarified that he was representing an "ideal troll." Later, I made distinctions between the "ideal troll" and "traditional troll" or shitposter or my former definition of the word. Either way we can represent the two distinct concepts via their respective, defining traits.It's hard to take seriously people who don't read. T1 (Ideal Troll, OP) = Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4, Z1 T2 (Traditional troll, shitposter, You, etc...) = X1, X2, X3, X4, Z1 Where Z1 = The intent to elicit an emotional response. My argument never relied on any specific label being applied to T1 or T2. That should've been apparent. I was never trying to define the word troll, just establish some concepts that we could label whatever we wanted. Since arguing over a definition would just be a waste of time..... So I suppose, in your table above I would go with T, T. Though any contradiction is easily resolve simply by saying: T1 =/= T2 Which I intended all along. This collapses mosts of your arguments. Though I acknowledge that it wasn’t a flaw in your reasoning, just a misunderstanding of what I intended. Though what I was saying really should have been apparent if you had read everything carefully. If we accept T1 as the proper definition of "troll", then I would just need to use a different term to describe the negative traits (for the moment, we'll say I mean simply my opinion) you were displaying. Which I did the very first time I listed them ("shitposter"). If we accept T2 as the proper definition of "troll", then we would just say that you are a troll, and OP's concept would require a differentiating label, like "Ideal Troll." Regarding my original reason for engaging in criticism of your posts, bringing up OP’s failed relationship was a petty (and unsuccessful) attempt to get a negative emotional response from OP. You seemed to accept the traditional definition of the word “troll” and “petty attempts to get negative emotional responses” is kind of the hallmark of the traditional troll. I found this ironic since you were calling OP a troll with an implied negative connotation. And I found it amusing that (knowing OP) he may have trolled you right into this irony. But anyway, alas, I am out of time. Have to take the kids to fireworks. It has been fun. |
NeoVolt said: That collapsed absolutely nothing. If I thought T1 == T2, I wouldn't have listed them under 2 columns. However, if T1 does not represent what is commonly understood as a "troll", then all the OP suggests is there exists X (which he misappropriates to a "troll") that has so and so properties, which is a non-statement. There exists X under the whole set of possible X's in which any so and so property is true. In this case, calling it an "ideal troll" is just an attempt to fool others or oneself into believing there's some resemblance. It is a semantic fallacy.Though any contradiction is easily resolve simply by saying: T1 =/= T2 Which I intended all along. This collapses mosts of your arguments. NeoVolt said: I illuminated his true nature for all the non-pedants in Casual Discussions. What his reaction is or yours is irrelevant. Most of us with common sense understand that while the character does not validate the claim, the character allows us to determine (by induction) who to engage. Since I doubt you give the same attention to a homeless schizophrenic speaking about medicine as a doctor, I can also regard all pedants as hypocrites.Regarding my original reason for engaging in criticism of your posts, bringing up OP’s failed relationship was a petty (and unsuccessful) attempt to get a negative emotional response from OP. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @Neo_Volt No criticisms have been levied at OP or the original post except that: 1. OP is a troll AND 2. OP engaged in self-flattery. from #96 "But it is fine, what you said still stands and the trolling can be a sign of open-mindedness if they are able to sympathize completely with what someone else is saying so much that they can emulate it and argue like it's their own but it doesn't denote the fact that it is also an asshole move that doesn't do anything to help anyone in their pursuit of convincing another person and can be a sign of a person's intellectual dishonesty." xEmptiness said: Putting your words in bold will not increase their weight. Why doesn't it do anything to help convince someone else? lol This was what I said before. You asked for the reason, I already said it so I bolded this. A good troll is essentially like a teacher who gives his students a riddle and then says, 'I don't know the solution to it'. And because he claims to not know the solution, students become determined and engage in this activity of discrediting their teacher. Those who can, win in the eye of the teacher. Those who cannot, get taught by the teacher. Those who get frustrated and don't do anything about the problem at hand only get insulted. At the end of the class when nearly everyone has figured out the problem, they all laugh collectively at the teacher. And then the teacher says, 'I knew the solution all along -- I was just testing you'. Then only the teacher laughs. The entire concept of trolling is to get someone riled up with whatever tactics at their disposal and this example you are giving is absurd. There is no teaching going on, you are trolling a person and intentionally getting him riled up and with fake position while having no intention to convince him of anything, this sours the person's intent to engage in another meaningful discourse with that person of another side again. That's the entire process of trolling by my definition. And that doesn't work as you envisioned. |
katsucats said: Well, I meant it collapses your arguments against my reasoning against your reasoning? Meaning that the only contradiction of my use of the "troll" concept in regards to your posts was a perceived semantic one that we've now cleared up. NeoVolt said: That collapsed absolutely nothing. If I thought T1 == T2, I wouldn't have listed them under 2 columns. However, if T1 does not represent what is commonly understood as a "troll", then all the OP suggests is there exists X (which he misappropriates to a "troll") that has so and so properties, which is a non-statement. There exists X under the whole set of possible X's in which any so and so property is true. In this case, calling it an "ideal troll" is just an attempt to fool others or oneself into believing there's some resemblance. It is a semantic fallacy.Though any contradiction is easily resolve simply by saying: T1 =/= T2 Which I intended all along. This collapses mosts of your arguments. In regards to the concept presented in the OP. I've already concluded that discussing its merits or lack thereof with you would be fruitless, because you're either too biased or not smart enough to be able to consider the nuance of the subject. katsucats said: LOL. Wow. You did it again. Well done sir. Let's break it down.Most of us with common sense understand that while the character does not validate the claim, the character allows us to determine (by induction) who to engage. Since I doubt you give the same attention to a homeless schizophrenic speaking about medicine as a doctor, I can also regard all pedants as hypocrites. "Most of us with common sense understand that while the character does not validate the claim, the character allows us to determine (by induction) who to engage." -This is so clearly circular. What does the character tell us that means we shouldn't engage? That we can assume their claims will be invalid? That's the same thing! xD Unless we've evaluated their previous claims and come to the conclusion (via a proper use of induction) that we can assume the claims will be invalid. In which case we haven't considered character at all. "Since I doubt you give the same attention to a homeless schizophrenic speaking about medicine as a doctor," -Your avoiding ad hominem via a false analogy, since you are speaking here about whether attention is warranted and not whether the individuals statements are valid. Now, I would agree, that if one wants reliable medical advice, a homeless schizophrenic is probably not the best place to start. However, the false analogy extends in that there is no claim being made by the homeless schizophrenic. As soon as he makes a claim, we are better off evaluating the claim than the character. For example, if a homeless schizophrenic yells "Acetominophen reduces fever!" The claim is true despite the character of the speaker. There's a reason why ad hominem is a fallacy. So if you are arguing that people shouldn't waste their time reading the original post, then you might have a leg to stand on. However, since OP has made a claim, and we can reasonably evaluate it, implying that we can read it but shouldn't engage because of character remains a completely irrelevant (read: fallacious) criticism of the concept being presented. "I can also regard all pedants as hypocrites." -And you end it with a complete non sequitur. I'm surprised you can type that with a straight face. Or maybe your face isn't straight? Either way, I just wanted to point out to the kids that this is not a valid argument. Sooo, not valid. All consideration of OP and his concept aside, you're pretty bad at this. Maybe if you were better, you'd find you have less conflict with OP? Certainly less with me. Anyway, it's late. Your welcome to the last word. Make it good. |
Trolls_Bane said: Ah crap! You're right. That's a reasonable objection if a little unclear in how it applies to the original post. I'm sorry I missed that. I've considered on my own problems with the "ideal troll" like the fact that they still engage in emotional manipulation. I've gone on to resolve these problems. Unfortunately it's like 2 in the morning here and I've got kids who'll be up in 4 hours. @Neo_Volt No criticisms have been levied at OP or the original post except that: 1. OP is a troll AND 2. OP engaged in self-flattery. from #96 "But it is fine, what you said still stands and the trolling can be a sign of open-mindedness if they are able to sympathize completely with what someone else is saying so much that they can emulate it and argue like it's their own but it doesn't denote the fact that it is also an asshole move that doesn't do anything to help anyone in their pursuit of convincing another person and can be a sign of a person's intellectual dishonesty." Can you expand on what you mean and how it applies to OP's original concept? I'll try and jump on tomorrow and respond. |
Trolls_Bane said: The entire concept of trolling is to get someone riled up with whatever tactics at their disposal and this example you are giving is absurd. There is no teaching going on, you are trolling a person and intentionally getting him riled up and with fake position while having no intention to convince him of anything, this sours the person's intent to engage in another meaningful discourse with that person of another side again. That's the entire process of trolling by my definition. And that doesn't work as you envisioned. And I'm changing that concept. I'm destroying that narrow-minded vision of trolling (which assumes some outrageous stuff) and replacing it with another model. Learn to read. |
| Anyway, these will be my closing statements. This thread has led me to some pretty profound conclusions. So whatever OP's intent I've gained value. I think that the conflict with trolls, as xEmptiness describes them, is a completely unnecessary one. Also, to clarify my intent, my only real criticism of katsucats has nothing to do with his reasoning directly, but that he is allowing his personal bias to disrupt his ability to reason properly. Meaning that I don't think his reasoning is broken because he simply can't reason. I think his reasoning is broken because of personal bias. Also, I am sorry I missed Trolls_Bane criticism regarding the fact that even an "ideal troll" will make choices to manipulate, rather than convince, in conversation given their primary objective is emotional manipulation. However we can answer this objection if we consider the nature of emotional manipulation in the context of cultural evolution. I'm not going to get into all the components here, but a summary: -The troll is an expected result of natural selection acting on culture in the wake of the rejection of the Victorian moral set and in the context of the internet as a medium for human interaction. -The troll is a negative result of a problem with human culture. But the troll acts as a negative reinforcement of natural selection as it applies to cultural evolution. Meaning: the fact that so many people get "butthurt" interacting with total strangers is telling, because, we all operate under this totally odd, unspoken assumption that complete strangers should give a shit about what we feel. I am not saying that we shouldn't value each other. I'm saying that we are valuing each other wrong. Everyone has the capacity for reason. This should be the universal highest relative value of the human race. So instead of this unspoken assumption that people should care about our feelings. There should be an unspoken assumption and universally accepted expectation that we all engage each others ideas without bias. So getting butthurt is a culturally induced weakness. Let's be clear, trolls are still bad, but they offer a functional benefit in regard to cultural evolution by selecting against the capacity to be butthurt. So we could say that establishing a net gain from a shitposter would be difficult. However, the concept of the ideal troll, offers an opportunity to establish a more efficient selection, that can both negatively select against the capacity for butthurt and simultaneously select for the capacity for reason. And whether OP intended it or not, this is significant because we can use the concept in exploring the unfitness of human culture, social quality vs. intellectual quality, the value of the individual, objective morality, etc.... |
NeoVoltJul 4, 2016 6:55 AM
xEmptiness said: Trolls_Bane said: The entire concept of trolling is to get someone riled up with whatever tactics at their disposal and this example you are giving is absurd. There is no teaching going on; you are trolling a person and intentionally getting him riled up and with fake position while having no intention to convince him of anything, this sours the person's intent to engage in another meaningful discourse with that person of another side again. And that doesn't work as you envisioned. And I'm changing that concept. I'm destroying that narrow-minded vision of trolling (which assumes some outrageous stuff) and replacing it with another model. Learn to read. What? What did you replace it with? You defined trolling to be high-minded because it allows one to be open-minded about ideas and not be bind to it but you didn't said anything about how it still involves rileing people up intentionally. How the emulation of the position not being complete enough because you don't fully subscribe to it, therefore, making you vulnerable to actual rebuttals against that position and just leaving you open to simply mocking the other party for your amusement which is literally what a troll does. These all are issues you have yet addressed regarding this trolling equating to high-mindedness when it is already commonly known to be that. So again, no. You have not destroyed the narrow vision of trolling. Trolling in its essence is to rile a person up for their own amusement. You have not mentioned a part of the provoking a person for their amusement, an essential part of what trolling does in your opening statement. The only way your definition would work is if it just shifts from trolling and to simply being open minded by just sympathizing with other people's position and attempting to argue for them, therefore, gaining humanity of why they feel the way they do and hold those positions. @NeoVolt I am going to ask you to read my reply towards OP's definition of what a troll means and how it's already unnecessary to even hold his definition to the infamous label other than to self-congratulate. Also, I am not quite sure of your comparison with the rejection of Victorian values when there are so many other values in the world. Trolls exist because the internet is anon and people can say whatever they want without the fear of consequences or being ridiculed reputation-wise, it is just fun to see someone suffer for what they did. There is also the point of how a person cannot fully argue for the point they are currently emulating because they do not personally hold that position. Believe it or not, if someone gives a rebuttal to a point which looks like it has defeated your argument (it hasn't) but if you are passive at that moment, you will not passionately look for a rebuttal to his. This will, therefore, affect how a person thinks of the position he currently hold/faking and whether it indefinitely invalidate it all together, because if this idea is presented to another person who actually passionately hold that position, they might find another rebuttal. |
Trolls_Bane said: Trolling in its essence is to rile a person up for their own amusement. Then it's a flawed concept. Because no particular expression to it has been given and on top of that it requires you to know the 'intention' of the other person -- which is humanly impossible. You keep bringing up this definition of trolling which I'm destroying here. Are you an idiot? Trolling is not an act, it's an art. The fact that we have notions such as 'good troll' or 'bad troll' point us to trolling being a skill, an art. And art can never be inherently bad. Murder, which is an act, is inherently bad; we don't say about murder that such was a good murder or a bad one. It's just bad no matter what. Trolling, on the other hand, is not inherently bad because if it were, we wouldn't have ideas of 'good troll' or 'bad troll'. You may say: We call an obvious troll a 'bad one'. Doesn't that just again point us to the fact that trolling is, in essence, a skill? So, here's what trolling is: Deception to achieve a certain end. By that definition, lawyers, spies, detectives, psychiatrists, are all trolls. And it doesn't matter if they are because trolling, by this definition, is amoral and only its purpose (which is the 'certain end' it achieves) makes it moral. We don't say 'art is bad'; when we talk about good or bad in art, we talk about what this art achieved or if it even matches the 'standard' of art. Likewise is the case of trolling. Intention is irrelevant. There can be any intention behind trolling. How is trolling high-minded though? Take the above definition of trolling and apply it to the context of discussions. Any troll, then, is high-minded. Of course there are degrees of skill. Trolling in context of arguments may be done simply to enrage people, or it may be done to teach people, or the intention behind it might be a conflation of both. Trolling is a skill; I can use troll tactics to achieve any type of end. |
| @xEmptiness You tested my patient with your idiocy and halfwittery enough. It has done a great job to cross the fucking line. Here is why your logic is just downright retarded, the benefit of the doubt is gone, your mind contains no essence of notable substances than perhaps thick pretentious fuming shit yet you manage to present it with such audacity. This is either masterful trolling or pure fuckwittery, the reason why is made abundantly clear by this fuckwitted analogy and opening statement. Then it's a flawed concept. Because no particular expression to it has been given and on top of that it requires you to know the 'intention' of the other person -- which is humanly impossible. You keep bringing up this definition of trolling which I'm destroying here. Are you an idiot? It's the definition. THE FUCKING DEFINITION. You are NOT destroying shit BECAUSE THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHY PEOPLE TROLL AND THAT ITSELF IS THE MEANING THAT CONSISTS OF WHAT TROLLING MEAN YOU INANE TWAT, NO, IT'S NOT A FUCKING ACTION, THE WORD ITSELF IS CONNECTED INTENT->TO TROLL-> PISS PEOPLE OFF-> ACTION By that definition, lawyers, spies, detectives, psychiatrists, are all trolls. And it doesn't matter if they are because trolling, by this definition, is amoral and only its purpose (which is the 'certain end' it achieves) makes it moral. We don't say 'art is bad'; when we talk about good or bad in art, we talk about what this art achieved or if it even matches the 'standard' of art. Likewise is the case of trolling. Intention is irrelevant. There can be any intention behind trolling. This self absorbed shit analogy has completely fucking ignored the fact that THIS word only applies to THIS FUCKING WORD in THIS CONTEXT and with this INTENT to RILE PEOPLE UP FOR THEIR AMUSEMENTS. How the fuck does lawyers and psychologist even come into the play when the CONTEXT IS SET FOR THOSE OCCUPATIONS. What the fuck you said is already completely fucking ignoring aspects like if murder is bad with it's arrogant fuckwitted assumptions and just so up it's ass in it's understandability. Do you have any fucking idea what LITERAL means? It's defined as the WORD FOR WORD clear cut definition of what the fuck the word means which you are constantly trying to fucking deny that and applying your own unnecessary and irrelevant shit to the ALREADY DEFINED WORD, THE VERY FUCKING LITERAL DEFINITION OF THAT WORD HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE LITERALLY "is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." Any fucking addition of you to the so called concept is you being a pretentious halfwit that doesn't understand how DEFINITION and WORDS work. Adding more to the fucking fact that you failure to address how trolling doesn't fucking work to make people understand shit and this is one more of the fucking shit you consistently failed to fucking get, the act in which you are trying to teach someone something can be an entire concept altogether and doesn't need the addition of this nefarious word, you self flattering halfwitted twat. |
| @Trolls_Bane I'm not even trying to elicit an emotional response here but look! here it is! See how your definition of trolling fails?? |
xEmptiness said: @Trolls_Bane I'm not even trying to elicit an emotional response here but look! here it is! See how your definition of trolling fails?? WHAT THE FUCK. It means what you said was stupid and the fact you kept repeating it as if I don't fucking get it was what added the salt to the wound because IT IS YOU who don't get it. Troll is that fucking definition and if you want to do whatever the fuck you want to do with your open-mindedness, you can create an entirely new fucking concept without having to associate it with that shitty fucking word and pretend you have somehow fucking discovered a new fucking species. Teach people humanity of others by pretending to hold that fucking position to exercise empathy and open-mindedness is fucking good, I even fucking said it, the fucking thing that pisses me off is you fucking said it somehow has to be bind to that shitty word when that it is a connected definition, PISS PEOPLE OFF TO GET AMUSEMENT. |
| >Being passive and stoic is the best. Not everyone have to die at the end of a discussion. Are you considering Suicide after this? because you really should lmao |
xEmptiness said: >Being passive and stoic is the best. Not everyone have to die at the end of a discussion. Are you considering Suicide after this? because you really should lmao How the fuck have you not realized it is your fucking retardation that has pushed me to my limit? Do you see the @xEmptiness 's arrogant Retardation Meter: To how Pissed off I am? You don't? Now you fucking do. Consider fucking off until you find substances and kill your disgusting arrogance |
Trolls_BaneJul 5, 2016 6:32 AM
Trolls_Bane said: xEmptiness said: >Being passive and stoic is the best. Not everyone have to die at the end of a discussion. Are you considering Suicide after this? because you really should lmao How the fuck have you not realized it is your fucking retardation that has pushed me to my limit? Do you see the @xEmptiness 's arrogant Retardation Meter: To how Pissed off I am? You don't? Now you fucking do. Consider fucking off until you find substances and kill your disgusting arrogance Well, it's not my fault that your tolerance meter ends where it begins lol Consider seeing a therapist pls |
xEmptiness said: Trolls_Bane said: How the fuck have you not realized it is your fucking retardation that has pushed me to my limit? Do you see the @xEmptiness 's arrogant Retardation Meter: To how Pissed off I am? You don't? Now you fucking do. Consider fucking off until you find substances and kill your disgusting arrogance Well, it's not my fault that your tolerance meter ends where it begins lol Consider seeing a therapist pls Will me seeing a therapist revoked your arrogant retardation? No? It is your fault and if you would just stop being an arrogant halfwit, this problem would be non fucking existent. I have never gotten like this in discussions except when people do fucking shit like this, YOU are the fucking problem. fuck's sake |
Trolls_Bane said: xEmptiness said: Well, it's not my fault that your tolerance meter ends where it begins lol Consider seeing a therapist pls Will me seeing a therapist revoked your arrogant retardation? No? It is your fault and if you would just stop being an arrogant halfwit, this problem would be non fucking existent. I have never gotten like this in discussions except when people do fucking shit like this, YOU are the fucking problem. fuck's sake You were like this with Deserada too. Are you sure you don't need a therapy? |
xEmptiness said: Trolls_Bane said: Will me seeing a therapist revoked your arrogant retardation? No? It is your fault and if you would just stop being an arrogant halfwit, this problem would be non fucking existent. I have never gotten like this in discussions except when people do fucking shit like this, YOU are the fucking problem. fuck's sake You were like this with Deserada too. Are you sure you don't need a therapy? Link it. I only got pissed off after he dismissed the whole of my fucking argument and just went full retard, in fact I remember telling the point of why the fuck I got pissed, the points he fucking ignored. And you. Almost all the fucking time, with fucking evidence to support it, you were being the gratuitous and arrogant halfwit. So just stop trying to bring that up after whatever remains of your shit point has been torn down. |
Trolls_Bane said: Link it. I only got pissed off after he dismissed the whole of my fucking argument and just went full retard, in fact I remember telling the point of why the fuck I got pissed, the points he fucking ignored. And you. Almost all the fucking time, with fucking evidence to support it, you were being the gratuitous and arrogant halfwit. So just stop trying to bring that up after whatever remains of your shit point has been torn down. At this point you're just venting and not arguing. Present an actual argument or pls consider suicide because you're betraying your own code of conduct. |
xEmptiness said: Trolls_Bane said: Link it. I only got pissed off after he dismissed the whole of my fucking argument and just went full retard, in fact I remember telling the point of why the fuck I got pissed, the points he fucking ignored. And you. Almost all the fucking time, with fucking evidence to support it, you were being the gratuitous and arrogant halfwit. So just stop trying to bring that up after whatever remains of your shit point has been torn down. At this point you're just venting and not arguing. Present an actual argument or pls consider suicide because you're betraying your own code of conduct. holy shit you are actually this fucking stupid and with your head that up your fucking ass LOL. So you said I was like this with another user. I said why I wasn't, then further I said why you are stupid and how it got me angry. Explained that you are the anomaly. And wow even going by your idiotic line of reasoning because you sound so stupid it's funny now, your stupid ass expect people to kill themselves over betraying what they said in their signature? Are you actually that fuckwitted? |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
58 |
by H-A-M-M-Y
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - 9 hours ago |
13 |
by Spunkert
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» For everyone who has signed up to this site using Protonmail, and doesn't use that address for anything elsevasipi4946 - 11 hours ago |
3 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - 6 hours ago |
1 |
by KitsuFrost
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - Yesterday |
21 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
25 minutes ago |