Topic: The Fascists That Surround You - page 6. (Read 9685 times)

This is willful ignorance. I suggest you at least prove that I made a straw argument. Otherwise, I will have a reason to expose you as I had made with Rudd-O.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-we-stop-this-sort-of-idiocy-126403

That is why I made a special thread to expose Rudd-O:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rudd-o-the-hypocrite-125825

Whoah! That one was the biggest of them all! I think we need to crack a window or something, or we may suffocate.

Especially this part:
The whole post, just so much hot, stinky wind.

Please, quote the post where I claimed you were 'saying ... that fascism = sociopaths'. Failure to provide the quote with that claim will prove that you are intentionally distorting the subject with false allegation of a logical fallacy. If you think I had changed any previous post, I allow you to ask Theymos for the original post.


Who decide the 'roses' are the centerpiece?


It is quite difficult to understand stupid analogies, but is not impossible.


So why you are insisting that I made a straw man argument? The argument which you qualify as straw man is exactly what you are admitting above.


You affirmed that you explained your analogy in 'great details'. So why cannot you explain this interesting small detail:


Failure to answer the above question will prove that you did not explained anything in 'great details'.


There is consequences! The sociopaths are not able to control the ability to lie. Therefore, would be quite difficult to a sociopath become elected. Do you even understand that? Do you even understand that to elect a politician is necessary a long campaign of alliances, agreements, promises, debates, speech, etc.?




In accordance with your delusional assumption, the above characters had:



Of course I did not read the book! I will not read a whole book to satisfy your delusions. I asked for a diagnosis, not for a book. If the book contains the diagnosis, all you have to do is to quote the relevant parts and post here.


I would ask to see the diagnosis.


You can beg as much you wish, but I will not admit anything at all.

Man, it's starting to get stinky in here. Talk about gasbag.

Ah, the pleasantries of being ignored by gas bags. They have to admit to unignoring you to comment on the content of your post. Otherwise, we can discuss their stupidity amongst our peers without having to listen to their responses which inevitably contain circular logic and hypocrisy. Furthermore, the public can read our analysis of the ignorer's posts without having to deal with the ridiculousness of their retorts.

It's like being able to listen to a gang of thugs planning their next crime and comment on it without them being aware.

There it was again. This one sounded a little more moist... I think someone should check their pants.

As you said, you perceive me to be qualified to educate you on these matters. That may be so, but I simply don't desire to be the equivalent of a two semester teacher for you, especially when there are several books written by those with PhDs on the subject. And thank you for valuing my personal opinion. However, again, it would be better for both of us if you read the books I recommended.

Did you guys hear something? Sounded like a loud, protracted fart.

There's this Looney Toons cartoon. A little tiny dog keeps hovering around a big bull dog. He keeps saying "So what do you want to do today?" "You want to chase a cat?" "You want to chase a car?" The little dog hangs on, sucking up to the bigger dog. All I see you do is pat the other guys on the shoulder, sucking up, throwing out insults to the opposition in the cocoon of safety of your gang. You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact. I don't recall ever actually seeing any substance from you, ever. All I see from you is the behavior of an ass kisser, a suck up, and an intellectual wimp hanging out with others to inflate your own self importance.

By the way:

This is another thread littered with the emotional droppings of AugustoCreepo and FirstAsshat.

I highly suggest to everyone here to please add these assballs to your ignore list and ignore what they say.  They're empty-headed emotional wreckballs of hate.  The more attention you give them, the more they fulfill their goal: sabotaging discussion of ideas that terrify them.

He chickened out of explaining what he claimed would be so easy to do.  Typical FirstAsshat behavior.

His credibility isn't zero -- it's negative.

Well said.

I remember that part, yes.

That's precisely why this thread is so amusing.  Lotsa sociopaths showing their fangs around here.

I don't have a PhD. She does. He requested a diagnosis from a "qualified person." I am not such. She is. You, presumably, understand the subject you wish "educate" me on. That makes you qualified to explain it to me. I don't want scientific studies, I want your personal opinions on the matter. You know where you can stick them.

Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library.

Find the links and start reading.

Straw man.
Which you then attempted to defeat, in typical AugustoCrappo style, with dictionary definitions.

Where roses exist in gardens, they are the centerpiece.
Where sociopaths exist in governments, they are in the leadership positions.
I'm now strongly of the opinion that you are deficient in some way, and cannot understand analogies.

Of course they can be found in other political regimes! I never argued otherwise. Fascist governments, however, offer a ripe and tasty fruit for the sociopath to pluck.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

I ignored it because it was based on a false premise. A flawed understanding of my analogy. I continue to ignore it for the same reason, just as I ignore your attempt at diversion.

No, but they know that they enjoy exercising power over others, doing whatever they want, and avoiding consequences. Politics is a great way to achieve these ends, and their ability to lie convincingly, their "glibness and superficial charm," their manipulative nature, afford them a means to achieve political power. A sociopath makes a great political candidate. I notice you skipped the listing of diagnostic criteria... good choice, since I could provide specific examples of politicians displaying nearly every one of them.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

It was written by a Dr. of Psychology. The explanation and evidence is rarely to be found in an interview... but it is to be found in the book. Regardless, when a Dr. of Psychology says someone is a sociopath, that is a diagnosis. If your doctor told you you had cancer, would you call it an "assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence?"

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

Neither!

You are indeed intentionally try to stir up the discussion to disguise your confused definitions. There was no straw men. If you believe there was without even to explain how there was, you are indeed delusional.

At no moment I claimed or suggested that you were equaling fascism with sociopathy. I have been arguing that your analogy is beyond stupid and does not explain the hypothetical relationship of a political regime and a psychological disorder. You should read twice every time you answer, look at the dictionary, consult references, etc. This is all easily to be done with Internet available. For example, you could verify that:


The original argument, 'you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden'.

My version of your original argument: 'You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well.'

I argued exactly over your argument, without limit the meaning, hence the premise that your argument '...only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

That is exactly what you mean:


You agreed with my version of your original argument with a 'yes' to another user!


Wait... Do you read proof what you write? You wrote that 'Roses ... are the centerpiece', but now you are pretending that 'roses are the sociopaths' and then affirming that 'the political leaders are the centerpiece'. You are now implying that individuals with psychological disorder always become the central political leadership of any political regime.


So you agree that I am right, that 'garden' is the political structure:


Translating: 'As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find sociopaths in a political structure.'

This prove that my argument was valid and not a limited version of your original argument:

'It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'


Do you have learning issues? How many times I need to repeat that sociopaths are individuals with a psychological disorder, not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.


They care:


'...you're well on your way to having a...'


You are affirming that a group of individuals which does not really care will lead to a group of individuals which pretend to care. You are implying that a group of sociopaths leads to a group of fascists. That contradicts your own false premise: 'sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to', which means that first there is the group which pretends to care, and then comes the group which really do not care.

Moreover, you ignored a important part of my observation:


You seem to believe that sociopathy is some kind of skill, when in fact sociopathy is a  psychological disorder. Individuals diagnosed with sociopathy does not believe or understand they are afflicted by a psychological disorder. They cannot become aware of that knowledge to decide if politics is the best choice to them exercise sociopathy.


I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.


That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.