Originally posted by King CastleThey're not insults if they're true. I really do believe(Obased on what little I've seen) you're a sociopath.
i am surprised you havent been banned yet but not too late to rectify that with each directed insult at the poster.another cry baby is booster gold.. always whining and crying about wanting to be famous and rich
It's not meant to be insulting, its meant to be technically accurate, or at least as accurate as the data I have. If I wanted to insult you I'd call you an idiot.
But I can't do that if there is somethng genuinly wrong with you.
Originally posted by King Castle
i am surprised you havent been banned yet but not too late to rectify that with each directed insult at the poster.another cry baby is booster gold.. always whining and crying about wanting to be famous and rich
you're about two years out of date with that comment.
that ISN'T booster gold.
and no talking about who should or shouldn't be banned.
Originally posted by King Castle
either way peter deals with his traumatic issues less effectively then others who simply bury it and let it out in the appropriate time in the form of rage..petey cries, moans and releases it at the worst possible times at times.
rage is not healthy. that's a myth.
ask all the battered soldier's wives what they think of that little comment.
Originally posted by CreshoskQuite the contrary. I'm pointing out to you that her pain is real and according you that should be enough to warrant consideration, shouldn't it? The scale of the loss shouldn't matter.
So you're saying that Paris Hilton's pain is equivilent? Here I thought you were using it as a pathetic qattempt to discredit my arguments.
But it's NOT insignificant. You're effectively saying his pain is 0. 50 may not be 100 or 1000, but its certainly not 10 or less.
You're the one strawmanning me. I'm saying his pain pails in comparison. If a wife dying in one's arms is ten, his pain would be 0.05 and therefore comparativelly insignificant to an observer, not inexistent or absolutelly insignificant. If both things happened at the same time I wouldn't care as much for the one getting dumped. Indeed, I wouldn't care much for his loss at all, because it would be eclypsed by a much more important emotional demand and if he was crying about it while I witnessed another friend struggling with losing a wife, his pain would seem petty when contrasted to the other and telling him to suck it up would be fitting. Perspective.
I'm not talking about subjective standards here.
Well, you're using them to claim a guy getting dumped is a 50 and an ipod is a 5.
Except I'm not using a subjective standard to dismiss another person's feelings.When I say trivial, I mean less than 5. I unlike you am not saying it's 0.
How is this not subjective? Or maybe you dont think it's dismissive. Trivial sounds pretty dismissing to me.
I never said it was a 0, I always said it's comparativelly insignificant. If you wanna say getting dumped is a 50, losing a wife in one's arms would be a 50 million by comparison. And in light of this perspective getting dumped wouldn't be relevant by contrast.
If you'd so easily dismiss a significant pain How would I trust that you wouldn't do it to another significant pain given that a greater one can exist?That's all I know from you is this desire to trivialize significant pain by comparing it to disapointment.
And yet I clearly expressed simpathy for the big loss, which refutes pervasive disregard, and put the small loss in perspective when compared to the other one, which also refutes pervasive disregard.
Again, significant pain to you, and I'm not trivializng it. I'm putting it in the place I find it belongs in the greater scheme of things when compared to far more important crap in life. Maybe you think my standards for what deserves serious consideration are too high and that I'm callous and insensitve to a lot of things you find significant, but this does not entail sociopathy or a tendency for it at all. Likewise, by other's standards you'd be the callous one (by your definition fo the word: sociopathic one) and you might dismiss their problems as petty and their grief as laughable. See: paris hilton and the ipod
Dismissing of feelings and rationaqlization of why its okay.it's a rationalization. You could keep using the reasoning up into the ridiculous.
"Why should I care about the guy who lost an hand? That guy lost his arm! Why should I care about the guy who lost an arm? That Guy lost two arms!" And so on. Its a rationalization for dismissing a person's feelings.
Rationalization of your sociopathic tendencies.
Nothing I said implies the eternal reduction you're using here. I could use this logic to ridiculous conclusions, but I haven't. Your reasoning is entirelly speculative and you keep using the term sociopathy with no actual knowledge of what it entails. Now you've toned it down to tendencies and claimed I'm rationalizing them. Is that a diagnosis doctor?
It is not a rationalization either, as rationalizations come after a fact to justify it a posteriori, usually with fraudulent thinking. I'm talking about an outlook on the scale of traumatic events and how their relevances are relative. Nothing sociopathic about it. Sociopaths, by the way, don't rationalize their total indifference to others at all. They feel no need to as they feel no guilt over anything.
This entire argument began regarding the amount of trauma characters went through and how they dealt with it when compared to each other. You claimed SM had it worse than everyone and his functionality proves he's a poster boy for mental health and fortitude. So clealry you also compared their traumas and thought SM's were more relevant. I simply pointed out his tragedies arent a big deal when compared to others' (and most arent a big deal when analyzed by themselves either) or even to the comic heroe's average. When compared to the losses of others, most of his losses listed are small and petty. Then you began spurting out that everyone on the thread is a sociopath cause they're 'dismissing suffering' when I was relativizing suffering.
You've completelly ignored context and relativism in this discussion.
I could swear that was you
False dicotomy.Strawman.
Are you not capable of compotently reading what others say?
you make up what you think they said and adress those points ignoring what they actually said. [/B]
Originally posted by 753Except that you're exagerating things to extremes.. that is strawmanning.
Quite the contrary. I'm pointing out to you that her pain is real and according you that should be enough to warrant consideration, shouldn't it? The scale of the loss shouldn't matter.
Originally posted by 753Not really. When I say you said it wqas insignificant, I can quote you.
you're the one strawmanning me.
Originally posted by 753Now you're changing what you were saying before, Back peddling, moving the goalposts, whatever.
I'm saying his pain pails in comparison. If a wife dying in one's arms is ten, his pain would be 0.05 and therefore comparativelly insignificant to an observer, not inexistent or absolutelly insignificant.
Originally posted by 753Rationalization.
If both things happened at the same time I wouldn't care as much for the one getting dumped. Indeed, I wouldn't care much for his loss at all, because it would be eclypsed by a much more important emotional demand and if he was crying about it while I witnessed another friend struggling with losing a wife, his pain would seem petty when contrasted to the other and telling him to suck it up would be fitting. Perspective.
Originally posted by 753And?
Well, you're using them to claim a guy getting dumped is a 50 and an ipod is a 5.
Originally posted by 753"Little significance" is not insignificant. Because it still has some.
How is this not subjective? Or maybe you dont think it's dismissive. trivial sounds pretty dismissing to me.
adjective: of little substance or significance
Originally posted by 753
I never said it was a 0, I always said it's comparativelly insignificant.
Insignificant:
adjective: not important or noteworthy
Not is a boolean word.
Originally posted by 753So you've never been dumped before, is that it? Probably never had a girlfriend before.
If you wanna say getting dumped is a 50, losing a wife in one's arms would be a 50 million by comparison. And in light of this perspective getting dumped wouldn't be relevant by contrast.
Originally posted by 753Or it could be part of your rationalization as I've mentioned before. Excuses in otherwords to hide disregarding the feelings.
And yet I clearly expressed simpathy for the big loss, which refutes pervasive disregard and put the small loss in perspective when compared to other, also refutes pervasive disregard.
Originally posted by 753I never dismissed it, I never called something insignificant. You on the other hand did.
Again, significant pain to you, and I'm not trivializng it. I'm putting it in the place I find it belongs in the greater scheme of things when compared to far more important crap in life. Maybe you think my standards for what deserves serious consideration are too high and that I'm callous and insensitve to a lot of things you find significant, but this does not entail sociopathy or a tendency for it at all. Likewise, by other's standards you'd be the callous one (by your definition fo the word: sociopathic one) and you might dismiss their problems as petty and their grief as laughable. See: paris hilton and the ipod
"Comparitivley" is a rationalization.
Originally posted by 753Nothing shows that you didn't either.
Nothing I said implies the eternal reduction you're using here.
Originally posted by 753I'm just going to go ahead and call you a liar at this point. I'll also point out its an ad hominem attack.
I could use this logic to ridiculous conclusions, but I haven't. Your reasoning is entirelly speculative and you keep using the term sociopathy with no actual knowledge of what it entails.
Originally posted by 753at this point I've got no reason to believe otherwise.
Now you've toned it down to tendencies and claimed I'm rationalizing them. Is that a diagnosis doctor?
Originally posted by 753Which describes the situation perfectly.
It is not a rationalization either, as rationalizations come after a fact to justify it a posteriori, usually with fraudulent thinking.
Originally posted by 753Sweeping generalization. Some don't feel empathy but know there's something wrong with that.
I'm talking about an outlook on the scale of traumatic events and how their relevances are relative. Nothing sociopathic about it. Sociopaths, by the way, don't rationalize their total indifference to others at all. They feel no need to.
Originally posted by 753Which is true, he lost nearly his entire species.
This entire argument began regarding the amount of trauma characters went through and how they dealt with it when compared to each other. You claimed SM had it worse than everyone and his functionality proves he's a poster boy for mental health and fortitude.
Originally posted by 753More rtationalization on your part.
So clealry you also compared their traumas and thought SM's were more relevant. I simply pointed out his tragedies arent a big deal when compared to others (and most arent a big deal when analyzed ny themselves either) or even tot he comic heroe average, so he cant be said to have more resiliance to trauma.
Originally posted by 753No, dismissing significant suffering, not just his.
When compared to losses of others, most of his losses listed are small and petty. Then you began spurting out that everyonee on the thread is a sociopath cause they're dismissing his suffering.
Originally posted by 753That's beacuse you're projecting.
I could swear that was you
I already showed you exagerated my argument to extremes. And then despite this pointed out as a strawman you continued to hold it as if I had said it.
Even in this post you called the suffering "Insignificant". Meaning NO importance.
Originally posted by CreshoskStill refusing to adress the point that you claim all pain should warrant consideration and yet relativize them just the same.
Except that you're exagerating things to extremes.. that is strawmanning.
Not really. When I say you said it wqas insignificant, I can quote you.Now you're changing what you were saying before, Back peddling, moving the goalposts, whatever.
Liar. I said from my very post on the subject that they were comparativelly insignificant.
Nope, just display of an actual hierachy of values.
Rationalization.
And?And you use subjective standards and ignore this fact in the discussion, treating them as though they were objective.
"Little significance" is not insignificant. Because it still has some.
So you've never been dumped before, is that it? Probably never had a girlfriend before.
haha a 'never had a gf' insult? lol you're a joke. yeah I've been dumped, and while it hurts I've been through far more important losses in my life to give it any serious grief. In the great scheme of life, romantic disapointments at my age are irrelevant.
But you probably get dumped all the time huh champ? just keep it toghether man, dont go cutting your arms or anything
I guess you never lost a wife in your arms either, if that ever happens I'd like to see how relevant you'll think getting dumped the last time was
Or it could be part of your rationalization as I've mentioned before. Excuses in otherwords to hide disregarding the feelings.
I hide nothing emoboy, you're a crybaby that places a disproportionate amount of value on small crap and writes phrases like "who cares that someone else's wife died? If someone gets dumped, it hurts, and their pain isnt diminshed by people with real problems. your'e a sociopath boohoo"
haha you called it trivial and said I was taking your argument to ridiculous extremes, so I guess you think crying over a cell phone is riciculous, yeah pretty dismissive, you monster
I never dismissed it, I never called something insignificant. You on the other hand did.
"Comparitivley" is a rationalization.
pfffft, nope genius, it's a concept. one apparently too hard for you to understand.
Nothing shows that you didn't either.
In this discussion I didn't and your argument is begging for proof of a negative. Sad.
Hypocrite.
I'm just going to go ahead and call you a liar at this point. I'll also point out its an ad hominem attack.
or competence to evaluate or comprehension of the definition of sociopathy either.
at this point I've got no reason to believe otherwise.
No reading comprehension either...
Which describes the situation perfectly.
Yeah and a sociopath would be very worried about showing his 'true colors' and being exposed in a comic book forum, specially since my first post on the subkect already showed consideration for big traumatic events. You are a joke.
Sweeping generalization. Some don't feel empathy but know there's something wrong with that.
Some do it just so they don't lose credibility so that they can keep thinking that they're important.
which he never knew to begin with
Which is true, he lost nearly his entire species.
More rtationalization on your part.
that's your new favourite word huh? too bad you dont know what it means or how to employ it either.
I already showed you exagerated my argument to extremes. And then despite this pointed out as a strawman you continued to hold it as if I had said it.
Wrong, I pointed out that what you consider significant is entirelly subjective and that you use your own values as if they were an objective measurement of the importance things have in life and call everyone who doesnt share a sociopath.
Comparativelly insiginifcant yes, as I used in all posts. Even if I saw that particular event as being totally insignificant that wouldn't indicate any inherent incapacity to feel empathy. But you are incable of understanding this.
Even in this post you called the suffering "Insignificant". Meaning NO importance.
Just saw PR's request so I'll stop with this so the thread doesnt spam any further. Don't bother replying emoboy you're on ignore.
Originally posted by King Castle
who me?he cried while fighting the hulk about marry jane when he thought she may had tied.
OMG-so crying about your much loved, recently deceased wife makes you a crybaby??
I hope none of your close friends ever suffers a serious loss, with you to fall back on for support.
you dont do it in mid battle.... even athletes know to leave the mental emotional baggage out of the field till you get back home.. which is why spidey is a crybaby of the highest order.
and this isnt about me or any other poster this is about spiderman and other comic characters keep that in mind when discussing this
Originally posted by King Castle
you dont do it in mid battle.... even athletes know to leave the mental emotional baggage out of the field till you get back home.. which is why spidey is a crybaby of the highest order.and this isnt about me or any other poster this is about spiderman and other comic characters keep that in mind when discussing this
plenty of athletes let it out on the field. it actually at times makes them better at their role.
Originally posted by King Castle
they dont cry and have an emotional breakdown...i bn told by my coaches in high school that forget about what is goin on back home and my girlfriend whatnot and worry about the game every thing else(problem) will still be there when the game is over.
athletes have cried. it happens.