Empress forgot to take her meds again
lol, enjoy those downvotes
how am I being âaggressive" by simply pointing out the facts? or by asking you questions? or by asking you to explain your logic? or pointing out that you constantly refuse to answer many of my questions? how is it âaggressiveâ just because Iâm not responsible when you fail to comprehend simple concepts or sentences? Especially when you are the one who makes repeated accusations and claims without providing any proof and ignore repeated requests for evidence?
inconvenient facts arenât âaggressionâ nor is asking questions just because you canât or donât want to answer them. facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood, and Iâm not to blame for the things you do or fail to do.
edit:
the apparent ideals you seem to have
what ideals have I claimed to have? please link to said comment(s) where I claimed any ideals.
That means you bring nothing
only if your only purpose here is contrarianism and to argue for your self-entitlement and logical fallacies and expectations for me to accept blame when you fail. then, no, I offer you nothing.
at least you bring a lot of terms to describe yourself so⊠âI see that as an absolute win.â
could you please link to where I said this (or described myself to you in any way)? I suspect youâll ignore this, too.
I have explained my position fully, simply, and repeatedly. If you still fail to comprehend, that is not my problem. at this point you are clearly
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
ignoring/denying/failing to comprehend what Iâve said isnât the same as "expressed nothingâ, and, as Iâve previously remarked, I am not responsible for your failures to comprehend.
also, Iâm sure itâs very annoying to you that I keep pointing out how youâve repeatedly failed to respond to several questions Iâve asked. why should I stop just because you find that fact inconvenient? facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
the only thing consistent about you argument is that it is consistently flawed as I have consistently explained, and that you consistently blame me for your own consistent failures at rational discussion and comprehensionâ which I have also pointed out, consistently.
in design school, I had to pay for the books I bought which contained the images of the art. whomever owns those images got paid for the license to appear in the book. when I go to museums, I had to pay (by admission price or by the tax dollars that go into paying for the museumâs endowment), and that pays for the paintings/sculptures/etc.
whenever I saw or see art, in one context or another, thereâs some compensatory arrangement (or itâs being/has been donatedâ in which case, itâs tax-deductible).
edit: then again, my work is not a remixed amalgam of all of the prior art I consumedâ unlike AI, I am capable of creating new unique works which do not contain any of the elements of original works I may be seen or learned from previously. I am able to deconstruct, analyze, and implement nuanced constructs such as style, method, technique, and tone and also develop my own in the creation of an original work without relying on the assimilation and reuse of other original works in part or whole. AI cannot.
for this reason I find this a flawed premiseâ comparing what an artist does to what LLMs or AI do is logically flawed because they arenât the same thing. LLMs can only ever create derivative works, whereas human artists are capable of creating truly original works.
If you will, I may state that is also the opinion of the majority of people.
what statement is that, exactly? and what is your source that it is the opinion of the âmajority of the peopleâ what people?
If you donât expect or accept a country acting like a ass just because it can then why should you do the opposite for anything else?
we are not discussing countries, nor are we discussing how they act towards each other. e are discussing mastodon instances and their internal rues of conduct. as I said before, this is both a false equivalence and straw man.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw manâ
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges.â
moving on...
In fact very little things change from this specific comparison as it should remain this way. Both share basically the same characteristics except that one is virtual and a private place open to the public while their other is real and is public.
by ignoring the vast differences in context and scope to pick out what tiny similarities there may be, you are:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
if you have to perform such mental gymnastics to make your point, you might just as well give up, as youâre convincing nobody.
I just asked you questions and pointed out the facts. itâs not âcriticismâ simply because you find them inconvenient or because you donât like them. also, I donât recall expressing my ideals in this conversation: perhaps you could link to where I did that? or will you ignore that question, too?
ok, there, Zero Cool, lol
itâs a fact that some countries have laws like that, but itâs your opinion that you should be treated that way everywhere you go and in every situation. and comparing the laws of some country and how some country treats a crime like theft to how a mastodon instance treats behavior of which it disapproves like bigotry is a false equivalence and a straw man.
You were not explaining a meaningless question so I couldnât answer so you needed another guy to explain what he thought you were saying so I could answer your question that you still doesnât wanna explain with your own words. Else you were trying to trick me into answering a question that couldnât be efficiently answered, you lack the capacity of explaining further or you dropped your text before thinking out of a emotional explosion.
I explained everything you asked me to. You intellectual failures are not my responsibility. You refusal to even acknowledge the questions I asked are nobodyâs fault but your own. Accusing me of trickery? Just because you donât comprehend the question? Thatâs just an excuse because you canât answer a simple question of what gives you the right to hold others to standards you donât feel you, yourself, should be held to. And when confronted with that, all you can do is make false accusation without evidence and hurl insults while blaming others for your shortcomings.
Then who are you to criticize anyone? I donât believe youâre god and every human has the same value so why should you be able to criticize others while others canât criticize anything?
I havenât criticized you for anythingâ what I have done if laid to the facts as you have presented yourself: and the evidence is in your comments.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
thatâs not what is happening. itâs sad to witness such a spectacular failure to comprehend.
Yes, consequences shouldnât be bigger than the actions. At least thatâs the way most countriesâ laws work
thatâs an opinion, not a fact. just because itâs yours doesnât make it any more or less valid that anyone else's
do you think I should be decapitated if I steal a Nokia?
what I think about that is irrelevant to the discussion for it is both a false equivalence and a straw man.
You can drop any questions but you canât expect people to understand it right away, essentially when the question makes no sense and/or have no connection with the discussed topic.
I suspect most people here do, in fact, understand, regardless of your refusal to answer themâ in fact, I suspect they understand that, too.
youâre blaming me because I pointed out that you refused to answer a question and asked you again? seriously?
by the way⊠who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own?
Yes, Iâm responsible for my actions
you say this, but you add the qualifier:
if theyâre equivalent to what I did
yet you seem to set yourself as the only arbiter of your actions in the spaces with rules defined by others. I ask what do you believe entitles you to this right - to act as you wish, disregarding the rules - and to face consequences as only you define them rather than defined by the owners of that space?
Also, dropping âyour actions have consequencesâ and refusing to explain further
how have I refused anything when all i've done is ask questions which you have constantly refused to answer? I have broken down that statement several times, yet you now make false accusations that can easily be disproven by reviewing earlier comments.
and, additionally, what makes you feel entitled that if you fail to comprehend these basic concepts as I have explained, I should continue to hand-hold you though this conversation? why is that my responsibility rather than yours to either keep up or to step aside when it has clearly surpassed you ability to comprehend?
re-read the title. do you not know the meaning of the word âparadoxâ?
ignorance on your part does not constitute an error on the part of the writer.
What actions are you talking about?
your actions. Iâve said this twice now.
It is not straightforward
your failure to comprehend a simple statement, even after itâs been deconstructed for you, isnât my responsibility. if you require such hand-holding through a basic conversation, why did you post here? or is it that the basic concept of personal responsibility for your actions is completely alien to you?
I'm fucking dead đ