You are intentionally refusing to prove that your allegation is right. Moreover, I already provided quotes from references to substantiate this debate. This is completely different than ask to someone watch a video or read a whole book. Different from you, I raise arguments based on reliable evidence, which anyone can easily verify.

You can pretend that you are not scared, but you know that if I do a thread for you like I did for Rudd-O you will be affected. You know this because you have already appealed to the moderators to intervene for Rudd-O.

Thank you by the free publicity! I had more people reading the threads after your failed attempt to censor my expression.

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.

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

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125825.0

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.

Yes, mIRC is software:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/software?q=software


http://mirc.en.softonic.com/



Google search is your friend, ask it.


You affirmed that 'mIRC isn't SOFTWARE'. So, how could I misinterpret 'the past and many different software programs by making an ass out of u and me'?. You are contradicting your initial premise.


I have already recognized my mistake.

I am used with the old mIRC software and so far I remember the automatic log was a default option.

Anyway, I verified the documentation of both programs and you are right. I made a mistake in my assumption. I am sorry for the mistake, so I stand corrected. It is usual to users do not record logs of conversations, mainly when the user does not use IRC often. That is the case of Bitcoin Oz.

Thank you by the tip.

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:


Your false premise is contradicting yourself:

'Once you have one...'


'...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.

What...

Are you lying? Usagi did not admitted what you alleged:



Moreover, you did not participate in that chat? Where is your nickname? Where is the details between the parenthesis when Usagi quit?

I indeed believe someone can regret a mistake. If I ask someone to straightly deny certain evidence and the answer is "I do not deny the evidence, but I am regretful of that action. I have learned a lesson.", I would trust completely in that person. Otherwise, If I ask someone to straightly deny certain evidence and an answer is not provided, I would  become suspicious of that person and not trust him/her.

Who is 'them'?


That is not usual. IRC software always record logs of every chat, even private.


There is no date or time in that log. If you have the file saved, then you can upload in the Internet to anyone verify the time-stamp.

Show the IRC log where Usagi admits that. You certainly have the log if the chat was by IRC.

There is no straw man, you are confused.


Let's review your poor analogy:


This does not contain any coherent explanation of how FASCISM relates to SOCIOPATHY. You indeed produced false premises in 'great detail', but you completely failed to identify the parts compared. Therefore, your analogy DID NOT explained what is the relationship of the two definitions in question. Moreover, you committed serious misconceptions...

You initiated the analogy in this way:


This show how delusional you are. You seen to believe that by posting few words without an explanation implies that you have already explained what is your argument. That is exactly what did not happened. You did not explained anything at all. You indeed build your own failure.

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

'You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths)'

Translating: 'You can have a political structure without political leaders, but the temptation to add a political leader is constant (political regime attract psychological disorder).

'Once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).'

Translating: 'Once you have one group of political leaders, you're well on your way to having political structure with political leaders (psychological disorder tend to take over any political regime power structure they are introduced to).'

In accordance with the above analogy, which is not 'ours', but only yours and solely yours, any group of political leaders are sociopaths and they tend to take over any political regime. Moreover, you affirmed that political structures are influenced by an unidentified subject, which causes the political structure to attract psychological disorder. This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

Finally, when your analogy is compared with the appropriate definitions of fascism and sociopathy, it completely fails:

'Once you have one...'


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


One DOES NOT care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals, the other DOES care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals.


I argue that they would seek political power as anyone which is not a diagnosed as sociopath. It is not the affliction of a sociopath which causes them to seek political leadership.


You are implying that soldiers are trained to lose they 'soul'. What is 'soul' and what relation have with psychological disorders?


Following your deceitful logic, all politicians are individuals with:

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html


Of course this is false. The above characteristics defines a sociopath, not a politician:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/politician?q=politician



This is not evidence. This is your assumption with no evidence. Please, provide a diagnosis produced by a qualified person which indicates that any of the above names cited were afflicted by SOCIOPATHY. Otherwise, your statement is false.

Provide evidence that any diagnosed SOCIOPATH has 'access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation'.

Otherwise, your statement is false.

Except what?


That is not a relationship, it is an analogy. Your analogy does not explain how both definitions relates to each other.


Yes, I have answered your questions.


Sociopaths are individuals with a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER, not individuals conspiring to overthrow POLITICAL REGIMES.


Not exclusively for SOCIOPATHS.


Western military institutions does not accept individual with PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER. Western military institutions selects the most physically and mentally health individuals.


A claim of false premises. SOCIOPATHS are not suited to achieve government offices, they are individuals with PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER.

No one ever did what?
 

That is not a relationship.

Yes, that is my argument, how many times I have to repeat to you understand? Sociopaths are individuals with a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER, not individuals conspiring to overthrow a POLITICAL REGIMES. Moreover, there is no government departments offering jobs EXCLUSIVELY for sociopaths. If there is, feel free to provide the evidence.

You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well. This does not prove that there is an exclusive relationship of fascism with sociopathy. It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime. You are failing to explain what is the relationship between fascism and sociopathy.


You answer is literally the same nonsense implying that sociopaths are individuals conspiring to overtake a political regime.

No... That must be yours. My argument is that there is no relation between fascism and sociopathy.

Moreover, why would an organized government offer 'power' to individuals with psychological disorder?

Sociopaths are not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

Yes, I can use Google search and provide consistent references to support my arguments.

You did not explained what is the RELATION of a political regime with a psychological disorder. You indeed babbled about how people cannot resist to plant roses in they garden and compared this to a false premise (political regime attracts psychological disorder). Moreover, sociopaths are not political conspirators. Sociopaths are individuals which have an advanced form of personal disorder.

Your analogy is beyond stupid.