Somewhat, but not that much.
You-re hair is messy right now.
True, it always is
You wish you could meet an author
True.
You’ve been in a blackout recently.
False
You have a strong fear of fire
Not really true. Just rational fear.
You’re streaming The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug premiere.
False
You miss the days when Tim Burton was creative
Oh, so very true.
You’re very excited about Interstellar.
Mhm. Not really. Don’t care much about the outside world and its sentimental culture.
You believe Rousseau was right.
False.
You admit to being hypocritical in many situations.
True in general.
You favor collectivism.
True, but not the radical horizontal or vertical postures. The truth should be midway.
You don’t like drinking and eating things that are too cool.
It would obviously depend on the circumstance.
You are a moral relativist.
Of course. Morality doesn’t work in any other way.
You’re against most forms of radicalism.
Yes.
You are for seperation of church and state.
Completely true.
You’ll be making an important purchase today.
Totally false.
You find art to be an important aspect of society.
Edit:
Dear Spirit, if I were to really have a hostile intention towards you, I’d have the intellectual prowess to tear you a new one without having the need for proper reasoning or explanation - in other words, trolling. If you had think it through with your brain, I think justice would have been served properly, but you’re inclined to being a sentimental unfair sod. Huh.
Evidently, you’re not open to reason, so I’ll just leave you with this: When a man unintentionally kills another, it’s called manslaughter, not murder. Do you ever wonder why?
What are you even talking about?
True, art is important
You dislike small dogs
READ. Observe. Deduce. Then think about it.
Erm, no. I actually find them kind of cute.
You dislike small cats.
False. The don’t bother me, nor do I like them.
You’re cooking.
CardiacLiberty: Last warning. I know you’re going through a period in life that a lot of people go through, and which you clearly state in your profile: “I’m a 23 year old shut-in who’s matured intellectually recently. I’m blunt, have a rather ill temper, and don’t have a lot of friends. None at all, actually. Ahem.”
That’s all very well, and I’m pretty sure you’ll eventually realize what’s happening there and why, but what we won’t tolerate in these friendly forums is for you to go insulting people freely.
I do not need for you to “teach” me things I’ve already learnt -and now teach- at university, but you can do that if you want. But when you insinuate that your intellect is enormous and that other aren’t using their brains properly or aren’t open to reason, it becomes insulting.
I edited our previous hostile discussion as an attempt to end this and because other users didn’t have to see that. I repeat: these forums are intended to be good-natured. I’m leaving these three posts here because you’re obviously trying to escalate things up. If you want to argue in a proper manner (that is, leaving insults and that pretentious rattle aside. As I said, your Holmes impersonation is very amusing, but fails to make you appear superior), then you’re free to use private messages.
I’m sure we’ll settle this that way. But if you keep bringing what you’ve brought so far to these forums, I’m afraid we’ll have to take the matter more seriously.
Now it comes down to the choice of whether if I’d risk being banned over being thought to be inaccurate… Sigh. Freedom of choice. I love it. I choose…
First mistake is to use my online profile as a judgement. When I said that intentions could be faked, I meant the same for personality and psych profiles, too, but not only because of the intention to falsify, but also due to the unreliable nature of a personality/psych profiles. Human nature is volatile. You could get one picture of a person, but you won’t get the complete picture, meaning you run the risk of being inaccurate unless you thoroughly checked, or if you support the profile with substantial evidence, the latter of which you are lacked of because substantial evidence is difficult to be gained on an online exchange. Circumstantial evidence, yes, but the most concrete evidence you could get from an online forum is the written posts and the context the users utilise, both of which can be circumstantial and therefore, fake.
That’s why I didn’t bother to imitate your action of checking another user’s profile when I saw the description of your actions in the “Who’s Online” section. It is redundant and serves little purpose in the large scale of things.
Second mistake is to assume things based on circumstantial evidence. The thing with circumstantial evidence is that they don’t tend to involve ALL the facts, the best of which is MOST of the facts. No, substantial evidence is more reliable. Though a great mind could probably deduce a person’s entire psych profile based on written words and the choice of context alone, neither of us are really that great… There’s very little to go on here. Nonetheless, your mistake caused you to discriminate based on certain traits you assumed based on my online profile alone. Unfair and prejudicing, both counts of injustice, making your rules broken, unfair, and prejudicing, from what I could observe, much like the so-called rules of many online forums I’ve encountered.
Third mistake is to assume I was insulting people. No; I was insulting your choice of words, your actions. Whether you felt insulted by your poor choice of words is beyond my control.
Fourth mistake is to confuse an insult with a criticism. A criticism is a correction; an insult is verbal abuse that causes harm. Therefore, the latter is a more generalized description of a criticism. There are two forms of criticisms; constructive and destructive. Construct indicates progression; destruct indicates degression. My attempts to correct you could be used for good, and I never had the intent to harm nor cause degression on you or your intelligence - you did that to yourself. That’s not an insult, that’s a fact. Your actions were lowering the IQ of the entire forum. Moreover, your tendency to assume the worst of my blunt words makes it seem more likely that you were the one being hostile, though a proper process of elimination is required to deduce your intentions.
Fifth mistake is to state that I described my intellect as ‘enormous’. I didn’t; I merely stated that I hold enough intellectual prowess to perform effective trolling, which I didn’t. Enough intellect an enormous intellect does not necessarily make.
Sixth mistake is not to look at the facts. When you said that the statement of you not being open to reason was insulting, it was a fact, not an implication nor did it hold the intention to harm. I was defending myself because reasonable justice is the best justice; facts and reason are everything. Well, most things, not everything, but still. The civilised world runs mostly on logic nowadays. It’s the 21st Century.
As for not using your brains properly, that’s an extension to not being reasonable, because reasons require proper brain-functioning.
Eighth mistake was to assume that I was teaching you or having the intention of. I was talking. Whether my words seem arrogant to you is not my problem. Arrogance happens only when you dismiss facts to the truth, like what you did, therefore making you the arrogant one. Yes, that’s a fact, not an insult. I am defending myself, after all. shrugs
Ninth mistake is to cover up things. Ugh. I’m assuming your impersonation is of Mycroft Holmes then? Then there’s the next one.
Tenth mistake is to assume I’m impersonating any fictional character intentionally. Nope. Sherlock never assumes. Being influenced by an individual’s mindset and mannerism does not equate true impersonation. No, true impersonation is more well-planned and carefully carried out. The impersonator would try and stay in character. But I don’t recall Sherlock ever saying that he likes small dogs.
Eleventh mistake is to call my so-called ‘rattle’ pretentious. No sense of pretence there, I’m afraid; it’s all honesty, facts, and bluntness. In fact, to mix pretentiousness with facts and logic is an idiotic move alone. Oh by the way, covering up things to pretend that they never happened? That’s pretentious.
And the final mistake, perhaps the greatest one of all is calling this forum a good-natured one. No, not exactly true. I’ve seen good-natured people - actual good-natured people - they don’t begrudge people or act with as much hostility as you. They don’t attack or discriminate based on their presumptions and misinterpretations. It is one reason I try not to judge people; I judge their actions. It is more reliable and accurate, striving away from the risk of discrimination, which is a very ill-nature thing to do.
Ah well. It has been fun. I’m pretty sure you are going to delete this without even taking a second look at my explanations, in which case, I’ll have proven that you are presumptuous and discriminating, and maybe even a little stupid. Ah, but don’t be insulted - practically everyone on the Internet is stupid.