The insanity of government run grocery stores:

You aren't making a point. LIF. Grow up.
You keep proving my point for me.

I made a clear argument. You responded with the same two‑word loop again because you don’t have anything else.

Saying LIF. Grow up. on repeat isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just you hitting the panic button every time you’re asked to produce actual reasoning.

If you had a counterpoint, you’d make it. Repeating the same line isn’t an argument, it’s an admission you don’t have one.
 
You keep proving my point for me.
You aren't making a point.
I made a clear argument.
You aren't making an argument.
You responded with the same two‑word loop again because you don’t have anything else.
Inversion fallacy.
Saying LIF. Grow up. on repeat isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just you hitting the panic button every time you’re asked to produce actual reasoning.
Inversion fallacy.
If you had a counterpoint, you’d make it.
You aren't making an argument. There is no counter-argument if there is no argument.
Repeating the same line isn’t an argument, it’s an admission you don’t have one.
Inversion fallacy.
 
I suppose it's better than no brain at all, her, his, its--to cover the pronouns--alternative.
It IS no brain at all.
The only correct pronoun is 'his' or 'he' or 'him' when the gender is unknown. Anything else is not even English.

Certain objects are referred to as 'she' or 'her', such as ships, aircraft, other vehicles, and even spacecraft. The reason is a simple one:
Sailors referred to their ship as their protector at sea, like a mother. That tradition spread through other vehicles as well.

* They serve as a protector in the air, in space, on on the road, like a mother.
* They are generally expensive. Like a female is.
* They take a lot of work to keep looking good, like a female spends time doing.

This use goes back as far as the square rigged ships plying the oceans.
 
Last edited:
"It" objectifies the subject. That seems appropriate.
But incorrect when referring to a living thing.
It is correct, however, when referring to a nonliving thing.

For example: A bee may be referred to as a 'he', if you don't know whether he's a drone or not. If you do know he's not a drone, THEN you can use 'she' with certainty. It can also be generally assume a bee as a 'she', since drones aren't generally seen outside the hive until it comes time in the fall to make with a queen.

If you think you vehicle is a deathtrap, you can certainly refer to it as an 'it'. It certainly is not being very protective, and it probably looks like shit as well. It is, after a nonliving thing.

For someone without a brain, and trying to use AI as a substitute for it, you are effectively describing a zombie. A zombie, however, would still be referred to as a 'he' in English. If you think of a zombie as a nonliving thing, than 'it' could be used. So, in a sense, you might be right in this case.
 
Last edited:
You aren't making a point.

You aren't making an argument.

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

You aren't making an argument. There is no counter-argument if there is no argument.

Inversion fallacy.
You’ve burned through three different lines now ,you aren’t making a point, you aren’t making an argument, and inversion fallacy and none of them actually address anything I said. They’re just the same dodge in different wrappers.

Calling something a fallacy doesn’t magically make it one. Repeating the label every time you get cornered doesn’t turn it into reasoning either.

If you had an argument, you’d present it. If all you can do is cycle through the same canned lines, that tells me everything I need to know about the strength of your position.
 
You’ve burned through three different lines now ,you aren’t making a point, you aren’t making an argument, and inversion fallacy and none of them actually address anything I said. They’re just the same dodge in different wrappers.

Calling something a fallacy doesn’t magically make it one. Repeating the label every time you get cornered doesn’t turn it into reasoning either.

If you had an argument, you’d present it. If all you can do is cycle through the same canned lines, that tells me everything I need to know about the strength of your position.
Question: Are you undead or maybe not human? I need to know to reply to ITN about proper pronouns... :sneaky:
 
You’ve burned through three different lines now
The only thing I burn is wood fires and fireworks.
,you aren’t making a point, you aren’t making an argument, and inversion fallacy and none of them actually address anything I said. They’re just the same dodge in different wrappers.
LIF. Grow up.
Calling something a fallacy doesn’t magically make it one.
Denying your fallacies does not make them disappear.
Repeating the label every time you get cornered doesn’t turn it into reasoning either.
I am not 'cornered'. You aren't reasoning. You aren't making an argument.
If you had an argument, you’d present it.
You aren't making an argument.
If all you can do is cycle through the same canned lines, that tells me everything I need to know about the strength of your position.
You aren't making an argument. You have no position other than to try to blame your problems on others, Sybil.
 
Question: Are you undead or maybe not human? I need to know to reply to ITN about proper pronouns... :sneaky:
You don’t need my pronouns to reply. You need an argument.

If you’re asking because you’ve run out of material and want to pivot to some weird personal angle, that’s on you. I’m here discussing the topic. You’re the one drifting into questions no one asked you to ask.

Stay on the argument if you have one. If not, just say that instead of fishing for something irrelevant.
 
You don’t need my pronouns to reply. You need an argument.
He just posted one. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
If you’re asking because you’ve run out of material and want to pivot to some weird personal angle, that’s on you. I’m here discussing the topic. You’re the one drifting into questions no one asked you to ask.
You aren't discussing anything, Sybil.
Stay on the argument if you have one. If not, just say that instead of fishing for something irrelevant.
You aren't making an argument, Sybil. Answer the question put to you.
 
The only thing I burn is wood fires and fireworks.

LIF. Grow up.

Denying your fallacies does not make them disappear.

I am not 'cornered'. You aren't reasoning. You aren't making an argument.

You aren't making an argument.

You aren't making an argument. You have no position other than to try to blame your problems on others, Sybil.
You keep chanting the same line like it’s going to suddenly turn into an argument if you say it enough times. It doesn’t. It just makes you look like a guy who ran out of material twenty posts ago and is now hoping repetition will cover the empty space where your reasoning should be.

You’re not calling out fallacies. You’re not cornering anyone. You’re just stuck in a loop and pretending it’s a debate strategy.

If you had a point, you’d have made it by now. If you had an argument, you wouldn’t be hiding behind the same recycled sentence like it’s a security blanket.

Right now you’re not debating, you’re glitching.
 

Intothenight’s Debate Style (JPP Profile)

1. Repetition-as-shield

His primary move is looping the same line (“You aren’t making an argument”) regardless of context.It’s not used as analysis — it’s used as a stall tactic.When pressured, he doesn’t escalate his reasoning, he repeats the line louder.

This is classic repetition fallacy as defense mechanism.


2. Argument substitution

Instead of addressing the claim in front of him, he substitutes a different “argument” he wishes you had made, then attacks that instead.

He doesn’t counter your point — he counters a placeholder.


3. Burden‑of‑proof evasion

He never states a position.He never outlines reasoning.He never commits to a claim.

His entire posture is:“I don’t have to defend anything, but you do.”

This lets him avoid being pinned down while pretending to be the rational one.


4. Meta‑argument fixation

He doesn’t debate the topic — he debates the frame of the debate.

Instead of engaging substance, he focuses on:

  • “You’re not making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “Fallacy”
  • “LIF”
It’s a way to avoid content while looking like he’s critiquing content.


5. Emotional displacement disguised as logic

He uses short, clipped dismissals (“Grow up,” “Sybil”) to signal dominance, but they’re not tied to any reasoning.It’s a performance of authority, not an argument.

He tries to sound above the discussion while being fully reactive to it.


6. Looping when cornered

When he runs out of lines, he doesn’t shift strategy — he reboots the same script:

  • “You aren’t making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “LIF”
  • “Sybil”
It’s a closed circuit.He can’t escalate, so he repeats.


7. Zero content, maximum posture

His entire style is built on:

  • refusing to engage
  • refusing to answer
  • refusing to present a position
  • refusing to acknowledge what was said
He treats avoidance as if it were a debate technique.

It’s not argumentation — it’s static disguised as structure.
 
You keep chanting the same line like it’s going to suddenly turn into an argument if you say it enough times. It doesn’t. It just makes you look like a guy who ran out of material twenty posts ago and is now hoping repetition will cover the empty space where your reasoning should be.

You’re not calling out fallacies. You’re not cornering anyone. You’re just stuck in a loop and pretending it’s a debate strategy.

If you had a point, you’d have made it by now. If you had an argument, you wouldn’t be hiding behind the same recycled sentence like it’s a security blanket.

Right now you’re not debating, you’re glitching.
LIF. Grow up.
 

Intothenight’s Debate Style (JPP Profile)

1. Repetition-as-shield

His primary move is looping the same line (“You aren’t making an argument”) regardless of context.It’s not used as analysis — it’s used as a stall tactic.When pressured, he doesn’t escalate his reasoning, he repeats the line louder.

This is classic repetition fallacy as defense mechanism.


2. Argument substitution

Instead of addressing the claim in front of him, he substitutes a different “argument” he wishes you had made, then attacks that instead.

He doesn’t counter your point — he counters a placeholder.


3. Burden‑of‑proof evasion

He never states a position.He never outlines reasoning.He never commits to a claim.

His entire posture is:“I don’t have to defend anything, but you do.”

This lets him avoid being pinned down while pretending to be the rational one.


4. Meta‑argument fixation

He doesn’t debate the topic — he debates the frame of the debate.

Instead of engaging substance, he focuses on:

  • “You’re not making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “Fallacy”
  • “LIF”
It’s a way to avoid content while looking like he’s critiquing content.


5. Emotional displacement disguised as logic

He uses short, clipped dismissals (“Grow up,” “Sybil”) to signal dominance, but they’re not tied to any reasoning.It’s a performance of authority, not an argument.

He tries to sound above the discussion while being fully reactive to it.


6. Looping when cornered

When he runs out of lines, he doesn’t shift strategy — he reboots the same script:

  • “You aren’t making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “LIF”
  • “Sybil”
It’s a closed circuit.He can’t escalate, so he repeats.


7. Zero content, maximum posture

His entire style is built on:

  • refusing to engage
  • refusing to answer
  • refusing to present a position
  • refusing to acknowledge what was said
He treats avoidance as if it were a debate technique.

It’s not argumentation — it’s static disguised as structure.
he's a spam bot. No interest in debate or addressing points made and only interest is to spam the talking points sent out by the magats.

I put him on ignore a long time ago and it cleared the forum up a lot for actual debates and discussions.
 
he's a spam bot. No interest in debate or addressing points made and only interest is to spam the talking points sent out by the magats.

I put him on ignore a long time ago and it cleared the forum up a lot for actual debates and discussions.
I don't think he liked the analysis.
 

Intothenight’s Debate Style (JPP Profile)

1. Repetition-as-shield

His primary move is looping the same line (“You aren’t making an argument”) regardless of context.It’s not used as analysis — it’s used as a stall tactic.When pressured, he doesn’t escalate his reasoning, he repeats the line louder.

This is classic repetition fallacy as defense mechanism.


2. Argument substitution

Instead of addressing the claim in front of him, he substitutes a different “argument” he wishes you had made, then attacks that instead.

He doesn’t counter your point — he counters a placeholder.


3. Burden‑of‑proof evasion

He never states a position.He never outlines reasoning.He never commits to a claim.

His entire posture is:“I don’t have to defend anything, but you do.”

This lets him avoid being pinned down while pretending to be the rational one.


4. Meta‑argument fixation

He doesn’t debate the topic — he debates the frame of the debate.

Instead of engaging substance, he focuses on:

  • “You’re not making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “Fallacy”
  • “LIF”
It’s a way to avoid content while looking like he’s critiquing content.


5. Emotional displacement disguised as logic

He uses short, clipped dismissals (“Grow up,” “Sybil”) to signal dominance, but they’re not tied to any reasoning.It’s a performance of authority, not an argument.

He tries to sound above the discussion while being fully reactive to it.


6. Looping when cornered

When he runs out of lines, he doesn’t shift strategy — he reboots the same script:

  • “You aren’t making an argument”
  • “Grow up”
  • “LIF”
  • “Sybil”
It’s a closed circuit.He can’t escalate, so he repeats.


7. Zero content, maximum posture

His entire style is built on:

  • refusing to engage
  • refusing to answer
  • refusing to present a position
  • refusing to acknowledge what was said
He treats avoidance as if it were a debate technique.

It’s not argumentation — it’s static disguised as structure.
AI response. Do better.
 
Back
Top