>>24878
He isn't just lying. He's lying in your face about the things you did or didn't say. When he's so confidently tells "you said that yourself" you can't help but start wondering if you might have actually said that. And that's the part where he makes you doubt your sanity.

>>24882
> threatening someone with the knife and pressuring them to give you your wallet will not count as consent

Why are you so blatantly ignoring the part where L specifically said what levels of pressure are okay with him and what aren't? Threatening with a knife is not okay and does not happen in the stories. Getting dared is okay and does happen in the story. Don't act like they're the same level of pressure when L specifically indicated they're not.

> Also this trundere thing is how almost everything world in this world works for non autistic people.
How are you bringing up autism in any conversation?
Maybe L is right, maybe you do have autism or something along the lines that makes you fail to comprehend what other people say. Then you should admit it to yourself and stop acting like you know better then your opponent what that opponent did or didn't say. Learn to say "sorry, I didn't understand what you mean" instead of "no, you actually meant this and that".

> It is even funny to see how you confirmed absolutely everything I said yourself trying to frame it as if you disagree
It's sickening how you twist my words and your own previous words to frame it as if I say the same things.

> you just can't even gasp the idea that for the majority of people this is sickening
With your lack of comprehension of people you're not in a position to talk on behalf of the majority.

> YOU told it yourself that you want it to be sickeningly sweet and that this is your "thing"
I want sweet, yes, but I wouldn't have called my own thing sickening, unless you somehow coerced me with weird phrasing on your end. What I might have said is that some people I know would find it sickening. That neither equates to majority not to my own assessment.

> why the hell you are objecting when i am saying exactly the same?
You're inventing things I have allegedly said, inventing things you have allegedly said, and then claiming they're exactly the same.

> almost nobody wants that innocent word without impurities
The wide spread of Christianity with its promise of heaven suggests otherwise.

> because we have exact opposite preferences and there is no point in even trying to say anything to you since my perspective is irrelevant.
then maybe you should stop
and stop doing to L too,
as clearly his preferences are much closer to mine than yours

> I can just understand that this horrible world of death is appealing to you and it is your preference
I fail to see how you call my world "this horrible world of death" when your world is "like in GTA or DOOM".
> I will guess that most people will agree
And I will guess most people would imagine GTA or DOOM upon hearing "horrible world of death".

> And for the start if you say 2+2=5 in your explanation that's not an explanation thats idiotic bulshit.
It's not 2+2=5, it's 2+2=22. It's called twisted logic. Something that doesn't really make sense, and yet it does in its own twisted way. Even in Marina's story, which is purposely the most illogical one, there is a twisted logic in place when the boy asks her "how are you going to enjoy it if you're dead" and she replies "it's not for enjoyment, it's to concentrate". It's not answering how she's going to concentrate when dead because it's not what he asked. Instead her answer explains to him why what he did ask is irrelevant. It's all completely logical in its own twisted way.

In my other stories the logic is even more sound. Like in "Die Young" Len argues that while dying is scary, dying later in life would only be more scary, and since they have to die sooner or later anyway, better die sooner while it's not yet as scary. Which part of this is "2+2=5"? There's none of that. In fact, it's so logical it sometimes scares me how it borders on actually making sense in real life.

Or "Twin Crosses" has a situation where the twins want to go to the sea, but also have an opportunity to be crucified. They argue that:
1. As long as at least one of them gets to the sea it's okay.
2. Len's crucifixion won't prevent Rin from going to the sea, so it's fine if Len gets crucified.
3. Rin's crucifixion won't prevent Len from going to the sea, so it's fine if Rin gets crucified.
4. 2+3 = it's fine if Len gets crucified + it's fine if Rin gets crucified = it's fine that both get crucified.

Again, there is no "2+2=5" logic here, only "2+2=22" logic. It doesn't really make sense, but it also kind of does. Twisted logic like that is one type of incongruity that is often used in humor. For example:
1. The more cheese there is, the more holes in it.
2. The more there are holes in cheese, the less cheese there is.
3. Therefore the more cheese - the less cheese.

In no way is such twisted logic an insult to the reader's intelligence. If anything, it's challenges the reader's intelligence to both see the way in which it makes sense and the way in which it doesn't. Seeing both at the same time is what creates the incongruity at the core of the humor. The only way it insults your intelligence is by making you aware of your lack of it to understand the joke.

> I just don't get is why do you try to object to the stuff which you say yourself?
Every time you use "you actually said this, you actually said that" kind of argument it's harder to believe it's not purposeful gaslighting.

> But if you're writing entertainment, be it action, humor or porn, then the further it is from real life the more entertaining it is.
> This is exactly what i said:
> you are scared of guro
> violence makes you feel bad
> you need to make it idiotic to make it super obvious to yourself

"Entertainment must be unrealistic to better entertain" is NOT "exactly the same" as "you are scared of guro, violence makes you feel bad", and so on. You can't just quote where I say "A" and immediately follow with "That's exactly what I said: it's B!" If this is not gaslighting, then what is?

I'm not afraid of guro and violence, I can read stories that contain them, just wouldn't enjoy them in an erotic way.

Also, while I'm hardly a master of English punctuation, at least put some punctuation in your text, it's a total mess and just painful to try and comprehend. Is you English just bad, or do you have some kind of disorder related to constructing written sentences (or sentences in general)? Is it also related to your failure to comprehend what other people write? Look, if you have some kind of disorder, that's not something I would shame you for, but I would say again that you have to admit it to yourself and start accounting for the fact that you might not correctly get what other people mean, instead of insisting you get it better than they do.

> and your comparison with GTA is plain stupid, because it is possible to do things in the GTA in real life yes you can't do that for hours but pretty much everything what happens there can be replicated in real life the only difference is that in the game you have no consequences.

Letting it happen for hours and with no consequences, as well as having a not really serious tone about it, all contribute to being unrealistic which makes violence in GTA fun instead of disturbing. Although you'd find many people who would find even that disturbing, but be okay with cartoon violence (which is why they rate GTA as Mature and something like Clone Wars as Teen, even though there's, you know, a whole fucking galactic war going on, not just some mayhem in one particular city). It's almost like there's a trend where while the exact threshold varies from person to person, most distinguish between more and less realistic forms of violence in fiction, and are entertained by the less realistic form while being disturbed by the more realistic form.

> I said said reason not stupid logic.
I've already explained about twisted logic above, and specifically on Marina's story too.

> Like if I present you a proof of mathematical theorem which does not make sense that's not a proof.
Now that's sophistic (which I guess is better than gaslighting). It's not a valid proof, so in that sense it's not a proof, but it's also an invalid proof, so a kind of proof after all.

> just because you are such a nice you guy you don't even see how sinister it is, as that guy accidentally shot his friend and now operator is telling him how to hide evidence.
Here's another proof of your inability to read. Make sure he's dead is not a way to hide evidence and there can't even be any evidence of the shot yet, because the shot happens only after this advice is given. Which also makes the shot in no way accidental, as it's in direct (twisted) following of the advice.

> you cannot even make up any evil scenarios even in the fiction
Wow, what a blatant example of gaslighting, saying I can't make up evil scenarios in response to the section where I make up exactly one like that. Here, I'll remind you, it was this one:
> Maybe they weren't friends at all, and the guy actually wanted to kill the other guy all along, and found the emergency service operator's words to be a good excuse to do just that (and the reason the other guy collapsed in the first place is because the killer poisoned him)

> you cannot tolerate any conflict in the story, not even something as insignificant as Rin stealing Len's ice cream
The reason Rin can't just go and steal Len's ice cream isn't because I can't tolerate any conflict, but because it would make no sense neither for the characters nor for the genre. At least she must be stealing it as a park of some more elaborate prank, and not just because you like characters being evil for no reason.

> Basically your entire story is always just a description of some horrible things happening to someone along with description how good they feel.
Welcome to consensual guro.

> If the stories used the real life logic of why people kill themselves, they would become tragic instead of fun stories.
> yes exactly I was saying that all the time
Show me where did you say exactly "If the stories used the real life logic of why people kill themselves, they would become tragic instead of fun stories." Even in the very next sentence you say the exact opposite when you say they would only become tragic for me, but not anyone else.

> nobody else will find them tragic because they can either separate reality from fiction
People who can separate reality from fiction can still find tragic stories to be tragic. And they can enjoy tragic stories, that's why they're written after all. But that doesn't make these stories less tragic.

> To you a girl who is executed because of not doing her homework is tragic
No, to me a girl killing herself out of depression is tragic.
A girl executed for not doing homework is not relevant because the point was about stories using real life logic, which this scenario does not.

> we are in the another world where value of the life is low and we operate from that perspective there.
How comes only your scenarios are in another world and are to be viewed from that perspective, while whenever you talk about mine you're judging them from the perspective of real life logic?

> You are misleading everyone with the claim that you are into casual guro because you are not
Alright, I'm into casual _consensual_ guro. I thought that part was obvious for anyone at least somewhat familiar with my works.

> casual is pretty much the definition of most evil psychopathic behavior
As per Oxford dictionary, casual means "relaxed and unconcerned". Another relevant meaning from Cambridge dictionary is "not serious or considered, or done by chance". Nothing nowhere says about it having to be evil.

> It is a world of freedom not a world of pleasure love and blis.
You can't talk about freedom and in the same sentence deny the freedom to have pleasure love and bliss.

> If I say I want to jump from the bridge that's crazy.
Now you're showing your lack of comprehension of how other people would perceive your words. Nobody would think you're crazy for your claim that you want to jump from the bridge. They would think you're depressed and suicidal, probably suffered something tragic that broke you. Now, if you say you're jumping from the bridge not because you're suicidal, but to get on the ground, that's where people ask you "are you crazy or just plain stupid?" And the same if you say you want to jump to cross it. They really wouldn't see any difference. You're still jumping from the bridge for a nonsensical reason.

That all being said, in the context where I say my fetish is "casual attitude to various degrees of crazy", by crazy I don't mean "of unsound mind" as per definition number 1 in Wiktionary, but closer to "very unexpected; wildly surprising" as per definition number 4. An even better fitting definition it gives to "out there" as "extreme; radical; far removed from the ordinary; crazy, nutty, loony." In other words, something very far from the ordinary treated like it is ordinary. Jumping from the bridge to get on the ground below or jumping from the bridge to cross it both sound like far away from the ordinary to me.

You only fail to see the logic in Marina's actions because you take everything into account at the same time as per real life logic, while twisted logic works by ignoring the entirely of the situation and breaking it apart into smaller pieces each of which works by itself, but not all together.
1. Marina needs something vibrating in her pussy to concentrate on the test.
2. A heart is sort of vibrating, so she needs the heart in her pussy.
3. She would be dead without a heart, so unable to put it in her pussy.
4. That's why she needs her classmate's help to put the heart in her pussy.
See, each point by itself is totally logical and follows from the previous one. It's only when you take the situation as a whole and consider more than one previous step that you see that the heart in her pussy wouldn't be of any use to her once she's dead. But that's totally the same as how you being down on the ground under the bridge wouldn't be of any use to you once you're dead. How come this twisted logic works for you in your bridge example, but the exact same twist doesn't work in Marina's story is beyond me. The logic is all the same, so you must just hate it because it's mine.