Sociopath Community

You're just touting factually incorrect stuff since you lost, and refuse to address obvious issues anyone sane can see with your evidence. Hell, you've even resorted to re-defining words to get your point across.

You can read it as "reasoning" if you like. Reasoning which relies on unverifiable being verifiable leads to obvious issues However, you called it evidence, which gives me the right to do so too. 

By your own words that you so pompously told me: "Let us review the case thus far, shall we?"

Your stance was that I am an idiot for not presenting strong evidence. Even if you use semantics again to "re-define" meanings, your actions betray you: You tried to initially argue that your evidence can be considered strong [4].

Your main argument is proof-by-assumption [1]: "I define `Inquirer` evidence, which is strong evidence, even though it is *not even verifiable*." You try to present your "evidence" as justifiable or strong to get your point across, but you do it by assumption, making it a fallacy. Any unverifiable evidence has obvious problems and thus is weak at best.

You realized your stance failed, so you are forced to pull off a strawman [2]: "Inquirer evidence is better than your evidence."

Hitchen's Razor [3] already states that the burden of proof is on you, and that I can dismiss your stance as you provide no evidence. This also implies I have won.

[1] http://seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Proof_by_Assumption.html#.XPxlWpzLfQE
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[4] Your main argument for "dismissing" verifiable evidence:

1. Verifiable evidence is impossible to attain (this is easy to disprove), a view you still cling to.
2. Your specific claim is hard to prove (this does not invalidate it; there are certainly reasonable examples of verifiable evidence you can attain for claims on this forum).

Legga, your entire argument now pushes the idea that I've been 1) demanding you produce strong verifiable evidence and 2) that I've argued my unverifiable evidence would be better than yours from a scientific standpoint. How many times do I have to rebut this?

Legga said: 

You can read it as "reasoning" if you like. Reasoning which relies on unverifiable being verifiable leads to obvious issues However, you called it evidence, which gives me the right to do so too.

You can call it whatever you like but what's the point in attaching a significance I've clearly never meant to my own argument?

You realized your stance failed, so you are forced to pull off a strawman [2]: "Inquirer evidence is better than your evidence."

What I've said is: "Inquirer reasoning is better than your reasoning." Which is pretty much a given since you've refused to really share any reasoning.

(How would your version be a straw man though? How did I misrepresent your position?)

Hitchen's Razor [3] already states that the burden of proof is on you, and that I can dismiss your stance as you provide no evidence. This also implies I have won.

The burden of proof is actually on you since you made the initial claim without any evidence. I can thus safely dismiss your list of "Swedes" as bogus and the entire debate is automatically settled in my favor.

[4] Your main argument for "dismissing" verifiable evidence:

1. Verifiable evidence is impossible to attain (this is easy to disprove), a view you still cling to.
2. Your specific claim is hard to prove (this does not invalidate it; there are certainly reasonable examples of verifiable evidence you can attain for claims on this forum).

If your position is "Any unverifiable evidence has obvious problems and thus is weak at best." then we have nothing to discuss, which I've told you. At best I might find the only Swedish thread we had on old SC and show it to you, but you'd most likely dismiss it as not enough. Proving with verifiable evidence that anonymous people online are of a certain nationality is next to impossible. If you have any ideas about how to realistically procure verifiable evidence then please share.

What I think is possible however is show that your assumptions about who is a Swedish member and who's not are unreasonable/improbable given circumstantial and anecdotal evidence from me and others. This is why I've asked you to share your reasoning. Why do you continually refuse this request?

The best way forward would probably be to ask old members of SC who they think are Swedish and why. That would tell us if my list or yours is more in line with general consensus.

Inquirer said: 

What I've said is: "Inquirer reasoning is better than your reasoning."

Right, and you can claim that. But if you conclude that anyone who fails to provide evidence as per "Inquirer" evidence is stupid, then I can conclude that anyone who fails to provide verifiable evidence is stupid.

I.e., What makes "Inquirer evidence", which is not even verifiable, so special that it needs an extra definition? You're refusing to answer this.

Legga said: 

Inquirer said: 

What I've said is: "Inquirer reasoning is better than your reasoning."

Right, and you can do that. But if you conclude that anyone who fails to provide evidence as per "Inquirer" reasoning is stupid, then I can conclude that anyone who fails to provide verifiable evidence is stupid.

I.e., What makes "Inquirer reasoning", which is not even verifiable, so special that it needs an extra definition? You're refusing to answer this.

I said your refusal to provide reasoning made you a bad troll and your attempt to pivot into claiming I contradicted myself was stupid.

"Inquirer reasoning" doesn't need an extra definition. All I've asked from you is to give me your reasons so that we can judge whose version is more reasonable/probable. You're the one who's completely doubled down on 'verifiable evidence', evidence you know we can't really find.

Inquirer said:

I said your refusal to provide reasoning made you a bad troll and your attempt to pivot into claiming I contradicted myself was stupid.

When you resorted to semantics to "re-define" evidence?

"Inquirer reasoning" doesn't need an extra definition. All I've asked from you is to give me your reasons so that we can judge whose version is more reasonable/probable.

 But this is not what you claimed, as I clearly already explained in my earlier post. How about you address my post? I don't know how many times I have to ask you to stop misunderstanding my extremely simple argument.

Legga said: 

Inquirer said:

I said your refusal to provide reasoning made you a bad troll and your attempt to pivot into claiming I contradicted myself was stupid.

When you resorted to semantics to "re-define" evidence?

The definition of the word "evidence" does allow for my interpretation of it, but I've also stated numerous times what my actual intention behind that word was. You simply refuse to accept it because it invalidates your argument.

"Inquirer reasoning" doesn't need an extra definition. All I've asked from you is to give me your reasons so that we can judge whose version is more reasonable/probable.

 But this is not what you claimed, as I clearly already explained in my earlier post. How about you address my post? I don't know how many times I have to ask you to stop misunderstanding my extremely simple argument.

I have asked you to provide your reasoning for 5+ pages because I don't think yours is reasonable. I have also said (or implied) I consider my evidence/reasoning strong enough to conclude this debate in my favor, but I've never claimed I can scientifically prove anything.

That you bring up the fallacy of Proof by Assumption just shows you still expect we can "verify" our evidence to a scientific standard. This isn't what this is about. Instead what we can do is compare and judge how reasonable our assumptions are (if we're borrowing your language).

The first step would be to share our reasoning. Second step is check if there are any circumstantial/anecdotal evidence we can find that supports our position.

What a productive discussion. 

legga i admire your tenacity and commitment to the truth and emancipating us from this vile propaganda 

this was intended to and remains to be a shitpost thread 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What a productive discussion. 

I agree, except unironically.