Sociopath Community

Legga, ignoring someone not on purpose is even worse. It's like "Oh, you're so small and insignificant, that is why I ran you over with my car".

This thread.

Inquirer you seem very intent on Legga being ashamed of his behavior or conclusions when hes clearly not. Is there a reason you want or expect him to feel diminished as a person by this debate?

QuietBeef said: 

Inquirer you seem very intent on Legga being ashamed of his behavior or conclusions when hes clearly not. Is there a reason you want or expect him to feel diminished as a person by this debate?

Not really, this has just devolved into a petty brawl without finesse. I still think my original point holds merit though.

To watch one person appear seemingly incorrect, but following debate praxis, versus someone who thinks they are correct, but won't follow debate praxis... 

It's been a good thread. 

Hi.

Should I read this ?

Who's winning in here ?

Is Legga the bad guy and was he lying ?

Spatial Mind said: 

Hi.

Should I read this ?

Who's winning in here ?

Is Legga the bad guy and was he lying ?

By having Inquirer and company think he's winning the battle, Legga is winning the war. 

My take on it is that Legga's initial claim was a shot from the hip to begin with so since he's managed to sidetrack the debate (with my help) it's a bit of a win for him. Perception-wise I'd fare better if we got back on topic imo.

I've always enjoyed the threads in which Inq will argue with someone over pointlessness for 11 pages. I feared that this would become a rarity with Primals absence but Legga has reinvigorated the tradition. I'll still miss Primals beautiful way of interjecting feces into her sentences, though. 

Legga said:

I didn't demand that Inquirer and Sensy have a chat with me, others did that. It was their idea, and I just complied. We had a short Skype call after 2 hours, when "SensitiveSoul" finally showed up on the call. I have no way to tell if that was SensitiveSoul or someone else, and the two hours of preparation time sure didn't help in convincing me.

As for evidence: Inquirer is a caricature of a character, he and SensitiveSoul always show up together, take breaks off SC together, have exactly the same active times (much more so than their other Swedish counterparts), and there are 6 fucking Swedish people here on this forum.

So how do you know that it's even SensitiveSoul, and not someone like MissComm helping him? Inquirer has been shown to be a willing participant in group pranking before, so why not now/then? 

The voice of "Sensy" could have been from anyone. 

Legga said:

My evidence is based on the Bayesian approach and statistical arguments.

Oooh fancy. 

Wikipedia said:

Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.

By design you'd already made your stance about being an evolving one. 

user22212 said:

You assume people from a specific sample are uniformly attracted to sc, which is wrong.

It's happened with Ohio, so why not other places?

user22212 said:

"the situation I have observed is statistically improbable, so reality is a lie" - this is the stance you're taking, and it's plainly wrong.

How is this not worth exploring? Reality isn't some thing that we just know, and the "understood" ideas of it ought to be challenged every so often for the sake of it. 

Also he's not wrong, he's just at points temporarily "incorrect" from taking an evolving perspective. He's trying to figure things out as the evidence presents itself, and as a result he now has an updated list of Swedes from the forum that could still be applied to his chart pages back. 

The issue is... that if he were to use Inquirer's "evidence" or "reasoning" for his chart, he'd be accepting it purely on faith, making his victory over Inquirer moot for how he would not accept Legga's evidence earlier over similar grounds. He'd be trading one unproven list for another of equal validity. 

Basically, if Inquirer can't prove the validity of the list he just provided, then Legga can't use that data to prove anything, putting the discussion at a standstill. Legga's doing just fine, while Inquirer is the one holding up the process here. 

user22212 said:

Sweeds would bulk together on forums, so having only a few is strange, while having none or a lot of sweeds is more likely.

Based on what?

user22212 said:

This is not a random forum. It draws its users from a discord server, from that pd forum, and some other places, you did not take into account the population % of those.

How many Swedes are on the relevant Discords, and how many have found their way here?

Your point is irrelevant, as the people Legga and Inquirer are bringing up are pre-Discordian, mostly the "old cast". They're even dating pre-articles about us. 

Inquirer said:

You do that. I on the other think I'll regularly bump this thread so members of SC will never forget your true colors.

Oh shiiit, looks like someone's motivated from the appearance of a weak opponent. 

Inquirer said:

Like Billy says you've missed at least 3 other Swedes that have been on this site in the past, and if you branch out and consider all of Scandinavia you'll probably get a heart attack. I must have dozens of fleshed out puppets!

Either that or you could be PMing ways for others to pretend to carry your heritage. You are a known prankster on the forum after "The Lemur Whisperer". 

Either that or you'd help them with their Google Translations for authenticity shrouding. 

Inquirer said:

Come on, I want to be challenged here, not just mindlessly trolled.

What if he's not trolling though? 

You ought to try to take your opponents more seriously, if anything, for the sport of it, for practice. 

Inquirer said:

For example, you claim Ed has a reputation for being a "Swedish kickboxer" when that's not true.

Yeah, he's an underground kickboxer. His claims there had little to nothing to do with race, but instead about it's edginess potential. 

PalePeach said:

From context in other's comments i was under the impression Inq and MissC were married irl, but maybe that was just a troll like Tryp and Seerx being married...

Inquirer said:

Well, I haven't seen any comments like that but I wouldn't be surprised if she's made jokes about it.

Daaamn. 🔥🔥🔥

Legga said:

"you pulled an ad hominem" derp derp.

Actually... I take responsibility for that outbreak (and some other ones like it). 

Inquirer said:

Why would I be "egged" when you're so desperate you have to resort to lying about post times and upvote your own post with socks?

Legga said:

Lmao the fuck are you even talking about? This is hilarious.

"Desperate". 

This is an attempt at covert character assassination. He sees that he's losing, so he has to try to discredit your character. 

It's classic "ad hominem". 

Legga said:

1. I presented the paper
2. You claim that the people I presented are not Swedish, and demanded evidence
3. I said I can not provide evidence. Instead, I suggest people can decide for themselves.
4. You call me an idiot for not providing evidence.
5. You make the claim that there are X number of Swedes
6. I ask you to provide evidence.
7. You fail to provide evidence.
8. You argue that evidence does not need to be verifiable.
9. I then claim I can also provide unverifiable evidence.

The issue here is that he thinks he can coast on his reputation, while figuring you, the less "trustworthy" opponent, cannot.

It's classic "ad hominem".