Sociopath Community

AliceInWonderland said: 

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. 

He's also struggled to debate with Spatial a few times. 

He's loath to do these sorts of debates, but once wrapped into it it can span for days. 

Turncoat said: 

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.

You're doing the same thing Legga does, which is to make a false equivalence between his list and mine. While it is true I can't 'scientifically' prove anything I can however produce solid reasoning backed up by circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. What little evidence or reasoning Legga has shared (such as Ed having a reputation as a Swede) is more wrong than right (based off circumstantial/anecdotal evidence).

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.

It seems you've misunderstood the original point of contention. Legga made a specific claim about who's a Swede on this forum and I said his evidence or reasoning were too far off to be useful, and since the burden of proof is on him he's the one holding up the process by not backing up his claims. I'm not even demanding he produces 'scientific' evidence, because I understand how hard that'd be, just that he gives me his reasons or "assumptions" so that we can determine how likely they are.

My list of Swedes is just an addendum to my point, showing what kind of reasoning I want from him. If he takes the position that we can only deal in 'better' evidence or there's no point then he should explicitly say so. Otherwise we're waiting for him.

The statistical argument Legga makes (which I haven't replied to or challenged) in his paper is pointless if he can't argue convincingly that there actually are 6-7 Swedes on the forum.

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.

Just because I don't take him seriously doesn't mean I don't take his arguments seriously.

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.

Not sure what you're saying here. Legga claimed Ed was Swedish because he had a reputation as "Swedish kickboxer". That isn't true, he has a reputation as a Scandinavian kickboxer. Race or edginess is irrelevant.

Turncoat said: 

He's also struggled to debate with Spatial a few times. 

He's loath to do these sorts of debates, but once wrapped into it it can span for days. 

I sometimes get frustrated when I enter a debate with the expectation of intellectual honesty and people following debate praxis but is faced with something different. More often than not though I am fully aware of the trollish and disingenuous nature and purposely decide to argue anyway because I enjoy it. If I loathed these debates I wouldn't do them.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

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.

You're doing the same thing Legga does, which is to make a false equivalence between his list and mine.

No, I see that he made a list, you and Billy found his list silly, then you tried to show him up by presenting a superior list. 

When questioned for it's authenticity, you retreated into post-semantic arguments that, ultimately, still serve to try to rank your compiled list over his while trying to run away from the responsibility of proving your evidence, despite how there's little to make your list any more genuine beyond comparative reputation (a fallacy). 

When he was "wrong", you attempted to post another list to debunk him. There is equivalence between the lists (they're both an attempt at listing the Swedes on the forum), and you initially posted it for equivalency's sake. You can't just change the goal posts after you fumbled like that. 

While it is true I can't 'scientifically' prove anything I can however produce solid reasoning backed up by circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

What makes it any more solid than Legga's? 

What little evidence or reasoning Legga has shared (such as Ed having a reputation as a Swede) is more wrong than right (based off circumstantial/anecdotal evidence).

Alright, lets ignore the Edvard clause for a second and see what's wrong with the rest of it. 

All debating over Ed does is decide if you cross one name off of a list or not. 

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.

It seems you've misunderstood the original point of contention. Legga made a specific claim about who's a Swede on this forum and I said his evidence or reasoning were too far off to be useful, and since the burden of proof is on him he's the one holding up the process by not backing up his claims.

You see, this was true until your attempt to debunk him involved your own list. 

For it to even be worth going back to his list, your list needs to be addressed, as your list was a counter-argument to his list. If he is to use that as data, then it needs to be verifiable instead of just trusted, yes? 

I'm not even demanding he produces 'scientific' evidence, because I understand how hard that'd be, just that he gives me his reasons or "assumptions" so that we can determine how likely they are. 

Okay, lets change "scientific" to "empirical". 

My list of Swedes is just an addendum to my point, showing what kind of reasoning I want from him.

No, it was you and Billy mocking him to the point of you being rendered sloppy enough for error. 

The list undermines you entirely, as you did something that isn't that different from what you were accusing Legga himself of doing. 

If he takes the position that we can only deal in 'better' evidence or there's no point then he should explicitly say so. Otherwise we're waiting for him. 

He's just using your arguments. He presented a list, you wanted better evidence, you presented your list to show you have better evidence, then you redefined your goal posts repeatedly as it was shown to be flimsy information. 

The statistical argument Legga makes (which I haven't replied to or challenged) in his paper is pointless if he can't argue convincingly that there actually are 6-7 Swedes on the forum. 

Your list of Swedes though would help speed that along. 

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.

Just because I don't take him seriously doesn't mean I don't take his arguments seriously.

You take his perceived reputation "seriously", which is how you once felt safe debating against him to the point of threatening to bump this topic repeatedly to show the world his shame. 

Ironically it's showing yours. 

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.

Not sure what you're saying here. Legga claimed Ed was Swedish because he had a reputation as "Swedish kickboxer". That isn't true, he has a reputation as a Scandinavian kickboxer. Race or edginess is irrelevant.

Basically a separate point of Ed not discussing much about his race. 

I mostly just recall him saying that he's "Black where it counts". 

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

He's also struggled to debate with Spatial a few times. 

He's loath to do these sorts of debates, but once wrapped into it it can span for days. 

I sometimes get frustrated when I enter a debate with the expectation of intellectual honesty and people following debate praxis but is faced with something different. More often than not though I am fully aware of the trollish and disingenuous nature and purposely decide to argue anyway because I enjoy it. If I loathed these debates I wouldn't do them.

So you enjoy debating with Spatial, and you think his methods are trollish and disingenuous in nature? 

I think it just gets Inquirer's more competitive side out, which is good. 

Turncoat said: 

When questioned for it's authenticity, you retreated into post-semantic arguments that, ultimately, still serve to try to rank your compiled list over his while trying to run away from the responsibility of proving your evidence, despite how there's little to make your list any more genuine beyond comparative reputation (a fallacy). 

What I've argued is that my list is more reasonable than his because of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, most of which I've named but not produced because my stated goal is to get him to list his reasoning (not produce high-grade empirical evidence). He has also seemingly denied the validity of any evidence that is limited to circumstance/anecdotes despite knowing that we can't really find anything better, so what's the point in digging up evidence for him if he's just going to ignore it?

While it is true I can't 'scientifically' prove anything I can however produce solid reasoning backed up by circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

What makes it any more solid than Legga's?

Basically, I gave reasoning behind every member on my list (which we could partially confirm if we wanted to) while he just stated certain people were Swedes.

What little evidence or reasoning Legga has shared (such as Ed having a reputation as a Swede) is more wrong than right (based off circumstantial/anecdotal evidence).

Alright, lets ignore the Edvard clause for a second and see what's wrong with the rest of it. 

All debating over Ed does is decide if you cross one name off of a list or not.

Ed is one name. MissC is another (for example, just for fun we had a Canadian + Nordic faction joining up to beat the Americans in number once and she 'lead' the Canadian faction). The only reason Legga listed User22 is because Legga whined about Swedes in chat and User22 played along with it once. Fake Sensy is either fake or a sock of a Swede so they don't count.

I don't consider it reasonable to list any of these people as Swedes. Do you?

It seems you've misunderstood the original point of contention. Legga made a specific claim about who's a Swede on this forum and I said his evidence or reasoning were too far off to be useful, and since the burden of proof is on him he's the one holding up the process by not backing up his claims.

You see, this was true until your attempt to debunk him involved your own list. 

For it to even be worth going back to his list, your list needs to be addressed, as your list was a counter-argument to his list. If he is to use that as data, then it needs to be verifiable instead of just trusted, yes?

No, it's still true. If we ignore my list then his list falls short in terms of empirical (I agree that's a better word) evidence. If we take my list into account then his reasoning needs to be shown to be comparable to mine. He's done neither.

We can't verify anything to the degree that he's expecting. Like I said, if I find the one thread on old SC where we did talk Swedish he'd just argue that could easily be faked and then dismiss that it'd give my list more weight than his and make it look more reasonable.

He's just using your arguments. He presented a list, you wanted better evidence, you presented your list to show you have better evidence, then you redefined your goal posts repeatedly as it was shown to be flimsy information.

How is it moving the goal posts? I have clearly argued against the kind of evidence he accuses me of demanding for pages now. Just look at this back on page 5:

Legga: You demand proof of people's nationalities to the point of having a photo of them with a national flag.

Inquirer: I've never demanded proof like that, which you know. If someone consistently says they're Swedish or speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence.

The statistical argument Legga makes (which I haven't replied to or challenged) in his paper is pointless if he can't argue convincingly that there actually are 6-7 Swedes on the forum. 

Your list of Swedes though would help speed that along.

Yes, but just because I give him a new list he can use doesn't mean his list or premise wasn't bad in the first place.

You take his perceived reputation "seriously", which is how you once felt safe debating against him to the point of threatening to bump this topic repeatedly to show the world his shame. 

Ironically it's showing yours.

What shame is that? I've poked/attacked him every step of the way just like he's done to me. Threatening to bump this topic is the same as calling him stupid or saying he's desperate. There's been no change, no "you once felt safe".

Not sure what you're saying here. Legga claimed Ed was Swedish because he had a reputation as "Swedish kickboxer". That isn't true, he has a reputation as a Scandinavian kickboxer. Race or edginess is irrelevant.

Basically a separate point of Ed not discussing much about his race. 

I mostly just recall him saying that he's "Black where it counts". 

"You demand proof of people's nationalities to the point of having a photo of them with a national flag. And that's fine, you can make that stance, that e.g. having a "Swedish kickboxer" reputation for 5+ years, never denying it, or speaking Swedish, is not enough to claim someone is Swedish."

This is his reasoning for calling Ed a Swede.

Turncoat said: 

So you enjoy debating with Spatial, and you think his methods are trollish and disingenuous in nature? 

I do think Tony's methods can be disingenuous, though not on purpose. I'm pretty sure he believes what he says and how he says it. I did find him frustrating years ago when we argued quantum physics for what felt like weeks but if I were to do it all over today I'd probably approach him differently (and not get frustrated).

I will award the true Swede title to whoever manages to suck the most Somali cocks within 24 hours

TC, my voice has been on the forum. If this was a fake me voice, it was well crafted with roots from years ago. It would have taken too much planning. Legga can compare my voice from any of the old vocaroos. Some are saved. Eddy have one where I sing. I have a distinct alto bit guttural type voice, Legga would know it is the same voice. He can ask Eddy to share if he is unsure.