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).
So you're just going to deny the need for evidence by downgrading what you're after after reducing your own "evidence" semantically into "reasoning"?
What would qualify as him saying "reasoning" in a way that you would accept? I think this is really a cover for your laziness, and that you expect people to just fill in the blanks for you over how you were the one to say it.
Legga has clearly put the effort into this (he even made charts), so why should he have to accept the laziness of your claims other than over a reputation fallacy you're trying to ride to the bank?
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?
He asked for links and resources ("website links will do"). If you'd bother to actually link them for him so that he'd have proof beyond your word he'd have to either face the evidence or be called on for ignoring it.
There might be something on record somewhere in either The Wayback Machine or archive.li. I wouldn't bother with Google caches of S-C, as that got glitchy pretty quickly after she realized that Google caches can hold onto deleted topics if they are mass-posted quickly enough. ![Posted Image]()
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.
So your reasons are better than his simply because his answers seem less thorough to you?
Without anything to back up your claim, your phrasing is just more verbose, maybe even supported through sheer bandwagoneering from the basis of your reputation vs his (again, a fallacy).
He could fill a post with millions of "reasons", and even with more of said "reasons" stockpiled than you it's all a bunch of nonsense without even shreds of facts that we could try to construe as evidence.
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?
The point here isn't over how valid his list is anymore, but instead how valid yours is. It's weird to see you not following his train over a very simple argument.
If you cannot prove your own list, then your list is of equal validity. You can sit here and tear down his list all day long, but if you cannot prove your own then what good is it?
He has already admitted to following Bayesian Inference. BI finds subjective probabilities by folding in what you already "know" about the answer, and if you were to prove your list, he could use that data to further this discussion. As is you're throwing a wrench in the gears by not providing superior evidence, and have about as much of a right otherwise to spout your nonsense as he does his.
How is he supposed to come to a correct conclusion if his opponent won't even correct him in any way that's useful? You might as well just be saying "I'm right and you're wrong nyah nyah" if you can't even prove your ideas. The burden of proof has been saddled on you, as you were the last one to make a major claim on the stack.
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.
But your list was your counter-argument, and the way to push this discussion somewhere productive.
If his list is to be shat on, why not replace it with a better one?
If we take my list into account then his reasoning needs to be shown to be comparable to mine. He's done neither.
What has made your list more reasonable beyond your reputation and verbosity?
Reasoning is deduced from evidence. If you could show him said evidence, he'd be forced to concede with it more so than how much he has no reason to do so now.
We can't verify anything to the degree that he's expecting.
"Website links will do."
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.
More laziness justification.
If you want to spell out how his character won't take it seriously, prove it instead of just accusing him of it without the circumstances even being given the room to pass. This is as easy as establishing evidence.
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:
The semantics, your re-defining of words, is how you moved goal posts.
You were forced to downgrade your "evidence" into "reasoning", then you expected him to present "Inquirer Evidence" when that isn't even really a thing.
When you were unable to provide the very things you were asking him for, you stepped back and made it about something you saw yourself as having presented that he hadn't. He and I can easily argue that your "reasoning" has no real validity if there is no evidence behind it to back it up, and that changing the required terms when you're cornered is not fighting fair.
Essentially, you presented a list, refused to prove it's validity, then demanded that he do things after your refusal to to salvage your position.
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.
Then why did you present your list at all?
All he can really be accused of is having supposedly bad starting data, but if we were to take your list into account you actually presented quite a few names, somewhat proving his point albeit with a different roster.
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.
Yes, character assassinations to assist your ad hominem strategies.
There's been no change, no "you once felt safe".
So you still feel safe in your current stance then with Legga as your debate opponent, to the point of over-confidently bumping this topic like a trophy?
This is his reasoning for calling Ed a Swede.
We get it. For the sake of argument lets say Ed's not a Swede.
Now what? This doesn't topple the house of cards you two's talk has made.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
