Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

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"?

I never downgraded anything. It's you two who have decided what I meant by the word "evidence", despite my words to the contrary, and then go on to push the idea that I can't live up to my own standards. I've also repeatedly explained why I believe we can't find empirical evidence that would conclude the debate and that the next best thing we can judge our lists on is "reasoning" backed up by verifiable circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

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.

Anything that is equivalent to what I shared as my reasoning. I've brought up Legga's reasoning behind why Ed is allegedly a Swede many times now to illustrate both the kind of reasoning I am looking for -- and how I believe his is way off.

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.

"By your own stance, attach convincing proof of their nationality, which I can verify, that has also piled up "consistently" over the course of the forum years. Be reminded that you don't accept crowd vote."
"And be sure to make it that the evidence provides proof each person has been Swedish "consistently"."
"Give me proof that all these people have spoken/written Swedish consistently over the forum years and/or claimed they are Swedish."

Nothing he has said has shown he is willing to accept 1-2 posts in Swedish from, say, Missy as good enough verifiable evidence. Since I'm pretty sure I can't do better than that then why should I go on a wild goose chase to get him something he'll dismiss in 5 seconds?

If he wanted to help this along he'd stop ignoring my calls for him to define what kind of evidence he'd actually accept. Then we'd know if there's any hope for us to get any further.

So your reasons are better than his simply because his answers seem less thorough to you?

My reasons are better than his because he's basically not given any at all. He just listed a bunch of names.

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?

We can't 'prove' any list but we can compare how probable our different lists are given common sense, our collective consensus on SC and the assortment of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence we have. If you're asking me to verify any of these then that's fair, but it sounds as if you (just like Legga) demand far more comprehensive evidence than what any of us can reasonably provide.

He has already admitted to following Bayesian Inference.

[...]

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.

Bayesian inference doesn't give him the right to loudly make claims based on bad or unreasonable evidence or data, especially not given that this is clearly just an extension of previous 'attacks' on me. If his premise is stupid then I am obviously going to point it out and demand better.

What kind of evidence would be enough for you to prove whose list is more reasonable?

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.

Yes, I am accusing him off having bad starting data and I am making fun of him for it since it undermines his entire endeavor. If I hadn't showed him my list of Swedes he'd get absolutely nowhere. My list could possibly be used to prove his statistical point but that part of the paper is currently not being debated.

I presented my list to show him how far off I think he is and what kind of evidence/reasoning I'm looking for.

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.

It's called trash talk and we both do it to get the other off balance. Our actual arguments don't change just because we mock each other.

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?

Yes, sure.

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. 

Well, you don't seem to get it because waving away the example of Ed waves away my argument. With a similar level of evidence/reasoning I can show that my list is superior to his for every named person. It also shows that the only person on his list he has graciously given us reasons for thinking is Swedish is wrong. That basically makes my list better than his right off the bat. 

This thread is the pinnacle of human existance

sociopath-community.com "key phrase"

...and taking what links you find and searching for if someone snagged it before the site died. 

How do you plan on verifying that stuff other than word of mouth from other forum members? Evidence tends to be good at verifying things. 

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.

Anything that is equivalent to what I shared as my reasoning.

So him just talking about things he's noticed and referencing how someone's liable to back him up? 

I've brought up Legga's reasoning behind why Ed is allegedly a Swede many times now to illustrate both the kind of reasoning I am looking for -- and how I believe his is way off. 

Seemed more like you were focusing firing on a clear mistake he made to try to discredit his entire argument. 

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.

"By your own stance, attach convincing proof of their nationality, which I can verify, that has also piled up "consistently" over the course of the forum years.

You could at least try. 

"And be sure to make it that the evidence provides proof each person has been Swedish "consistently"."

So basically just asking that they aren't doing something like User did. 

"Give me proof that all these people have spoken/written Swedish consistently over the forum years and/or claimed they are Swedish."

This part seems fairly reasonable to me. 

Since I'm pretty sure I can't do better than that then why should I go on a wild goose chase to get him something he'll dismiss in 5 seconds?

For the sake of debate. 

Instead of being so defeatist, why not do it for the sport of it, or to see where it carries the discussion? You're basically giving up as the knowledgeable person purely because you don't want to put in the effort to back up your claims. 

If he wanted to help this along he'd stop ignoring my calls for him to define what kind of evidence he'd actually accept. Then we'd know if there's any hope for us to get any further. 

I mean didn't he basically just describe it? 

So your reasons are better than his simply because his answers seem less thorough to you?

My reasons are better than his because he's basically not given any at all. He just listed a bunch of names. 

But "reasons" were not the initial goal, it's just what you're trying to turn it into from that being all you're willing to do. 

Emphasis on "willing". 

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?

We can't 'prove' any list

You actually could, but you won't. 

but we can compare how probable our different lists are given common sense

Fuck "common sense", it's an illusory layman that means something different for everyone. 

our collective consensus on SC and the assortment of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence we have. If you're asking me to verify any of these then that's fair, but it sounds as if you (just like Legga) demand far more comprehensive evidence than what any of us can reasonably provide. 

I just want you to try to prove it at all, beyond "reason" and back towards "evidence". 

Reason should be backed by supposed evidence, not the other way around. 

He has already admitted to following Bayesian Inference.

[...]

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.

Bayesian inference doesn't give him the right to loudly make claims based on bad or unreasonable evidence or data, especially not given that this is clearly just an extension of previous 'attacks' on me.

...actually it kinda does. 

It's an evolving perspective that, with this data of yours verified, would shift into something better. 

It's as if you want his perspective to not grow. 

If his premise is stupid then I am obviously going to point it out and demand better.

That'd be fair... until you tried to one up him with a list of equal validity anyway. 

It's one thing to not even entertain the notion, but it's another to entertain it, try to one up it, and then backtrack after your blunder as if you never had to take it seriously in the first place. It's inconsistent and inauthentic. 

What kind of evidence would be enough for you to prove whose list is more reasonable?

"Website links will do." 

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.

It's called trash talk and we both do it to get the other off balance. Our actual arguments don't change just because we mock each other. 

It depends on what it's achieving. Mockery is in itself a weapon, and a very effective one. 

When you're doing the debate to win it authentically, it's about the effort you put into it, but when it's just a game it can easily become more about appealing to the crowd than to your opponent (the television style of debate). 

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?

Yes, sure. 

Neat. 

So many words

Good said: 

So many words

There was once a time that that was normal. 

Legga is a liar

Xadem said: 

Legga is a liar

I don't know. 

insert long ass argument trying hard to be dominant  and smart online xdd