Alright time to re-start. Turncoat wrote this much better than I ever could:
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.
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.
I'll clarify why this is not moving forward. Inquirer, you're arguing for many different premises, hoping that one of them sticks. Almost everything you say is either factually incorrect, misquote, intentional misunderstanding, or beside the point. I've more or less already won by invoking Hitchen's Razor, since you've failed to prove your claims.
You've switched between 3 different stances by invoking semantics. First, you say I should provide "evidence", but then you can't even do it yourself. Then you switch: You didn't mean the usual definition of evidence, you meant this specific Inquirer definition. Then you realize your evidence has *obvious* issues. So you try to argue that Inquirer evidence is great (and still do, proving that this was your stance), and that failed. So your stance becomes "even though Inquirer evidence is shit, it's still better than yours!"
If you refuse to even define your premise then you can't expect me to take you seriously or respond to your points. It's akin to inviting me to discussion and then refusing to answer when I ask what the topic is.
So no more BS and semantics, you claim , by direct quote, "Inquirer evidence is better than your evidence", which conveniently allows you not to embarrass yourself completely. In this case:
If you claim I am an idiot for not presenting "Inquirer evidence," then I can apply the same logic to conclude that you are an idiot for not presenting "verifiable evidence." I expect that you don't want to conclude you are an idiot, by your own logic.
Since you're refusing to address even these type of simple problems related to your premise I'm satisfied with ending this argument now. I'll have this as my new signature:
"I am an idiot, even by my own logic"
- Inquirer (2019)
Ps. I do want to clarify this: It was your claim, and your requirement for good evidence, that all those people on the list have consistently spoken Swedish and claimed they were Swedish. Not mine. You consistently whine it's impossible to prove your own claim. But that's not my problem. It's your problem. I don't know what points you think you're scoring when you say it's impossible. You're the one who's supposed to ensure your own arguments are sane.
