Sociopath Community

Legga said: 

I'll clarify why this is not moving forward. Inquirer, you're arguing for many different premises, hoping that one of them sticks.

No, the reason this isn't moving forward is simply because you refuse to do one of the following: provide scientific evidence for your initial list or provide reasoning as per my instructions for your initial list.

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!"

1. You assume the definition of the word evidence and refuse to accept I meant something less stringent with it.
2. You pretend I am switching around definitions and premises when I am not; the same reasoning I provided for my list is what I've consistently asked of you, nothing else.
3. You repeatedly misunderstand or misrepresent my argument about "Inquirer evidence": while reasoning alone obviously can't be used to conclusively prove anything it can still give us a clear idea whose list is more reasonable, especially when paired with anecdotal or circumstantial evidence.

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.

I claim you're an idiot for not presenting evidence at all, scientific or otherwise. If you believe you can scientifically prove your list then great, do it, but I think expecting that of you (or me for that matter) is unreasonable. That's why I've proposed and pushed the idea that reasoning, backed with anecdotal or circumstantial evidence when called for, is a perfectly viable alternative.

 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.

This is what I said back on page 5: "If someone consistently says they're Swedish or speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence."

All I'm asking for is for you to show or reasonably argue that the people you listed have spoken/written decent Swedish and/or have claimed they're Swedish more than just once (so we can't just count in people who lazily troll you in chat, like User). This claim that I've demanded scientific evidence is a complete strawman.

Turncoat said: 

He carries himself like he's this sophisticated shmaht guy with zilch feelings, like some sort of Spock ripoff, yet he makes tons of mistakes and contradicts this illusion he's cast often (probably partially a side effect of the avatar).

I think this insistence of yours to bring up my 'image' (an image I believe you're exaggerating) says more about you than about me.

He also tries to make excuses for his own laziness and stubbornness a lot (he feels entitled to these feelings when he's "right"), which strangely seems to work for him when compared to other people.

This may be because you often put in and call for a level of effort that goes beyond what many feel is worthwhile or reasonable, so while you may feel I am lazy others might not.

As I mentioned to Legga, he only likes to go for easy subjects so that he can maintain the illusions he's cast, otherwise avoiding subjects that are not his forte to avoid showing how much he doesn't actually know"

[...]

Is it any coincidence that his usual choice in public debate partners on here are the likes of Spatial Mind, Legga, and Bohemian Rhapsody, people with reputations that'd support his laziness in one way or another (similar ways too really)? It's no wonder he finds himself trapped in debates with people he thinks "aren't good at it", as those are his main fair until said traps draw in others (like myself).

Again, it's funny how you take something fairly obvious and uncontroversial and try to spin it to mean something deeper and more 'shady'. Just because I choose topics to engage in based on interests and knowledge (those two often go hand in hand) doesn't mean I'm actively trying to hide my lack of knowledge in other fields, or that I'm trying to 'maintain illusions I've cast'.

I also think you're cherry picking your list of "usual choice of debate partners" there. I've debated Koloss, MrM, you, Syst, Organism and Alice among others, clearly pointing to the driving factor for me being the topic itself, not the people participating.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

He carries himself like he's this sophisticated shmaht guy with zilch feelings, like some sort of Spock ripoff, yet he makes tons of mistakes and contradicts this illusion he's cast often (probably partially a side effect of the avatar).

I think this insistence of yours to bring up my 'image' (an image I believe you're exaggerating) says more about you than about me.

At the risk of redirecting focus, what's it say about me then? 

He also tries to make excuses for his own laziness and stubbornness a lot (he feels entitled to these feelings when he's "right"), which strangely seems to work for him when compared to other people.

This may be because you often put in and call for a level of effort that goes beyond what many feel is worthwhile or reasonable, so while you may feel I am lazy others might not.

Banking off of band wagon laziness to justify your own... 

As I mentioned to Legga, he only likes to go for easy subjects so that he can maintain the illusions he's cast, otherwise avoiding subjects that are not his forte to avoid showing how much he doesn't actually know"

[...]

Is it any coincidence that his usual choice in public debate partners on here are the likes of Spatial Mind, Legga, and Bohemian Rhapsody, people with reputations that'd support his laziness in one way or another (similar ways too really)? It's no wonder he finds himself trapped in debates with people he thinks "aren't good at it", as those are his main fair until said traps draw in others (like myself).

Again, it's funny how you take something fairly obvious and uncontroversial and try to spin it to mean something deeper and more 'shady'.

Not shady, mostly lazy. 

This isn't some complicated scheme on your part with black market dealings involved or whatever, this is you having a totem erected in your honor over an idea you're passively selling to people (and not correcting when they think it), likely to reinforce your own view of your construct that you take to be "you". They misappropriate your behavior as stoic poise traits when it's clearly just an unwillingness to work hard put behind the avatar of a poised old man, and you eat up their mistake and take their praises of you as facts about yourself. 

I feel like people meeting you in person would burst this illusion you've cast with others' help. 

Just because I choose topics to engage in based on interests and knowledge (those two often go hand in hand) doesn't mean I'm actively trying to hide my lack of knowledge in other fields, or that I'm trying to 'maintain illusions I've cast'.

It means exactly that. You don't want to embarrass yourself, you don't want to go into subjects where you'd need to take risks, and this "selection" of yours is largely responsible for how people perceive you (and likely has tie ins with how you see yourself based on lacking exposure to risk). It gives them the illusion that you're liable to always know what you're talking about, when it's really closer to the old high school model of why hot chicks hang out with uglier ones (to magnify their own beauty through contrast). It gives you easy room to appeal towards the general bandwagon when they already have reason to be annoyed or confused over your opponents. 

People tend to construct the circumstances around them that let them feel like a winner. 

I also think you're cherry picking your list of "usual choice of debate partners" there. I've debated Koloss, MrM, you, Syst, Organism and Alice among others, clearly pointing to the driving factor for me being the topic itself, not the people participating.

Many of those jumped into topics where something else had you trapped first, and a few on there I'd argue you think are still "easy" from that list. 

Everybody's an easy target when you're always right.

Inquirer said: 

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.

I claim you're an idiot for not presenting evidence at all, scientific or otherwise.

Hallelujah, so your stance was "provide any evidence," no matter how bad/anecdotal/unverifiable it is.

If I provide *any* evidence, you will admit I've won, I take it? Let me just confirm your stance before I do.

No, that's not correct. Inq is stating that you not presenting any evidence at all implies you're an idiot. Logically, this doesn't mean you won't be an idiot even if you present evidence.

user22212 said: 

No, that's not correct. Inq is stating that you not presenting any evidence at all implies you're an idiot. Logically, this doesn't mean you won't be an idiot even if you present evidence.

Oh I see, you're a genius of interpretation, user. He who shall make a claim shall also attach proof on first encounter or be deemed an idiot. Wouldn't that make Inq an idiot, when he first stated that some of the members are Swedish with no evidence. Makes perfect sense. Thanks man.

So for anyone else who thinks this is not sarcasm, it is. I'm only pointing out that Inquirer keeps repeating factually incorrect nonsense to avoid addressing a simple issue with his premise. This is getting sad. Inquirer, for the third time:

If you claim I am an idiot for not presenting "Inquirer evidence," which is not even verifiable, then I can apply the same logic to conclude that you are an idiot for not presenting "verifiable evidence."

Just provide a logical answer to this. It really isn't that hard. Anyone with half an IQ can do it.

For someone who tries so hard to appear smart, this isn't very impressive.

 And just as a reminder before you go on a tangent and quote exactly everything else but the main point, this is what I want you to quote:

Legga said: 

If you claim I am an idiot for not presenting "Inquirer evidence," which is not even verifiable, then I can apply the same logic to conclude that you are an idiot for not presenting "verifiable evidence."

 Is this clear enough?

This is really like pulling teeth.

Legga said: 

Hallelujah, so your stance was "provide any evidence," no matter how bad/anecdotal/unverifiable it is.

If I provide *any* evidence, you will admit I've won, I take it? Let me just confirm your stance before I do.

Stop being retardedly literal. You keep trying to 'disprove' what I say by completely ignoring the actual context/meaning and instead obsessing about semantics.

Either provide scientific evidence (ie. what you push for) or present evidence/reasoning similar to what I gave you, backed with reasonable anecdotal or circumstantial evidence when called for.

Legga said: 

If you claim I am an idiot for not presenting "Inquirer evidence," which is not even verifiable, then I can apply the same logic to conclude that you are an idiot for not presenting "verifiable evidence."

I've been extremely clear here: I can't provide scientific evidence but I can provide "Inquirer evidence".

You can mock my alternative to "verifiable evidence" all you want but if you reject the idea of it we automatically fall back upon scientific evidence. The burden of proof is on you either way, thus you're the idiot for not providing any. Not me.

Inquirer said: 

Stop being retardedly literal. You keep trying to 'disprove' what I say by completely ignoring the actual context/meaning and instead obsessing about semantics.

Either provide scientific evidence (ie. what you push for) or present evidence/reasoning similar to what I gave you, backed with reasonable anecdotal or circumstantial evidence when called for.

I was just making fun of you because you keep avoiding the question, as I clearly said in the post below that one.

I've been extremely clear here: I can't provide scientific evidence but I can provide "Inquirer evidence".

You can mock my alternative to "verifiable evidence" all you want but if you reject the idea of it we automatically fall back upon scientific evidence. The burden of proof is on you either way, thus you're the idiot for not providing any. Not me.

 Can you just give me your answer to that problem instead of avoiding it? Do I need to ask a fourth time?

You didn't even state why you think burden of proof is on me. You made the claim that all these people are Swedish. You certainly haven't proven that.