Legga, what makes you think I'm Swedish?
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
Technically, you do implicitly diss his paper. While you try to tiptoe around it being as overt, your aim was to make it seem ridiculous. What you can't do with logic you're attempting to do with reputation.
Technically speaking though, you're actually arguing against his paper every time that you say there's more than two to three Swedes on the forum:
Technically speaking though, you're actually arguing against his paper every time that you say there's more than two to three Swedes on the forum:
I statistically prove that Inquirer is lying in this letter. I refute his insane claim that there are 6 Swedes on SC in favour of my own sane claim that there are 2-3 Swedes on SC, at a bayes factor of 185. Moreover, by straightforward analysis, I show that Inq’s claims can be generally ruled out at around 95% probability
1. My stance was "people can decide for themselves", based on Bayesian logic [1]. No sane person would continue insisting on the correctness evidence if others clearly state they don't have access to the same information, which is precisely why I stated my view so many times. *YOU* claimed I needed to provide convincing evidence. I retorted with "you do it." And now you go "now the proof-of-burden is on you, because you said you can provide convincing evidence" when I clearly was saying the exact opposite.
Yes, I claimed you needed to back up your list of Swedes. That's irregardless of your Bayesian logic argument in your paper.
But you don't need to back up your list of Swedes? Your list is pure conjecture.
You can either do this with verifiable scientific-grade evidence or, like I suggested, just provide good reasoning.
What would make it good, that you find it believable?
"Good" and "Reasoning" are tricky words like that.
The burden of proof is on you since you are the one pushing the overall claim that I'm lying about Swedes/myself and you made the initial list of Swedes.
Essentially, you're trying to shift the burden of proof, which is a type of logical fallacy [2]. Here's the definition: "Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side." For someone who always goes "ad hominem derp derp" you should know this.
Again, imagine you never posted the paper and just the list. Why wouldn't the burden of proof be on you? You made the initial claim.
...and you responded to his claim with your own list of equal validity. That shifts the focus onto you.
Debate has some elements of game mechanics going on in that there is a priority stack. Much like Magic the Gathering, when someone plays a card, yes, they are expected to pay the mana for it and go through all of it's effects, but if someone plays a Counter card on it then that counter-card is now the one with priority. If the one playing the Counter card can't actually play it (or the Counter is itself Countered), then the original card gets to go onto the field and do it's thing where it can be taken down after the fact.
Because you tried to play a counter upon his argument, you effectively put your own argument on top of The Stack. If you cannot pay it's costs, it's effectively not in play, but you effectively keep claiming you paid a cost that you didn't (or more accurately that you don't have to pay that cost). The burden of proof goes to the one on top of the stack, whereas if you'd called out his list without making your own you'd have been able to comfortably sit in the Critic's Chair unharmed through raw rules lawyering.
You'd need to admit that you're effectively wrong or otherwise find a way to prove it if you want to actually move on to his list/paper/argument purely, as tactics such as calling him an idiot only serves to show your own reflection after throwing your own equally unprovable list into the mix. Where before you could have been a critic of pots and kettles, you now instead are one.
My point is and has been that you can't provide convincing evidence yourself, so you shouldn't call me an idiot if I fail to do that. If you think I did in fact make the claim that I can provide convincing evidence, then give me the citation in which I do it. I.e, provide evidence as per your stance or be labeled an idiot again, also as per your own stance. You will find no such citation.
I think you did make the claim implicitly by posting a list of Swedes. All I've done since is push you to actually back up that list.
Why not show him how it's done by doing it first? Be the example you'd like to see in others?
You are on top of the stack anyway, so until you swallow your pride, retract your own list, and accept that you've essentially called yourself an idiot repeatedly, the ball's in your court for proofing.
I've even said you're free to drop the list if you can't back it up (though I think it'd show you don't really know what you're talking about then).
You mean like you've been trying to do (and how you're seen now)?
Quote what I've failed to answer or define.
Well for example you failed to answer a yes/no question.
Quote it.
How is the question the same as "did you stop beating your wife," what the hell are you babbling about? It's an extremely simple question. Explain yourself.
I take it is "yes," since you consider that to be good evidence? Essentially, are you *NOT* arguing that I should give you something to convince you?
I'm not trying to strawman you. We can both agree that you went on to describe what you think is convincing evidence afterwards. But that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking you a simple question. And you didn't answer.
Do you agree you asked me to provide evidence which would convince you, or not? Yes or no?
I thought you were trying to catch me on semantics and that's why I answered your yes/no question like that.
But yes, I do agree I asked you to provide me with evidence/reasoning. Now what?
Have you spotted the hypocrisies and fallacies you're committing that let him dance so merrily around you like this?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
7/2/2019 2:58:43 AM
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?
That you wish there are deeper meanings, quirks or patterns at play because they make more sense to you than the relative mundaneness/simplicity of reality and because you get attached to your own theories.
I've had my theories fall apart more than enough times to know I'm not psychic or causally magical or whatever, but from those comes more theories.
Mundaneness/Simplicity is a concept meant to excuse not digging deeper. Thanks to the limits of our perceptions there is always more room to dig, and as long as there's components that comprise everything we know... nothing need be simple, as nothing truly is.
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.I'm not really sure what meaning you load into words such as "stoic" but I believe I've been consistently calm and collected on SC. I take it you disagree?
Yes, but my examples are liable to fall under "Inquirer Evidence" instead of anything helpful.
...either that or leaking PMs in lieu of S-C data, which would be pretty scummy, but based on past discussions you'd likely remain blind to them even while you're practically pulling out your hair and yelling how much of "a game it is" to compensate for your loud feelings you're otherwise not adjusted to.
I think you think you're a Vulcan, and people believing your hype to the point of building a totem for themselves around it reinforces the idea, but you very clearly have expressed strong feelings here and I think it's about time they be recognized for your own benefit.
Your point about laziness is too broadly made. I can be lazy when it comes to delving into topics that I don't find interesting or productive, sure, but that doesn't mean I am lazy when I actually engage.
There's degrees of laziness Inq, it's not some all or nothing binary.
It's a core part of your character, your laziness, so I guess it makes sense that you'd be making little excuses for yourself based on a differently weighed relativity scale.
It's like what my professor who taught psychology of addiction once said about addicts: "An addict is someone who does more than you're comfortable with on the regular." While I'd sit here and accuse a wide range of your behaviors of being lazy from my not being as lazy as you are, you'd meanwhile subdivide your lazy behaviors into "less lazy" and "more lazy" before relabeling them as "Not lazy" and "Yes lazy".
That you don't see that is, I think, an inflexibility on your part to consider goals or focuses narrower than your own. You think I'm "unwilling to work hard" when I decline to expand the topic, for example.
It's a theme.
If you do the same thing across a wide range of situations and topics, it becomes easier to lend that other behaviors of yours root from a similar if not the same tendency. It also is easier to believe laziness instead of disinterest when you've been baited into sticking to a topic for over a month, showing a zeal that is rather uncharacteristic of apathy.
I'd say in these circumstances (which are admittedly less lazy than your norm) that you aren't too lazy to type our eyes off, but you are too lazy to do more than just that.
These are examples of how you on one hand exaggerate my image (and claim I'm overly attached to it) and then exaggerate how far from these traits I actually am. In this way you make it seem as if the disparity between reality and reputation is far greater than it actually is.
What has you say that I'm exaggerating instead of you underplaying it?
Just consider how you describe my reputation as "sophisticated shmaht guy with zilch feelings, like some sort of Spock ripoff" and then call my stoicism "clearly just an unwillingness to work hard put behind the avatar of a poised old man".
I mean, am I wrong?
Your overarching point about me having a totem could still be true but it loses much of its punch if you're forced to actually stay reasonable.
I don't understand what you mean by the underlined portion.
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).
So because I'm not talking to blanc about make-up that means I'm actively trying to avoid embarrassing myself?
This was present back when the place wasn't as... "free spirited" too, back when SC culture still acknowledged the hyphen.
It's not like I'm saying this all just started within the last few months, this is a core part of who you are and what sorts of unintentionally self-imposed challenges you're liable to face.
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.
Trapped by what? Almost all of them stayed within the realm of the initial topic.
Look at the timestamps and the discussions here, you're very clearly trapped.
Yeah, some people are easier to debate than others. What's your point?
That you pick and choose where you think you'll win instead of where you'll feel properly challenged, the Ned argument vs Jaime Lanister's season one sense of character.
That's what makes topics like this amazing; "Hoisted by your own petard". You went through your usual filtration process, yet someone still baited you to the hooks.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
7/2/2019 4:31:10 AM
OMG TC, LOL. You seem so desperate to... actually, I don't even know? Prove that, despite being consistent for 6 years, Inq is actually an emotional wreck? hahaha.
OK so this is what I think this is really about…long-seeded resentment. I remember in early SC (2013) your whole personality aimed to be sorta what you seem to claim inq is. You feigned this seriously emotionally detached persona, which you kept up for quite a while until it came out that you were actually running into traffic trying to kill yourself after fighting with Crow, and you were having crying meltdowns on the bathroom floor at work, and when luna made Inq mod to fight CP, it was obvious you were pissed. You practically raged lol (in a passive aggressive way ofc, like by making snarky digs that Inq only follows Ed -rolls eyes-).
When you were finally de-modded and left to start EC and take down SC you were super pissed when Inq accepted mod-ship on SC again lol. I don't think you ever got over it, tbh. And you showed you can hold a grudge for a long time when you stayed up all night for months making those cringy sock puppets harassing luna more than a year later.
So now you're basically projecting and saying Inq is pulling a similar charade as you did. Even though Inq has been consistent on the site for years (more than 6) - you think he is putting up a facade. Which would be a lot of work btw, and you also say he is lazy lol.
Honestly you just seem mad and ego invested in taking him down a peg or two. If you think he comes off like a bot then you haven't taken time to know him. And, if you think he is hiding some wild emotional personality then just LOL. He's neither of those things. He's just selective about what and who he engages with and what he gives emotion to.
And, ib4 you attempt to dismiss me by saying I "just worship his totem" whatever the hell that means lol I'm sure I don't.
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
Legga, what makes you think I'm Swedish?
I Took The Liberty Of Fertilizing Your Caviar.
OMG TC, LOL. You seem so desperate to... actually, I don't even know?
I can tell.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔