Let me try to explain this in your argumentation style, MissC:
Derp derp I will refuse to address any of your points and cry about it instead.
See, for someone who constantly pulls ad hominems I can do pretty much the same. Inquirer is free to answer my question if he likes.
I hope you can listen to your own logic.
Let me explain why people find it enjoyable to see someone who's acting high and mighty pompous finally lose a debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2XOOESpZg0
I find this debate to be a lot of fun after Inquirer called me an idiot, slow and what-not several times, including in chat. He was pumping his chest so hard 20 pages back, challenging me even when I tried to be nice to him. He went "you can admit loss any time but I'll be bumping this topic frequently to show how you miserably lost the debate and made yourself look stupid."
Of course people funny when it turns around, he shoots himself in the foot, and loses the debate. Even Alice finds some comical elements here.
oh, the thread is definitely entertaining but I don't see how you can see yourself as the winner lol
Let me try to explain this in your argumentation style, MissC:
Derp derp I will refuse to address any of your points and cry about it instead.
See, for someone who constantly pulls ad hominems I can do pretty much the same. Inquirer is free to answer my question if he likes.
I hope you can listen to your own logic.
where did i use ad hominems?
And, you're still avoiding answering why you thought i was a Swede?
Legga's list was obviously wrong and he has refused to address or explain why he chose the people he did to be on it.
See, this is why it's good to read everything instead of just jumping in half-informed. The list he gave isn't even something he believes to be the case himself:
Legga said:Inquirer, seven: Inqy, Sensy, Fake Sensy, Missy, MissC, Edvard, user/V for Vendetta
I under-estimated the count by one, since when I drafted my paper I didn't know Vendetta is Swedish too.
"The count" refers to the following in his paper:
Daniel's Paper said:I refute his claim that there are 6 swedes on SC in favour of my own claim that there are 2-3, at a Bayes factor of 185.
His paper is not dependent on it, in fact, his paper claims that he thinks there's only two to three Swedes here, and he did not hide this belief prior to this topic in the slightest. His paper was actually more dependent on Inquirer trying to list how many Swedes he thinks attend this forum, and Legga making a bogus "maybe these people" list achieved exactly that. He never even tried to defend that list, not even once (save for Edvard), and neither had I, merely that Inquirer's later presented list was principally of equal validity to an obviously bunk list.
For what Inquirer was calling Legga an "idiot" over are things he himself cannot (or will not) do, and this is why we're laughing at how he's called himself an idiot by his own logic. He otherwise from there has been trying to redefine the terms of engagement purely over his own laziness and pride (laziness over not bothering to prove it, pride over refusing to accept where he's blundered and change said terms after he fudged it).
What makes his list "obviously" wrong and Inquirer's "obviously" right is based on information we do not have access to, meaning for someone without that information already that Inquirer'd be taken purely on faith. There's little to nothing that actually proves Inquirer's list in ways that can be independently verified, merely what led him to those conclusions: Conjecture.
The debate has not evolved past this but instead been widdled into semantics on both your parts to try to wiggle your way out of this sticky issue.
Care to explain this part in more detail?
He set his own trap from the get go and you have desperately tried to find ways to avoid the main contention that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Based on what, just the list that isn't even meant to reflect his own opinion?
If he doesn't even know who the real Swedes are how can he take his case any further and make any assumptions about what caused the former high percentage of Swedes to be on the site.
I mean do you know who the "real Swedes" on the site are?
So moving away from the lists, which inq never did, btw. Legga's contention is that all the former members who claimed to be Swedish for years and who spoke Swedish - people he can't even name - were fake minus 2-3. And to support this he uses basic population stats as proof. This is right back to a 'Sensie is Inq' level claim.
So moving away from the lists, which inq never did, btw.
Top of page 7.
So moving away from the lists, which inq never did, btw.
Top of page 7.
No. I mean he never moved away from debating the validity of Legga's list to even get to the paper.
So moving away from the lists, which inq never did, btw.
Top of page 7.
No. I mean he never moved away from debating the validity of Legga's list to even get to the paper.
The above would have been fine until he threw his own equally invalid list into the topic, forcing the comparison (he did also argue about his paper a few times in relation to his list).
Inq tried to "drop" the lists thing too, but hypocritically tried to frame it in a way where only Legga is the one to have lost despite how he can't do it either:
Inquirer said: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).
Inq's tried to find ways make it about the paper, but he can't allow himself to accept the necessary loss to do so. As long as he keeps lording his own list's superiority without the ability to prove it, he's by his own logic "an idiot". While he has said that the daunting task is impossible (more like difficult imo), he still holds to his list's anecdotal qualities as legitimate with nothing to back it other than his word and reputation, which for objectivity is equally valid to Legga not granting any evidence at all.
Legga's contention is that all the former members who claimed to be Swedish for years and who spoke Swedish - people he can't even name - were fake minus 2-3. And to support this he uses basic population stats as proof.
He came up with a theory using Inductive Reasoning and, through Bayesian Inference, he attempted to figure the odds based on the limited knowledge he had at the time (he didn't even say he couldn't be wrong, he just crunched some odds based on an initially believed number that's close to Inquirer's actually believed figure). The notion of groups of people here with this low of a user count largely being from the same places is actually less likely than us being from all over, let alone the numbers we're claiming for them (he's questioned Ohio through similar reasoning). He has never hidden this and by the nature of it has presented himself as open to the presentation of new data to help refine his findings (even as far as to change his 95% figure to an 80% figure mid-discussion early on), but like any reasonable person should be doing he's requesting proof. Since Inq cannot prove his list, Legga's paper is still in play from it's initial premise referring to Inquirer's claim as "Insane" for being that baselessly numerous.
Feasibly, he could come to similar conclusions without having names and instead just by doing a basic head count before questioning the odds.
MissCommunication said:Anyone can use basic population numbers and math to say the percentages don't add up but that removes all sociological reasons behind what would make certain cultures more likely to show up on a sociopath community.
Do you have that kind of data?
It's not really "removed" if we don't even have it yet.
LOL! What's hilarious here is that while you're gloating over your big 'gotcha' you don't see how you've in fact trapped yourselves and are about to entirely refute the claims in Legga's paper.
See, you're saying Legga's premise was always that there was 2-3 Swedish users. And Legga made a list you claim is irrelevant and a list he never believed in or defended. Ok.
But you're ignoring that Inq always claimed there was 6-7 users. And he provided a list of Swedes to support that theory along with reasonable evidence for those members. Now, you can say his evidence is 'anecdotal' and you could maybe even say his evidence is 'circumstantial' but it is indeed evidence.
If you're saying (and you are) that his evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt then that falls on you to show how. And, the moment you provide reasons why it is not beyond a reasonable doubt you will inevitably end up negating Legga's entire 'paper' in the process. haha
Do you see how that works?
See, this is why it's good to read everything instead of just jumping in half-informed. The list he gave isn't even something he believes to be the case himself:"
[...]
He never even tried to defend that list, not even once (save for Edvard), and neither had I, merely that Inquirer's later presented list was principally of equal validity to an obviously bunk list.
Legga said this on page 1:
"As for evidence: Inquirer is a caricature of a character, he and SensitiveSoul always show up together, take breaks off SC together, have exactly the same active times (much more so than their other Swedish counterparts), and there are 6 fucking Swedish people here on this forum. There are even two SensitiveSouls now. All of this can't be a coincidence."
I've said there's been a number of Swedes on the forum over the years but never that there are currently 6 Swedes on the forum. That's something Legga has made up himself. I think it's entirely reasonable of me to demand he backs up statements like these, especially considering they're part of a general narrative targeting me (which goes beyond the "paper" he's put forward in this thread). His apparent inability to do so shows he's really got no clue about this forum and the people on it, which does matter, despite your attempts to shoot it down as a 'reputation fallacy', because it shows he's a bad faith actor and doesn't care about actually researching the topic or coming to a reasonable conclusion.
No. I mean he never moved away from debating the validity of Legga's list to even get to the paper.
The above would have been fine until he threw his own equally invalid list into the topic, forcing the comparison (he did also argue about his paper a few times in relation to his list).
Inq tried to "drop" the lists thing too, but hypocritically tried to frame it in a way where only Legga is the one to have lost despite how he can't do it either:
Let's try one more time, though I feel like I've already stated this numerous times before:
Do you see how if you argue my list is "invalid" then the burden of proof is still on Legga to prove his list (now with rigorous scientific evidence instead)? My list is only "forcing the comparison" in the case where we both do accept my alternative to scientific evidence. If we don't then it's as if I never posted it.
* By the way, I use "scientific evidence" here, and elsewhere, to denote evidence that is so all-encompassing as to be basically irrefutable. While Sensy's old vocaroos, for example, is verifiable evidence they're not conclusive by themselves. "Inquirer evidence" or "reasonable evidence" etc. is what I call the lowered standard of evidence I've pushed, but I'm sure there's a better word for both of these.
As long as he keeps lording his own list's superiority without the ability to prove it, he's by his own logic "an idiot". While he has said that the daunting task is impossible (more like difficult imo), he still holds to his list's anecdotal qualities as legitimate with nothing to back it other than his word and reputation, which for objectivity is equally valid to Legga not granting any evidence at all.
I have proven my list is superior to Legga's when it comes to reasoning (simply because Legga didn't specify any). I've also detailed how I'd go about finding the little verifiable evidence that exist if he finally does decide to play ball. Just like I questioned his reasoning behind claiming Ed had a reputation as a Swedish kick boxer he can question my list, and at that point I will try to find the evidence I've stated I think I can find.
I am not however going to dig up all that verifiable evidence (yet anecdotal and circumstantial) unless Legga shows he's willing to work with it. So far everything's pointing to him rejecting it out of hand because it's not stringent enough for his taste.
