Sociopath Community

Inquirer said:

especially considering he continually refused to answer my questions about what evidence he'd actually accept.

I do this literally one post above you.

Legga said: 

Ok, thank you. Then your stance is that I need to provide something that can convince you.

Do you agree that it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to reject information which I have no access to?

Inquirer, you said:

The people on your list need to have consistently spoken Swedish and claimed they were Swedish. You argued that it is worth nothing if someone simply speaks Swedish or claims they're Swedish for a short period of time; you yourself said this doesn't count as good evidence.

Saying "(..) he will reject it out of hand because it's not stringent enough for his taste" is hypocritical as hell. While I certainly am entitled to any view I like and ask for evidence, as are you, this was your argument.

I've already explained this to you. I said on page 5: "If someone consistently says they're Swedish or speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence.".

This means that I will accept evidence that shows someone has at least spoken/written good Swedish once or have claimed to be Swedish more than once (to avoid trolling like User's, because I'm sure you'd refer to them otherwise). I have not demanded evidence of consistent speaking/writing of Swedish, that'd invalidate my own argument that that kind of evidence is too difficult (or impossible) to find.

This thread went something like this:

Me: "I like Bayesian view, here's a list of Swedes for you to use to evaluate my paper"

Inquirer: "Your view list is shit, you need to give me evidence/reasoning of people's nationalities."

Me: "I can't give evidence, that's practically untenable."

Inquirer: "Yes you can, I'm only asking for reasoning backed up with some anecdotal/circumstantial data."

Me: "derp derp"

Inquirer: "Then you're an idiot, here's my list of Swedes."

Me: "Give evidence."

Inquirer: "I gave you my reasoning and stated what limited evidence I think I can find, same as I asked of you."

Me: "Then you're an idiot by your own logic."

Inquirer: Shakes my head

Fixed it for you again.

Let's say I will find evidence of each person on the list having been Swedish consistently (over let's say a handful of topics and period of ~4 months) good enough proof.

So there, now I've clearly stated what I want, as I have several times already. Stop saying I haven't.

What do you mean by "been Swedish consistently"? Is it enough if they've said they are Swedish or do you still expect consistent Swedish posting? Would you also accept testimony from other members?

Legga said: 

Inquirer said:

especially considering he continually refused to answer my questions about what evidence he'd actually accept.

I do this literally one post above you.

 Chill, I referred to your refusal in past tense.

Inquirer said:

That's not unreasonable, but what is unreasonable is demanding such stringent evidence that it's impossible for us to prove anything. I've clearly stated multiple times what my claims are (the list of Swedes) and how I'd go about finding evidence for that list. I've then asked you to confirm if that level of evidence is acceptable to you (before I actually produce it) and you've yet to reply (until this post) to a single one of those requests. Instead you hark on about "Inquirer evidence" to purposely stall.

Inquirer, you're intellectually really dishonest. I wasn't expecting that. You keep re-defining stuff you say.

Since I didn't reply to the rest of your post, let me do that now.

I have not demanded evidence of consistent speaking/writing of Swedish, that'd invalidate my own argument that that kind of evidence is too difficult (or impossible) to find.

Let's say I will find evidence of each person on the list having been Swedish consistently (over let's say a handful of topics and period of ~4 months) good enough proof.

So there, now I've clearly stated what I want, as I have several times already. Stop saying I haven't.

What do you mean by "been Swedish consistently"? Is it enough if they've said they are Swedish or do you still expect consistent Swedish posting? Would you also accept testimony from other members?

Let me explain a bit more before I go on. I'm intellectually honest like that, while you're strawmaning the hell out of everyone.

My point has been that your evidence is subjective. Any John and Jack can come in here with their own definition, make it slightly more stringent/different than yours, and then call you an idiot. In fact, it sure sounds like this is what you're doing:

"This means that I will accept evidence that shows someone has at least spoken/written good Swedish once or have claimed to be Swedish more than once (to avoid trolling like User's, because I'm sure you'd refer to them otherwise)."

Had you accepted that condition, you'd be forced to admit that there was "good" evidence. So you come up with Inquirer evidence, which is "good evidence", but which has no universal justification except your subjective bias. You refuse to justify it, but it is conveniently constructed so as to drive your points. Except that you didn't realize it's unverifiable.

So let's adopt a completely neutral, unbiased point of view. So forget subjective bias for a second. From a neutral point of view, you have to give something stringent.

So in this case, we could say that:

1. The person has to have spoken Swedish (e.g. vocaroo recordings)

2. The person has to have chatted in Swedish

3. They should have knowledge of Swedish culture

4. If the person has also claimed they are Swedish, then it's a plus

And they should've done it consistently over their forum life, chats in Swedish, perhaps 1-2 vocaroos, shown they have good knowledge of Sweden, and they should've claimed they're Swedish at least once or twice. All of this.

Then you can be certain that they're Swedish [1].

So can you fulfill all these "neutral" requirements, and give me evidence for them?

[1] Well, unless there's good evidence to believe otherwise. But that's just Bayesian bias, which I'm willing to neglect here. There's no way you can know what type of information I or others have, so I can't expect you to. Again, I'm intellectually honest like that, in contrast to you.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

FYI Inquirer, it doesn't work that way. If you want to be taken seriously (over actual merits and not hype), then you need to earn it, not disclaimer in a pre-defeatist way how it's a waste of your precious time (something contradicted by your time spent otherwise). If you can prove your list and it's still not accepted by him, you still have yourself and your peers that you're proving yourself to and your effort spent proving it'll be established on here, meaning you won't have to do it again. Your group think heft would actually have some justification if his reason for turning it down isn't reasonable, as at that point it's no longer about reputation but instead about actions.

I already did put in effort once by doing the call with him and Sensy.

I can't verify the validity of that for myself, and I'm meaning the "effort" for your list, hence "If you can prove your list". As an aside though, this based on my currently limited information also doesn't verify the number of Swedes or even Sensy's Swede cred, just that you two are that much more likely to not be the same person (still doesn't bar someone subbing for Sensy, but Occam'd go with it really being her being the simpler answer). 

A call which he proposed, then stalled, then refused to talk in and ultimately rejected as evidence for anything.

What does him speaking or not in the call have to do with anything? Yet more irrelevant rep smearing. Look, Legga's now even for your benefit given a more than reasonable timeframe for how long they'd need to keep up their facade in light of better proof for it to be good enough to account for on your list. 

In light of that it's entirely reasonable of me to be wary of wasting time by finding evidence likely to be rejected just as quickly, especially considering he continually refused to answer my questions about what evidence he'd actually accept. 

As this goes on I'm beginning to question how valid the proof is even by the Inquirer standard, or if you'd even know where to start. 

Inquirer said:

Legga said:

I do this literally one post above you.

Chill, I referred to your refusal in past tense. 

So is it not entirely reasonable now that the terms are more easily defined? His frustration is reasonable, especially when you keep repeating as a reputation attack against him that he isn't doing this. He literally asked you to stop that strawman, and you then continue it on the following line just as ignorant to the terms he made as you'd been from his prior posts (this one even as far easier terms to accomplish). I'm sure you'd not appreciate that sort of thing happening had it been shoe on the other foot.

Dude threw you a bone with this "four months" thing and yet you still refuse. 

Edit: The terms he defined after that seem even easier now. 

You're basically arguing that even if Legga is unreasonable it's still worth it to prove myself to the audience.

If you want to be taken seriously on the merits of your reputation instead of the hype of it, yes. Also if you're going to make a bold faced claim without backing up any of it, expect to not be taken seriously beyond appearances. If you don't plan on proving your validity to Legga, myself, or the audience, then why should any of us take you seriously, let alone Legga? 

Anyone can sit there and tell themselves that they must be right and therefor don't need to entertain all the other wrong people, but that's not how a logically constructed proper debate is handled and you've given up your pass to The Critic's Chair once you threw in your own list. The fact that you are doing it out loud, for this long, if it's not to prove it to yourself, must be in relation to proving it to someone else or else why would you even do it? 

It's certainly not for sport when you won't even follow it's rules, and while people like myself have gone into debates with the room to see themselves as wrong, you strike me as one who'd only defend himself and his points until you no longer feel heard, an expression of the ego more than anything logical, and would otherwise only look things up to reaffirm the opinion you already have instead of testing it's legitimacy. 

I'm not really interested in that though. Are you sure you're not projecting when you claim I'm doing these debates for my image? ~

You've made it clear that you want to be taken seriously but don't want to put in the costs of it. Other than through illegitimate means you cannot have both. If you really didn't care about your image like that you'd resemble something closer to Turq or Jim, both users who don't feel the need to defend themselves when they are not taken seriously, unlike you who expects that your word should mean something towards who you're talking to.

Cards. Cost. Mana. You can't just say you're doing something with nothing behind it or you look like an idiot, as per your own logic. Shit, in a practical sense, even if you just convince me at this point you'll have disarmed half of Legga's forces. This defeatist snark'll only get you people who support you through your charisma, not your logic. 

I could list like 10 random people and make up anecdotal shit on the fly, and that would not make it any more valuable than pressing random keys or saying nothing at all. 

As things are, the things you've said are just words backed up by nothing but your reputation. Until there is actual proof in front of us there is no reason to take you any more seriously than lorem ipsum.

It's not just words backed up by reputation. I've made claims and have explained how well and in what way I think I can back them up with evidence.

But there's still no evidence. According to you we just are supposed to expect, based on the merits of who you are, that you could and therefor don't have to. That is plain and simple a reputation heuristic, and not anything based on anything otherwise verifiable, showing it to be a fallacy you're trying to coast on as if it were enough.

Being "correct" isn't enough when you need to be correct correctly. As is even with the wrong answers we at least have Legga participating, while all you do is allude to supposed vocaroos and S-C data you haven't even begun digging for (or... have you?).

Inquirer said:

Surely you're capable of eye-balling which list is more reasonable based off that and your own general knowledge?

If we were to go, purely, with my admittedly limited pool of knowledge and Legga's new four month clause, I'd as of now consider three of these names instead of all eight: 

Inquirer: You've spent a long time selling this one, and if it's not the case then you covered a surprising number of bases (even down to the IP). 

SensitiveSoul: Assuming you're both being honest, both you and Legga confirm this one, so that at least for the logic of this debate has it as a mutually accepted alias that I can take on faith in lieu of my own knowledge. For this to not be the case you'd have to both be wrong, which is not the simpler answer in spite of how easy it'd be for someone to fake an accent. 

Missy: I've seen her at least play pretend for the long haul, and with Legga's generous redefinition of evidence even someone who fakes it to make it like Angee used to counts. 

Cadaver: I never saw his dox and I thought he was from elsewhere. I also never really saw him claiming to be from there, just some language gobbltigook once or twice that was beyond my comprehension for gauging legitimacy. 

Animerat: Wasn't he someone's puppet? I think I saw it accused of being Cadaver a few times. 

Deliciae: Who the fuck is this? 

MangoTiddies: I don't even have to take this one seriously from you yourself quickly dismissing it. 

Obsidian: That guy's a PFer who mostly had SC presence through people quoting him from there, usually in relation to TK. I never even knew he was Swedish from a lack of paying attention, but that aside does he even count as an SCer? Really? At this point I'm surprised you didn't list "Swedish Chef" for the padding, or even Fake Sensy. 

Inquirer said:

I've never claimed my list has been proved with evidence, just that it's more reasonable than Legga's.

And I explained how it's not reasonable, relies on information that we don't have access to, and balances entirely on how much people are willing to believe your claims without proof (reputation) or how much others are willing to do the work for you. Your point is Inductive, yet tries to waltz around like it's Deductive, and your execution in spite of your being trapped here is still lazy through tons of self-justification. 

Inquirer said: 

I've already explained this to you. I said on page 5: "If someone consistently says they're Swedish or speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence.".

This means that I will accept evidence that shows someone has at least spoken/written good Swedish once or have claimed to be Swedish more than once (to avoid trolling like User's, because I'm sure you'd refer to them otherwise). 

Kasta inte sten när du sitter i glashus.

So I guess Misscomm and I are both Swedes now? 
(You're better off gauging if they understand Swedish) 

Sweet Jesus, there's so many holes in Legga's argument it hurts the brain lol

MissCommunication said: 

Sweet Jesus, there's so many holes in Legga's argument it hurts the brain lol

Like what?