Sociopath Community

So... Legga exposed as a liar? 

PalePeach said: 

I lost track of this thread a month ago when it was like 8 pages long. Can i get a recap? Luna is here now?

Here's the semi-neutral version:

1. I posted my paper

2. Inquirer asks me to list Swedes on the forum

3. I list them

4. Inquirer takes a stab at me for 2-3 pages, demands evidence, ridicules me for getting nationalities of the forum members wrong and accuses me of not even trying to get to know the forum members.

5. We throw insults at each other childishly for about one page.

6. He takes a stab at me for making claims without evidence and ridicules how badly constructed my evidence was, and how idiotic I am for it.

7. I say that it's a practically untenable position to ask for evidence on people's nationalities, and suggest that people can decide for themselves what to believe in, based on what they know.

8. Inq then mockingly tells me I could've asked him for evidence of the "real" swedes on the forum I missed, gloating over his victory as I am unable to provide evidence for anything I've said.

9. I ask him for his list of Swedes, which he provides

10. I ask him for evidence for the list.

11. He himself then fails to provide evidence.

And then its been about 20 pages of me putting Inq's words in his own mouth, while he continues to insist he's right. TC has tried his best to re-iterate and explain to Inquirer some of the issues with his logic, while Inquirer keeps rejecting all of it. All the while it's been a month and he's failed to provide any evidence, which more or less illustrates the point I was trying to make when I said his position is untenable. Nobody sane should spend this much time working up evidence.

And that's not to even mention all the other claims he's made, like that I am fake SensitiveSoul (which btw is probably him) and Daniel Birdick, and that MissC is Canadian. By his stance, he now should also give stringent evidence for all of these claims, for our evaluation. Perhaps we can move on to these after we address his first standing claim.

So basically I'm just now sitting on my ass, waiting for Inq to come up with his evidence. So far he hasn't gotten anything, despite it having been a month. If that's not proof of a stance being untenable I don't know what is.

Frankly I'm starting to get bored and I don't have time for this BS. Inq has taken a turn to make this about reputation (essentially that he's a special snowflake so he should have special privilidges), and he now clearly doesn't mind being intellectually dishonest. I tried for a bit to actually give him a chance to defend his argument (even though realistically I don't even need to), but every honest chance I've given him resulted in him personally attacking me or strawmaning me.

So now I'm thinking I'll just wait for him to provide evidence and then see if it's stringent enough to prove the person is Swedish. If he doesn't provide anything let's say within a week, I've anyway won based on Hitchen's Razor.

Legga said: 

Here's the semi-neutral version:

It's a copy of your two previous summaries lol. You leave out how I repeatedly correct you on what reasoning/evidence I ask for and just boldly proclaim that I contradict myself based on the resulting strawman you create of my position.

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.

I don't see how it's a valid counter to say "that would invalidate my argument, so therefore I never said it.

But I didn't say it: "If someone consistently says they're Swedish or speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence."

That is equal to: "If someone consistently says they're Swedish or if someone speaks/writes Swedish then I consider that good enough evidence."

My point has been that your evidence is subjective.

Reasoning is subjective but it can be backed up with objective facts.

Let's make this real simple with an example:

Imagine you and I saw a reptile in the jungle. You claim it was a dinosaur while I claim it's a crocodile, and neither of us produce any verifiable evidence. I argue that given our collective knowledge of the world (dinosaurs are "known" to be extinct) my claim is more reasonable than yours.

This is what I've claimed, that my list is more reasonable than yours. Not that I've proven it.

Furthermore, in the case you disagree with my idea of what's reasonable or "known" I listed what kind of verifiable evidence I thought I could find. Evidence that'd prove reasonableness, not outright nationality, because the latter is far too difficult.

• Has the user claimed they were Swedish consistently (more than once)?
• Has the user spoken/written good Swedish at least once?
• Has the user been shown to have good knowledge of Sweden?
• Do other people remember them as Swedish?

If we both present as much evidence like this as we could find, we could then determine which list is more reasonable. We would also, I argue, see that your list is decidedly unreasonable. You're always free to provide even more stringent evidence if you'd like, of course.

You don't want to accept my proposed level of evidence though, nor the idea of reasonableness, so we are stuck. I will continue to think your lack of reasoning/evidence/knowledge makes your entire agenda laughable, while you will keep thinking nothing but objective evidence matters (yet refuse to provide any).

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

No, which is something I clearly stated ages ago. I explained what kind of verifiable evidence I could find and told you that if you demanded anything more stringent then I wouldn't be able to satisfy you.

Inquirer said:

Imagine you and I saw a reptile in the jungle. You claim it was a dinosaur while I claim it's a crocodile, and neither of us produce any verifiable evidence. I argue that given our collective knowledge of the world (dinosaurs are "known" to be extinct) my claim is more reasonable than yours.

If we're to get technical... the differences between the two's more semantic than it appears, as both are classified as Archosauromorpha and root from the same period of time. As you can see with my reply to this analogy, the difference here is that any of us can pull up an article to prove the differences and similarities between crocodiles and dinosaurs. We can all pull from the same pool of data to reach conclusions based on shared knowledge.

Unlike the above however, you are withholding information (that you could find at least partially if you weren't so lazy) that we cannot ourselves use to verify or deny your claims, so we cannot pool from your sources to judge the accuracy of your conclusions. You're just sitting here expected to be believed on faith by the merits of having typed something that seems correct to you, which as a heuristic only makes sense to do as a shortcut if there's reason given to take their answers more seriously, in this case, through your reputation as a Swede yourself; a fallacy when it comes to seeking out actual accuracy. Even your qualifier for evidence was overtime reduced to if they just typed in Swedish once, allowing people like myself to count as one of you. 

As is this is more like if you saw a cow, Legga and I had never seen a cow, and then you began ranting about cows to us as if we're expected to either already know or simply believe you without anything to back it up. If you were to tell us a cow has four stomachs and we did not share the same information, why would that even sound remotely believable in spite of being the truth if you couldn't otherwise prove it to us? If you told us it was six stomachs instead of four we'd have no way of knowing if the six was any more or less correct if we cannot otherwise seek the answers ourselves in one way or another. Things like common sense and reason does not lend to your argument when that sense is not common or the evidence in which you reasoned your conclusions is not accessible, regardless of truth, as "common sense" in this case would go with the simpler answer: Odds are that they must have one stomach like most other creatures. At that point, you might as well be describing Unicorns, Jackolope, or Bigfoot if proof isn't even a factor worth considering. 

Legga basically made this "shared pool of info" point already by the way, and I described how none of this is actually contingent on the accuracy of Legga's list, but rather your own. You attempted to disprove his list with your own, and your own is of equal use to us and could be easily replicated with bullshit answers in it's current form. The two lists are as such of equal validity, as an unproven answer in debate is essentially the same as a wrong answer beyond the room for the other side's speed of dismantling it, so there's no reason to take your beliefs any more seriously than a priest discussing his faith with anecdotes and unverifiable claims. 

You cannot prove your list beyond telling us your beliefs, and the reasons you've given for why you should be believed are irrelevant merits in a proper debate. If I believed your list based on who you are and you turned out to be wrong, that'd make me wrong by proxy as well and it'd be my fault for taking you for your word and little else. 

Basically, if someone doesn't know you and/or have reason to trust you, how is your list to anyone else that different from Leggas? Even Luna's technically made a better argument than you have. 

Turncoat said: 

You're just sitting here expected to be believed on faith by the merits of having typed something that seems correct to you, which as a heuristic only makes sense to do as a shortcut if there's reason given to take their answers more seriously, in this case, through your reputation as a Swede yourself; a fallacy when it comes to seeking out actual accuracy.

My reputation as a Swede is not why my answer should be believed. I've said there's collective/common knowledge on SC that would show my list is more reasonable than Legga's, so asking people what they think would be one way of proving what's reasonable and what isn't.

Even your qualifier for evidence was overtime reduced to if they just typed in Swedish once, allowing people like myself to count as one of you.

The context and quality of the Swedish spoken/written would obviously matter. So no, you wouldn't be counted in unless you put in some effort (thus making it reasonable for Legga to think you are). This can be contrasted to User's 'claim' of being Swedish: if he had claimed that once before and written something that came across as good Swedish then it'd be much more reasonable to believe him.

It's not like I don't get your point Inquirer. I do. I'm saying that it's fallacious to argue that your evidence is better (even if that were the case), as it doesn't prove its validity. If I now provide better evidence than you did, then have I won? Your argument is not logically sound.

I certainly agree that everyone should provide the best evidence that is accessible to them. That sounds reasonable. But if you barge in here and ridicule me for "how badly constructed my evidence is," then you certainly need to provide "good" evidence. And you can't just say "my definition of evidence is good, because I say it is good." You don't even adhere to the standard definition, your evidence is not even verifiable.

Any Jack and John can barge in here, have a higher standard for evidence than you do, and then ridicule you for giving such shitty evidence. The only way you can get around that is by adhering to the universal definition of evidence. Your stance is still untenable.

Look, I'll make this really simple because it's blatantly clear you will not listen no matter what I say. Either you provide evidence for your bold claims, or you admit you're wrong.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

You're just sitting here expected to be believed on faith by the merits of having typed something that seems correct to you, which as a heuristic only makes sense to do as a shortcut if there's reason given to take their answers more seriously, in this case, through your reputation as a Swede yourself; a fallacy when it comes to seeking out actual accuracy.

My reputation as a Swede is not why my answer should be believed. I've said there's collective/common knowledge on SC that would show my list is more reasonable than Legga's, so asking people what they think would be one way of proving what's reasonable and what isn't.

Only Misscomm backed you up directly, and I trust her knowledge on this subject even less than yours. She also provided equal proof to your list (other than ignoring Obsidian) to the point that she might as well have just copy/pasted your list and added a few extra fluff words. 

Even your qualifier for evidence was overtime reduced to if they just typed in Swedish once, allowing people like myself to count as one of you.

The context and quality of the Swedish spoken/written would obviously matter. So no, you wouldn't be counted in unless you put in some effort (thus making it reasonable for Legga to think you are). This can be contrasted to User's 'claim' of being Swedish: if he had claimed that once before and written something that came across as good Swedish then it'd be much more reasonable to believe him.

If by "obviously" you mean "ought to have been implied", it should matter yes (even if it's not what you expressly said when you were milled down), but how is anyone other than you suppose to gauge their use of the language's validity? This would be like me expecting you to see Esperanto typed out and be able to tell if they used Google or not. 

Understanding Swedish could be slightly more easily gauged by seeing if they could hold at least a small conversation instead of just looking up sentences from Swedish novels to prove themselves. 

Inquirer said:

[..] proving what's reasonable and what isn't.

Popular vote? That's a logical fallacy.

If I can present you with verifiable evidence, then will you find the condition reasonable?

Exactly what does it take for you to admit you're wrong?

Legga said: 

But if you barge in here and ridicule me for "how badly constructed my evidence is," then you certainly need to provide "good" evidence. And you can't just say "my definition of evidence is good, because I say it is good." You don't even adhere to the standard definition, your evidence is not even verifiable.

You made the initial claim, aka your list. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I am willing to forego stringent verifiable evidence because I find it unreasonable to ask for that, and instead I propose we use my definition. If you accept then great, here's my list of Swedes. If you don't then my list is meaningless (in the context of verifiable evidence) and I'll discard it. Now we're back to your list lacking evidence.

Inquirer said: 

Legga said: 

But if you barge in here and ridicule me for "how badly constructed my evidence is," then you certainly need to provide "good" evidence. And you can't just say "my definition of evidence is good, because I say it is good." You don't even adhere to the standard definition, your evidence is not even verifiable.

You made the initial claim, aka your list. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I am willing to forego stringent verifiable evidence because I find it unreasonable to ask for that, and instead I propose we use my definition. If you accept then great, here's my list of Swedes. If you don't then my list is meaningless (in the context of verifiable evidence) and I'll discard it. Now we're back to your list lacking evidence.

Sure, and I will prove it as soon as you provide evidence that your stance is reasonable by giving me evidence. But if you fail, probing that your stance leads to logical fallacies and is practically untenable, then surely I don't need to follow it. I've already explained my view is the textbook Bayesian view. It seems more reasonable than your view.