Sociopath Community

Legga said: 

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.

Ah, so now the list of Swedes you posted are also based on Bayesian logic? Lol.

Do you accept the evidence I've said I think I could find as good enough? That includes asking people what they think.

Inquirer said:

Ah, so now the list of Swedes you posted are also based on Bayesian logic? Lol.

Sure.

Do you accept the evidence I've said I think I could find as good enough? That includes asking people what they think.

 I don't see why I should. If anyone can barge in and dictate what kind of evidence I should present, it would seem fair that any John and Jack can barge in and dictate what kind of evidence you should present. I don't know why you think you're so special that you can dictate what is or isn't universally good evidence for everyone.

Legga said: 

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?

 How about this? It seems neutral enough a condition for good evidence.

Why aren't you answering?

Legga said: 

Inquirer said:

Ah, so now the list of Swedes you posted are also based on Bayesian logic? Lol.

Sure.

What use is it in a debate about reasonableness if you can hide behind Bayesian logic no matter how silly your claim is?

Do you accept the evidence I've said I think I could find as good enough? That includes asking people what they think.

 I don't see why I should. If anyone can barge in and dictate what kind of evidence I should present, it would seem fair that others can barge in and dictate what kind of evidence you should present. I don't know why you think you're so special that you can dictate what is or isn't good evidence, universally.

And like I said, you are free to revert back to strong verifiable evidence if you want. But I've never claimed to be able to prove my list then, so we'd be left with only yours.

I still think we can collectively agree on what's reasonable or not though, without finding verifiable evidence for everything. Simplest way would be to ask people who were active when the people I listed were active.

Legga said: 

Legga said: 

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?

 How about this? It seems neutral enough a condition for good evidence.

Why aren't you answering?

 Verifiable evidence of what exactly?

Legga said: 

Legga said: 

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?

 How about this? It seems neutral enough a condition for good evidence.

Why aren't you answering?

Inquirer said: 

Legga said: 

Legga said: 

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?

 How about this? It seems neutral enough a condition for good evidence.

Why aren't you answering?

 Verifiable evidence of what exactly?

 If I can provide you with evidence, which is accessible to you, for a list of people that have talked on vocaroo in Swedish, typed in Swedish beyond Google translate, chatted interactively in Swedish.

Then will you find the conditions (e.g., vocaroo, chatting, etc) acceptable?

Legga said: 

 If I can provide you with evidence, which is accessible to you, for a list of people that have talked on vocaroo in Swedish, typed in Swedish beyond Google translate, all that shit, plus minus a few conditions.

Then will you find the condition acceptable?

Yes, sure, unless you're trying to use some loophole I can't currently think of.

What condition would I find acceptable by the way? That I'm wrong?

Yes, if you could show with more stringent evidence what I am trying with less, then naturally your list would be more reasonable.

Legga said: 

Inquirer said:

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

Popular vote? That's a logical fallacy.

One at that that'd be more rife with room for error than usual, considering the general group here cannot speak enough Swedish for themselves to back anyone up with any consistency, having them gatekept as much as we are. Inquirer meanwhile can at least boast knowing the language and living there, even if that still would give him room to give us deceptive if not mistaken reports over other's legitimacy, as that's at least one small step closer than attempting to appeal towards the bandwagon for said legitimacy. 

Inquirer said:

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.

Except his list isn't contingent and isn't even his list, but a guess list of what yours could have been. You asked him to say your list, he guessed it, and he even milled said list down as you eliminated names from it since the list was meant to be yours, not his. He thinks there's only two to three Swedes here, which given the general internet demographic numbers is not a baseless point to make. 

No one is defending his mock list, just comparing it to yours. From an outside eye, by comparison there is more reason to take his reasoning seriously than yours, and even Luna's argument that opposes your view as well as even her questionable data that only spans the last one and a half years of the place is still more verifiable than what you've shown us and roots from a logical basis (even if it's missing some important points). 

Inquirer said:

What use is it in a debate about reasonableness if you can hide behind Bayesian logic no matter how silly your claim is?

He never left the realm of theories and structure when it came to his own arguments. He was calculating odds, which you shat on but then did nothing of value to disprove otherwise. 

Inquirer said:

And like I said, you are free to revert back to strong verifiable evidence if you want. But I've never claimed to be able to prove my list then, so we'd be left with only yours.

Basic question then: Is your list better than his? 

tfw when I shitposted I held an actual conversation in swedish by typing something random in swedish then answering and reacting in english to what was typed in swedish.

If I wanted to take the meme further, I had a swedish gaming friend ready to do a vocaroo/talk for me.

Why doesn't legga leave aside this whole swedish people list argument, when his argument for there being fake swedes is based on the number of people that are swedish rather than who they are.